Folks who’ve read some of my prior articles know that I don’t always toe the 2A line as much as some of the other contributors to this site. It’s ironic, some might say, given my post a couple of weeks ago lambasting G&A’s Dick Metcalf for doing pretty much the same thing that I’m about to do. Before I launch into my latest apostasy, though, I do want to offer some context. G&A is an industry publication that supports the gun industry and is for sale – i.e. it’s consumers, us, exchange money to peruse it’s content. It is primarily a guns and gear magazine beholden to its advertisers to always say nice things about the stuff they review. Metcalf and the other writers understand this. They make their living catering to the firearm consumer . . .
TTAG, by its very nature is a much different beast. RF founded this blog to “explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns. ” Our mandate is very broad and, as a result, we are going to cover a lot more ground and have the luxury to explore more philosophical positions than a trade magazine like G&A. If you want 2A orthodoxy, there are plenty of message boards out there that will provide just the echo chamber you’re looking for. If you want a reasonable discussion of differing viewpoints, TTAG is the place.
Furthermore, most of the staff here get exactly diddly-squat in terms of compensation. We don’t make our living from doing this. With the exception of a couple of cleaning kits I reviewed this year (which I got to keep) and the M&P Airsoft gun that was provided as a review sample (and had to be returned), I have paid for every single item I have reviewed on this site with my own hard-earned cash. I haven’t gotten one thin dime for my efforts here. But then, I never saw writing for TTAG as an opportunity to get rich. That’s not why I do it.
I can’t speak for my fellow writers, but I have to confess to somewhat narcissistic motivations in my desire to write for TTAG. I really enjoy the fact that lots of people are going to read my material, be it a review, an opinion or just a post because I’m feeling grouchy about something. Beyond that, I feel that I have something to contribute such as an opinion on a gun or piece of kit, or more importantly to offer a different perspective on gun rights.
It is in that vein that I wish to commit today’s heresy. RF has stated on numerous occasions that he believes that the Second Amendment prohibits any kind of gun control laws. No exceptions. It’s a remarkably simple interpretation and one that is held by many pro-gun people. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with a simple interpretation. Simple is good and easy for average people to understand. Complicated involves lawyers and politicians and no one (other than the aforementioned lawyers and politicians) want that.
Unfortunately, as a country, we don’t all see things the same way. There are people, including sitting members of the Supreme Court of the U.S., who don’t see the Second Amendment the same way. They also take a fairly simple interpretation, but theirs is different. The trick here is that how they, I, (or Robert, or you) choose to view the 2A isn’t what counts under our legal system.
Since we are all going to hold different opinions about different things, there needs to be a “fair” way to sort these things out. We may not all agree with every outcome, but we need to have a consistent process. Our Constitution was elegantly constructed, but unfortunately, the framers didn’t clearly articulate how to referee these sorts of disagreements (maybe all those truths they held to be self-evident aren’t so self-evident after all). One might be tempted to argue that it should be up to the legislature (that ostensibly represents the people) but we know that Congress hasn’t truly represented anything but themselves and the lobbyists for some time now.
So, who to referee these debates? Imperfect as it is, the Supreme Court effectively assumed that role in 1803’s Marbury v Madison during the tenure of a particularly activist chief Justice, John Marshall. While it could be argued that this assumed power is not real, the fact is that in law, if something remains uncontested long enough, it eventually becomes a de facto standard and difficult to change. What should have happened in 1804 was a movement by the legislature to rein in the SCOTUS, but that didn’t happen. So after 200+ years, the concept of the SCOTUS ruling on Constitutional disagreements has become widely accepted.
And this brings us to my fundamental point. As I said earlier, RF’s opinion on the specific meaning of 2A is no more and no less valid than Michael Bloomberg’s opinion. What matters is the SCOTUS’s opinion. Barring a new case and a different crop of judges, SCOTUS’s current guidance (from D.C. v. Heller) is that the 2A is not unlimited and is subject to regulation. How much regulation and what form that takes is open to interpretation, but some degree of regulation is allowable. It’s left to pro-gun and anti-gun people to debate where on the regulation continuum things will fall. That continuum is constantly in flux and varies from state to state.
The United States Declaration of Independence declares life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights that cannot be denied. While this is an absolute for those who choose to live away from society (in a state of nature so to speak, hence natural rights), those of us who choose to live within a society’s strictures find that these rights can indeed be abridged. This is part of Social Contract Theory. We agree to give up certain rights in exchange for the benefits living in Society affords us. Society has the authority to take your liberty or even your life if you act against the common good. Since the right to keep and bear arms stems from the fundamental right to life (the right to protect one’s life), it seems hard to dispute the fact that if the society has the right to abridge life and liberty, then it certainly can abridge the right to keep and bear arms.
Gun rights can and will be regulated. What remains is for us to set the terms of what that regulation should be. I personally think that a lot of the regulations currently on the books is very bad law. Those who attack “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines are utterly full of crap. I think that the National Firearms Act of 1934 is useful only as a bird cage liner and that had the Miller case been properly litigated, the whole damn thing would have been thrown out.
The Government caught a huge break and they knew it. SCOTUS disgraced themselves by ruling on a case where the defendant never presented an argument. Can you imagine the uproar if something like that happened today involving a civil rights-related case and the wronged minority party could not afford to come to Washington to defend themselves? I also believe that the right to life includes the right to protect life as I see fit which means that if I wish to carry a gun for protection, I should be able to do it just about anywhere I want to go.
Most importantly, I’m with RF in that “pre-crime” laws have no place. Passing a law to prohibit law abiding citizens from being able to posses an AR-15 in order to prevent the incredibly small number of crimes committed with rifles each year makes as much sense as closing all bars and barring alcohol service in restaurants to cut down on the number of drunk driving accidents (which incidentally kill a lot more people – including children – every year than rifles do).
But I don’t think that just anyone should be able to walk around with anything they want whenever they want wherever they want. I’ve taken a fair number of firearm classes and I can’t tell you the number of dumb-ass things people do with guns. The good thing is that after the class is finished, these people are a lot less likely to do something stupid. But let’s face it, lack of training and/or respect for firearms leads to stupid and dangerous incidents committed by both LEOs and ordinary citizens alike.
Training is the best way to improve firearm proficiency and safety across the board for all users. In a perfect world, citizens would have easy access to quality, affordable training. If such a thing were possible, then that could be set as a prerequisite firearms ownership. Want a gun? Fine, let’s show you how to use it safely first.
Administered correctly, the training would not be a real barrier to ownership. Classes would be offered frequently and if someone had a critical emergency need for a gun (just granted a restraining order for example), the training requirement could be waived for 30 days or so. Training would also cover properly storing weapons so that they would be less likely to find their way into the hands of unauthorized users. The cost of secure gun safes would be largely underwritten by the government so that their price would not be a hurdle for people who wish to own a firearm and to store it securely. I really believe that if such a thing were possible, gun-related deaths would decline by a measurable amount.
I’d also like to see the mental health question get addressed. There are people walking around who simply should not be allowed to own a gun. They are not so “dangerous” that they need to be incarcerated full-time, but instead may have short-term impulse control problems. Having access to a firearm would permit a great deal of mischief during one of these impulse control incidents. Without a gun, they could still do harm, but it would be attenuated.
Please don’t try to tell me that there is no difference between a rifle with a 30-round magazine and a knife. If you really think there is no difference, then I invite you to join me for a force on-force simulation. You take the knife and I’ll take the AR-15 with 30 round mag. We’ll see who can do more damage.
As with the training question, the trick here would be to separate the truly dangerous from the rest. Merely taking depression meds should not be a disqualifier. Furthermore, even if at one point in your life you were barred from gun ownership due to mental state, there has to be an avenue to restore those rights should your mental state improve later in life (which absolutely does happen). Most importantly, we don’t want to discourage people with real mental health issues from seeking the care they need.
The problem is that for a regime such as this to work, society needs to see personal gun ownership in a favorable light and to construct the licensing and training protocols to encourage and support gun owners. In the real world, of course, it doesn’t work that way. Much of our government fears gun owners and opposes gun ownership and many of our citizens are either too stupid, brainwashed or both to understand that guns can be owned and used safely. The simple fact is that there are irrational elements in our society who see guns in a negative light and will use any tool we give them to prevent everyone from exercising their rights, hence conceding to any kind of restrictions on gun ownership is difficult if not impossible.
And so, we are left with two camps. There are those who absolutely hate guns, don’t believe in a gun’s fundamental usefulness in protecting life and want them all gone with no compromises. And there are those who are 2A absolutists who firmly believe that the Second Amendment clearly outlaws any and all restrictions and who seek confrontation with LEOs and other citizens as often as possible.
Oh yeah, there are also a whole bunch of us in the middle who feel that both groups are wrong. The amusing thing is that from where us “middle grounders” sit, both groups come across like raving, unreasonable lunatics. Kinda the same way we look at the assclowns in Congress who have become so polarized that nothing much really happens and when it does, it generally benefits one group and totally sucks for others. Gun laws are kind of like that right now.
But things can change.
Here’s the truly crazy thing – when anti-gunners win a battle, it usually results in no reduction in crime, vast inconvenience to law abiding gun owners and higher state costs to manage the new regulation. If, for example, you think that the new AR registration rules in New York state don’t result in some serious administrative overhead fees, you’re kidding yourself. New York taxpayers are footing the bill for that piece of excrement which will not make the state one iota safer.
On the other hand, when pro-gunners win a battle, there is usually no increase in crime, tax receipts go up because residents are purchasing items in the local economy and many of the citizens are happier. What needs to happen is for the pro-gun people to get this message out to the middle ground folks and show them that the pro-gun crowd really are the sane ones. If you claim that the Second Amendment prevents any regulation, you get written off as a crazy. If you concede that regulation can and will happen, but that the 2A was created specifically to limit the scope and extent of the that regulation, then you have a chance to win the hearts and minds of the vast middle ground and to show the anti-gunners as the true nut jobs they are.
I support the Second Amendment. Period. No buts. What I don’t support is some people’s interpretation of it (on either side).
Okay, now have at me. I’ve got my asbestos suit on.
One more thing – just a reminder that my opinion is my own and does not represent any of the other TTAG writers (or editors) beliefs on the subject. RF does the whole community a service by allowing dissenting opinions and this is merely one example of it.
Reckless endangerment was the right charge, and I bet the jury would have come back with a guilty verdict had it been charged alone. I am so tired of this prosecutorial overcharging… it’s costing convictions.
If a police officer can be fired for facebook posts- and they can- they should be fired for being so negligent as to allow a child to kill himself with that officer’s gun, even if found not guilty of a crime.
The whole situation is a clusterf%^k from beginning to end.
See, my landlord doesn’t want tenants to smoke indoors, but it’s his property and he has the right to do that and I respect his wishes. I’d have a huge problem with the arrangement if he was okay with smoking and Nana Government forced him to ban it.
One thing for certain is that individuals who have zero experience with firearms have no place trying to regulate them. For progress to be made there must be more people willing to take the middle ground. With that said, I’d personally like to see the NFA repealed, every state (and D.C) to be shall issue, stand your ground to apply everywhere, and teachers allowed to conceal carry.
ultra-expensive Marin County
Pffft. Bunch of povs.
Marin County, CA is 17th on the median household income list for 2012. Mostly-rural Douglas County, CO is 9th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_income_counties_in_the_United_States#2012
I sure hope they make the pistol version!
I’m by and large a positive person. I don’t like to be rude to or overly critical of people. This goes for my posts here and a few other firearms related comment sections and forums. If I don’t agree with the author I’ll just say nothing rather than rip on someone’s work. With all that out of the way, I can say with 100% certainty that this piece is the worse article to ever grace the pages of TTAG. This piece stinks of elitism and it stinks bad! The author rails against things such as the NFA that make it difficult to own fully automatic weapons etc. but then throws those with supposedly any mental health condition under the bus. I suppose this includes war vets with PTSD. Then there is his snobbish idea of mandatory training to exercise a right. Hey dude, some of us poor dumb country folk have been around guns our entire lives and don’t have the money nor the need for your training. I expect a lot more out of TTAG than this garbage!
The primary reason that reasonable regulation is bad is the definition of reasonable. Who gets to decide?
The statists wish to compromise and meet in the middle. But our current situation is a compromise between the previous one and outright confiscation. The previous one was a compromise. Etc. If we continue to compromise, we’ll asymptotically approach zero–effectively 1/(x^2) for us math geeks.
Your mandatory licensing scheme could easily turn into registration, restriction, and confiscation. History has shown this to be the case.
I find it interesting that in the middle of your argument for some gun-control you admit that the introduction of gun-control has never reduced crime, but has always increased government costs, while the removal of gun-control has always reduced costs and never increased crime. A logical person would look at that and continue to eliminate gun-control until either there was none, or that statement no longer held true.
As for who gets to decide: Right now, yes, its the ‘government’ and our “”representatives””.
To be honest I wish all laws that restricted people or removed rights had a referendum clause. See the AWB “sunset” and how that panned out due to it having no measurable effect.
If it restricts a person’s rights or capabilities, it has to be revisited in n years. A law that expands rights, however, wouldn’t need that.
I’m not only talking 2A. (See example: the law that restricts police scanners from operating in certain frequencies that were once analog cel phone frequencies. This law is still in place, even though those bands are no longer in use for cellular communications. So now we have orgs using those bands just to keep people from legally listening in, sometimes on communications that sure should be publically accessible. But will the ‘ban’ be struck down? I don’t see it. This, is much like the NFA and silencers.)
But something like a required referendum could -just maybe- interrupt the process of continually tightening restrictions and the ‘boiling lobster’ syndrome the people seem to suffer from by acclimating slowly to the ‘status quo’, as their rights are slowly taken away year after year.
Mr Jim Barret:
FOAD.
You clearly do not understand “…shall not be infringed.”
GFO of my country, traitor.
Amen. Why Rob keeps him on the staff is beyond me.
Because, like me and many others, he writes for free?
Anyway, the “no echo chamber” concept is valid. We need to be exposed to erroneous thinking as much as anything else published here. You cannot counter an incorrect conclusion until you know what that conclusion is and how it was reached. Even persons trained in logic do not always effectively use it to arrive at logical conclusions, and sometimes they arrive at incorrect conclusions based on bad data or misunderstood “I don’t think that word means what you think it means” situations.
I do not wish for him to FOAD, but I do hope he reads and considers carefully the opposing comments below the article. I do not think he was mistaken in assuming this would not be a popular stance on this forum.
I do have one VERY serious issue with Jim, however: When I post an article here (thanks RF) I diligently return to that article and enter the discussion with other commenters to defend my position or acknowledge valid criticisms. I have learned a lot from this and actually modified (slightly) some of my conclusions because of it.
But Jim did a drive-by. He knew, and stated that he knew, that he was going to take return fire for this post and so he drove by, fired off a mag full auto, then sped away. I have not seen a single comment posted here by Jim defending or explaining his conclusions or opinions. That is a shame.
I think it is good to have him on the staff.
We need more discussions like this. Middlemen with these ideas need to be discussed and we need to prove to them why our position is the best. Having this discussion makes it a one stop place for other middlemen on the net to examine our discussion and judge for themselves based on our dialogue.
I gotta be honest. I accept people’s right to smoke around my apartment building, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. I fucking hate it. See, here’s the deal:
I don’t have the problem of smoke coming through my walls, but I do live on an upper floor, and I used to sit on my porch all the time. Then, about five months after I moved in, someone moved in below me. They smoke. They sit on their porch and chainsmoke, and because of the prevailing wind off the lake in front of me, it rises from their porch and blows directly into mine. There goes my ability to sit on my porch. Gone. My ability to enjoy my upper floor apartment, with the windows and sliding glass door open and the breeze coming through 90% of the time, is gone.
Furthermore, If it’s a really windy day, because my sliding glass door is on the windward side and my bedroom & bathroom windows are on the leeward side, the low pressure on the backside will pull air in around the sliding glass door. It’s fairly well sealed, as are the windows, and for HVAC purposes there isn’t an appreciable air leak. But it only takes a little cigarette smoke to get sucked in around those seals for me to smell it in my house. I’ve been lucky that “windy day” has only coincided with “outside smoking” once that I know of, but it was pretty obnoxious in my living room.
So yeah, with all possible candor, to hell with the people around me who smoke.
Aside from the whole “I support the Second Amendment but…”, this was a very well thought out piece. It’s also good to know that you recognize the reality of the situation: while the Second Amendment severely limits the circumstances in which the right to keep and bear arms can be curtailed, right or wrong, the currently political climate will lead to regulations that are well outside the scope of those circumstances.
The circumstances in question were quite clearly outlined in the “debunking the yelling fire in a theater” article published here recently, which pointed out that there is only a precious handful of extreme situations where free speech could potentially cause harm to others. It’s not the act itself, but the intended result of the act that matters.
But, what you fail to realize is that the anti’s will never change their minds. The onsies and twosies that come to their senses are the outliers and the extreme exceptions to this rule. They’ll never bite this kind of bait, and the few that do will quickly spit it back in your face and shout you down while all sorts of petty names and expletives before walking off in a huff (mostly because you definitely seem like you could prove them wrong for the most part). Not while there is money to be made off the suffering of others, at least, which has sadly always been a very lucrative business.
eh. Not so sure about that. After my conversion from anti to pro, many of my friends are now gun owners because I showed, talked, related. Not onesies and twosies, probably 20 in my case. And maybe several from each of those down the line.
Really, once you’re a gun owner you start thinking about these things instead of parroting what you’ve heard. And IMO, it all bootstraps from there.
It depends on what type of person we’re talking about. Will SW come around? Hell no. Will Bloomberg? Well, he already has – just you know, for him. Not for you. There’s the people (like I just mentioned) with a grand agenda, and then there are the folks who have just been told ‘it’s this way’ all of their lives and haven’t really had their opinions challenged.
These people can be changed, are often changed, and an effort should be made to engage them. “Wake up your inner gun owner”, or… something not quite as fruity as that. But that’s the idea.
Somebody should file a lawsuit on equal protection grounds, among others. How the heck they plan on enforcing it?
It is a beautiful weapon.
I am the one who originally posted this letter on NY Gun Owners and NYS Pistol & Rifle Association FaceBook pages and it went viral from there. This letter was received by a friend of mine who lives within the 5 boroughs and possesses sport target shooting and Olympic biathlon .22 caliber rifles. Yes the letter from the NYPD sounds threatening and demanding but what the author failed to state here is that if the magazines are brought within compliance of NYC code of no more than 5 rounds, the rifles don’t need to be surrendered or removed from within city limits. Listen, I am no fan of the SAFE ACT or any act that violates the 2nd Amendment, but if you’re going to publish an article, please get your facts straight and stop spreading hysteria. My friend called the NYPD firearms licensing division and as long as he gets the magazines modified and within compliance, he can keep his long guns.
full of win, I hope it just keeps getting better and tighter with your family.
Was there a monkey shot also?
You wish…!
Yuk!
Interesting article, but I have one major gripe that I will pull from it and that is mandatory training. If we require mandatory training for being able to defend yourself then it will eventually be used to infringe on the rights of the people.
If we are going to require mandatory training then why not mandatory civics classes on the United States government with a test and licensing fee to vote?(Oh yeah, poll taxes are illegal) Voting, in my opinion, is much more dangerous than firearms ownership. Voting put Hitler into power and we all know how that turned out. Voting got us the patriot act. Voting sent us to war how many times and how many people on both sides died? Voting has effects that last generations. My gun may last generations but it’s affect on society as a whole is infinitesimally small. Voting put people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Dianne Frankenstein into office…
I’m pretty sure we cannot Constitutionally put such a requirement on the right to vote, much as I would like to see better civic education.
What we could do is place a requirement on the qualification to RUN for political office that the candidate study for, take and PASS a test on The Constitution of the United Sates of America and The Declaration of Independence, preferably not taught by Barack Obama. That way we could at least hold them to their oath to support and defend since they could not argue that they did not know.
I seem to recall a certain crazy pop star who donned a machine gun bra, and I don’t recall her apologizing. Ball is in your court, Brittany…
You cant be serious? If so, please turn in your guns, and report to re-education camp as soon as possible. We’ll give them right back as soon as you are done showering.
“As with the training question, the trick here would be to separate the truly dangerous from the rest.” Sounds a lot like what the Nazi’s said as they herded the Jews into cattle cars”
Nice piece of trash you wrote.
I appreciate the part about the court and natural law vs. society, though the people who decide that their ‘natural right’ exists outside of society still insist on living within it and subjecting everyone to their strident tautologies nonetheless. Their opinions are worth about as much as mine… 1/131 millionth… but at least I can admit it and don’t call my interpretation out as divinely inspired.
As to the Supreme Court… imperfect, sure, but it makes sense within the checks and balances inherent to the constitution. I’m not sure what a better alternative would be, given the fact that we live in a nation of laws and it is impractical (impossible, really) to just let anyone decide what they consider ‘constitutional’ or not.
I’m willing to consider regulation (background checks, for example) when it is part of an actual compromise. Not the kind of compromise where we just lose half our rights, but one where we gain some. If someone puts national carry reciprocity on the table, I’d listen to what they have to say.
Piffle.
Ditto – Piffle.
An agency with the mandate to compile, maintain and administer a “background check” is just an agency with the implied power to infringe on the RKBA. The whole point of the 2A is to demand that the government does not have ANY authority to create such an exclusionary list, for any reason.
The idea that there can be no laws trying to stop purchases of guns by those who are violent/been convicted/have past convictions and have shown a pattern, is madness to me. The mental leaps of logic I keep seeing to justify the idea that we should have no laws on the subject are baffling. Yes, a criminal can buy the gun illegally, but that doesn’t mean you just allow him to walk into any gun store and easily buy anything he wants.
So, yeah. I just can’t handle the idea that no laws should exist on the subject. By that logic, no laws should exist for anything because why bother? Murderers will murder, why bother making it illegal?
Tons of gun control measures are garbage, things like restricting magazine size have no evidence to say they work amongst many other stupid laws. Stopping people who WILL abuse the guns is not part of that.
“Yes, a criminal can buy the gun illegally, but that doesn’t mean you just allow him to walk into any gun store and easily buy anything he wants.”
If you believe that an ex-con is so dangerous, WHY IS HE ON THE DAMN STREET? Anyone with a brain knows that there are hundreds of ways to kill a person – so you’re banning them from using one method (well, I should say banning them from legally obtaining the item for one method), but you don’t care about the countless other weapons they could use to murder someone? Either a person who was sent to jail is deemed safe enough to release into society and has all of their rights, or they’re too dangerous and stay locked up. It’s not complicated.
She is under a conservatorship for a good reason….
There are two HUGE fundamental errors in your argument/mindset Mr. Barrett.
(1) The other side wants complete civilian disarmament. They don’t want anything “reasonable”. There is no middle ground. Granted you already touched on that in your article but it bears repeating. Thus we cannot “bargain in good faith” with the gun grabbers.
(2) The primary and most critical use case for firearms is defense of life against criminals, crazies, and governments (foreign and domestic). The stakes are enormous. And the opportunities for abuse of “regulatory power” are already evident. (Try and get a concealed carry license in San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York City.) We can never empower nor trust governments with the power to regulate firearms. It may work out well for a while but it eventually ends badly for citizens.
For these two reasons, I do not support “regulation”. I understand what you are saying. And I understand that what you are saying would work in an ideal world. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where there are a LOT of nasty, evil people who want nothing more than to use, abuse, exploit, manipulate, and consume you and your family. Sadly, those people naturally gravitate to positions of control and power in business, politics, and law enforcement — because those positions present them with the greatest opportunities to use, abuse, exploit, manipulate, and consume you and your family. You are ill advised to empower those types with regulating your “right” to keep and bear arms.
Was the gun in the video a glock? if so i am siding with huffpo for onece!
50 years from now we’re still going to be reminded that we can’t have VT associated witha firearms for any reason without being yelled at.
No felons or mentally insane allowed to have guns. You commit a crime…you lose the RTBA. As for NFA items…some yes with no paper work and some regulated.
REALLY? Would you happily surrender your RKBA is your were pinched for jaywalking or speeding?
[Memorable face palm]
You miserable collaborator. Find another country where you can happily be unfree. Leave this country to Americans.
To state that a part of the penalty for “committing a crime” is to “lose your RTBA”[sic] is to hold the opinion that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is dependent on the permission of the government and that they are able and justified to repeal, remove or deny that permission based on any arbitrary legal criteria they care to establish. Since we here mostly agree with the Founding Fathers that the RKBA is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected natural right that CANNOT be repealed or lost and is NOT granted to us by the government, but protected for us FROM the government, the entire concept of “losing” your RKBA based on a government standard is a false premise.
Wasn’t that the massacre that was carried out using 10 round magazines?
yep, and one .22lr
IMHO, a VERY good series of tests!
However I’m betting if the same series of tests were repeated with the same ammunition brands the the results would be different. Major? Minor? I don’t know…neither do you.
I’m a .45 fan because in these standardized tests, flawed as they may be, the 9MM is also going to have it’s share of favorites fail in one way or another. In fact it is the failure of the 9MM that has lead us to the plethora of caliber selections we now have. Sorry 9MM fan boys…it’s the truth!
I have a variety of .45s I could carry, BUT…no not this one…but…no…well sometimes, SOMETIMES even a small pistol is too big……so I bought a BG380. I’ve been shooting for 45 years mind you. Worked ‘in the business’ and have shot HUNDREDS of different pistols but NEVER though I would own a .380 any thing!
I do now….because it is accurate, AND concealable! It has a niche…..and an important one….sometimes….I need a small ultra concealable pistol….no 9MM or larger caliber can fill.
Again…good compilation of very specific criteria and the .380’s ability to meet or not that criteria…. though the real world will not necessarily abide by these results, this is good info!
The 9mm has “failed” when it was either loaded with FMJs, poorly designed hollowpoints, or unrealistic expectations. Newer 9mm JHPs are much better than some previous designs which were easily clogged by heavy clothing. Now, the heavy clothing test is standard protocol. I eagerly anticipate Shooting the Bull’s 9mm subcompact tests, and may even purchase an LC9 if it or a similar pistol performs well.
I’m a .40 user, but respect the capabilities of anything that works.
^^^ MANIFESTO!
Glad I’m not the only one who has figured this out.
😉
FO.
Ditch the Social Contract babble and read and truly learn what liberty and natural rights are and the origin of law in society.
Bastiat, The Law is a good start.
http://mises.org/document/2731
Just ordered several boxes of the Precision One for my new Sig 232 which has been in need of a good SD round. While regular carry is a P229 in 40 (Gold Dots), there is a time and a place for a “mouse gun” and it is nice to know which rounds might “get it done” if the worst comes to worst. Thank you to Dan and the others responsible for bringing this to the TTAG pages.
This video should be attached by default to every DGU related post in TTAG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
What do you expect,Stupid California!
Outstanding video, would love to see more of that.
Since I got my FO out of the way, let me contribute an unconventional solution for you Jim.
We have a problem of scale in this country. It is too f—ing big and powerful. These conversations cannot be answered ‘fairly’ or happily on a scale that size.
Pretend you lived in a sovereign independent state with a population of say 280,000 (avg in US in 1800) and my state operated a republican form of government. Let’s say the state legislature had 150 – 200 folks in it, 1 for every 1500 citizens or so. And let’s say your sovereign state signed a contract with a few others that included e a standard currency, common defense, free trade, and few other things.
And now let’s imagine this is the construct inhabits all the land mass we now call the USA. Some are higher population, low land mass city states similar to Singapore and others are much larger land wise but on the low population side (read North Colorado or East Montana).
In a world like this, wouldn’t these ‘issues’ be easier to ‘solve’ in your state? You could always leave to one of the others that undoubtedly will have amazing diverse laws and societal norms. I am a 100% 2A absolutist, but heck, you might get me to tolerate your attempted oversteps like elementary training and ‘mental health’ problems much more easily when I can take a 15 minute drive down to my reps house and give a talkin’ too if he gets out of line.
With the enormous scale of this country comes complete un-accountability and corruption. The private reward for bad behavior is just too great for 566 people handling the money and liberty of hundreds of millions of souls. Politicians act in their own self interest, it is only by ensuring that they answer as directly as possible to their constituents and that as many people in society ‘have a say’ as possible.
Each of these sovereign states will obviously have to abide and respect the sovereignty and natural rights of the citizens of the other.
I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a large number of people that wouldn’t call at least some action of their government oppressive, intrusive, despotic, or usurping.
It is time to throw off the shackles of this government. Discard it’s shackles, and provide anew for our future security and liberty.
Life, Liberty, Property. Mine.
Suggested Readings:
Mesquita and Smith; The Dictator’s Handbook
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Politics/dp/1610391845
Bastiat; The Law
http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf
Higgs; The Song That Is Irresistible – How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction
https://mises.org/daily/2749/The-Song-That-Is-Irresistible-How-the-State-Leads-People-to-Their-Own-Destruction
http://youtu.be/b7SA_5WeGZ0?t=9m17s
It is time to throw off the shackles of this government. Discard it’s shackles, and provide anew for our future security and liberty.
Amen! We’re in a desperate race to restore our Liberty in this lifetime. I fail to see how individual liberty can endure even one more generation. The image of an individual right has been perverted to an almost unrecognizable shadow of its former glory even now.
I though she died a drug overdose years ago.
Hey Jim. I too try to live somewhere in the middle. I’m going to laugh at your for a while for “lambasting” a guy whose footsteps you followed in, haha.
Anywho here’s me trying to be thoughtful and disagree with you civilly. 🙂
“those of us who choose to live within a society’s strictures find that these rights can indeed be abridged” I would argue that these rights aren’t really abridged UNTIL they come in conflict. If you try to kill me I can kill you. Our rights have come into conflict and since you are in the wrong I’m okay to off you. That’s the spirit I’d agree to abridging rights. If it’s just “you have to give up your right to privacy because it saves lives” you can have your social contract back. I’m out.
Ya follow me? (I am probably not as articulate as you, haha)
Who will be next?….. Whoever they replace her lying liberal butt with! Keep working on repealing these Illegal laws.2nd Amendment Foundation,NRA,GOA,Colorado Gun Owners Association.Employ them.Get on National Television and embarrass their butts as to 2nd Amendment Infringments.Get Chickenpooper Impeached. Lead the way,the rest of the Country is watching and praying these complete Ignoramuses get Steamrolled!
It’s creepy how perfectly the growth fell back to the well established trend. Keep it up.
Shit, that’s how many rounds I fires in ONE caliber at a trip to the range.
I’m going to echo Nathanael here and thank you for publishing another view than just the absolutism. I am saddened to see that there doesn’t seem to be much actual discussion of the post but instead just insults and demands of disarmament because the author is “not worthy” since he believes differently.
That said, I do question the mandatory safety training. While you could do something like Canada, where you can challenge the course requirement and just do the tests, I don’t see how it could be implemented without requiring FOID cards. To do otherwise would allow someone to just make up a certificate on their computer and hit print.
Umm…are you reading the same posts I am? While there are some that are sophomoric and rude, there is quite a lot of discussion.
^ Quite possibly not. I tend to open a bunch of articles at one time and spend a couple of hours reading. I don’t think the comments update live, so that probably doesn’t help matters either. Either way though, it’d still be nice if people could refrain from the personal attacks even if they are commenting on the original post itself.
The comments do not update live, but only when the page is refreshed.
Curiosity has me here…
Which State is home and which were you raised in Jim?
TX now, MI raised for me, to be fair.
WOW, That is a fantastic looking Colt! I wish I could see that in person. Simply stunning!
Your trying to sit on the fence. All you get from setting on the fence is splinters in the butt
So, Dems CAN be embarrassed by one of their own. But only if , as is this case, the Rep insults a rape victim, thereby putting her foot in her mouth up to her knee.
Gret video. The true faces behind those who conceal carry. Not the one the media would have people to believe.
I must agree with the critics. It is utterly inappropriate for a pop star, who has tremendous sway over the attitudes of young children, to be glorifying firearms. She might as well have been wearing a “Sandy Hook Elementary” shirt.
That video was not half bad. I’d live to see that campaign spread nationwide with more polished cinematography.
I had to get up and go wash my already-just-washed hands.
The Glock tray full of eggy goodness at the very beginning makes me want to wash my hands but I can fight that one. Twinkie Glock? Just thinking about touching that thing gives me the shivers.
I am sure most of you can actually quote the Miranda rights off the top of your head. Think about what it says very carefully…Anything you say can, and will be used against you in a court of law. It does NOT say anything you might be used to prove your innocence. The ONLY purpose of police questioning is to gather incriminating evidence. NEVER EVER EVER EVER talk to the police in a bad situation.
All those great features on the MK25 are found on other models except the chrome lined barrel and phosphate coated decocking lever. I got a P226 Tactical Operations for $905 that had the SRT and a TFO front sight for easier pickup in IDPA matches. The SRT is not easy to install for the average end user. If I bought the MK25 I would have to put $150 into it to get it how I want it. The 3D bar code is a cheap sticker that falls right off. The M11-A1 is a better fake military Sig model.
but it’s open carry, so F them, they’re just looking for attention and ruining the movement…. or some such nonsense…
I liked the story of the old vet, but this? Gag me with a spoon. Really. Utter tripe.
For better or for worse, call government what it is, a monopoly on the use of force and violence in a geographical area. Please do not give me that social contract society crap.
1. I never signed it
2. It’s not written anywhere (can’t read all the laws, it takes 4 lifetimes)
3. It means whatever 5 people in black moo-moo’s say it means (Supreme Court)
4. The black moo-moo’s said themselves that there is no obligation for the government to protect anyone.
Nice try, you may have had some interesting points until I almost vomited when I read that social contract B.S.
THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN THE POSSESSIVE ITS!!!!!!!!
Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief,
Internet Apostrophe Police
Ok. I’m not sure a lot of you actually read his article.
For all of you NOT ONE INCH absolutists out there….If you DON’T think that a mentally ill child should be able to buy an Uzi from a vending machine…YOU’RE FOR RESTRICTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!! Sorry to break the news to you.
The man just he’s all for killing the NFA and rolling back lots of the pointless gun control that we all hate.
And don’t put words in his mouth and set up straw man arguments. He said in an ideal world cheap training would be readily available and so forth. That’s a far cry from saying he advocates mandatory training for everyone today. Even if he did say that, so what? It’s his opinion.
It serves no purpose to throw a hissy fit and call the man an anti-gunner libtard or whatever you can think of.
Grow up TTAG readers. Try to live in reality. And stop saying FOAD. You’re embarrassing yourself…
I think the government scotus, potus, congress should embrace the constitution. If they want to see measureable reductions in crime, they should encourage gun ownership and the benefits of it. Along with that, they should encourage, not mandate training in the safe use handling and storage of firearms. All the paperwork needs to go away. Unfortunately background checks wont but it could be simplified. It could be a yes or no on eligibility with a confirmation #. No info on gun being purchased or if one was even purchased. Just log on and check and its done.
If the people are encouraged by our government I feel people would get more training and more ranges would be built for more people to enjoy the god given rights that are reinforced by yhe 2nd amendment. More people would be safer and more knowledgeable and crime and accidents would go down more than they are. My 2c
Lets see…
I have:
503 in .40
110 in 10mm
288 in .308
144 in 44 mag
20 in .30-06
~800 in .22 mag
100 in .22
hmm… I really need to start buying more ammo. That’s hardly enough for a good day at the range!
Two additional suggestions if you are in this type of situation. If you are arrested do not ever allow yourself to be booked. Allowing yourself to be booked into a jail is essentially admitting guilt. If while you are sitting in a holding cell you are refused access to legal counsel, you have grounds for a lawsuit.The right to legal counsel is a constitutional right affirmed by case law. If they seize your gun and refuse to return it, sue the individual officers involved. They will have to hire attorneys at their own expense.When individual officers have to cut a check for a 3 to 5 thousand dollar retainer, most likely the gun will be returned. If they use the police legal advisor to defend them, you should be able to nail the officers for ethics violations, using government resources for personal use. In many states that is considered a crime.
“Infringing is the wrongful limitation or restriction of a right. I see preventing people from owning magazines of any capacity as an infringement. Is training really an infringement?”
YES, it’s an infringement. Who the HELL is the State to require me to undergo their definition of “training” in order to exercise what is my RIGHT? One could make an argument that if we could implement the controls and require people to undergo training and licensing to have children, that it would result in better parents. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a huge infringement on people’s rights.
And I do not buy into any of that social contract theory. The State does NOT have the right to infringe on anybody’s rights in the name of “the common good.” The only time rights can be infringed upon are when someone is violating someone else’s rights. Otherwise, the “common good” is meaningless. We are a society in which the rights of the INDIVIDUAL take precedent, NOT “the common good.”
And what do you mean about natural rights only apply in a state of nature, but can be infringed upon in a society? THE WHOLE POINT OF CREATING A GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE IS TO PROTECT NATURAL RIGHTS. That is the CORE purpose of government. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, “We create governments because moral virtue is inadequate by itself to govern a society.”
The idea that living in a society means you give up your natural rights to some degree for the “common good” is a recipe for tyranny.
While you are calling 911, your spouse should be calling a lawyer.
Some Moms demand action.
Some Moms take action.
I once worked for a company located in Marin County. The political-correctness of the place was suffocating. Marin-San Francisco- Berkeley are the result of decades upon decades of the after-effects of the Nineteenth Amendment.
Thus the best reason to be armed.
When did Carrot Top get into politics?
Fortunately, she is wrong in her strategic thinking. Most ‘lawmakers’ (especially in Congress) have learned from the past (and current) mistakes of other elected politicians not to thread too far in passing anti-gun laws if they want to continue their political career. They watch polls. Otherwise, there are far too many lawmakers aka politicians who have a wanna-be God complex.
Convince the lawmakers?
Considering the fallout which which some CO lawmakers are experiencing…that might take some doing to convince lawmakers in other states to risk their careers.
I am THANKFUL we live in a nation where the lawmakers SHOULD represent the will of the people. See also Colorado recall stories…
Don’t over analyze. Like all gun grabbers, this “woman” lives in a fantasy world disconnected from reality. As many an ex-representative has found out that convincing legislatures to vote for gun control when their constituents oppose it is career suicide. She doesn’t seem to understand that elected representative generally avoid overly disturbing the voters.
So, who to referee these debates? Imperfect as it is, the Supreme Court effectively assumed that role in 1803′s Marbury v Madison during the tenure of a particularly activist chief Justice, John Marshall.
The fact that you are okay with the federal government exercising power not delegated to it, in violation of the Constitution, tells me that you don’t understand what the Constitution is all about. The power is not enumerated so the Court cannot do that! If one is to accept it, no matter how long ago, then they can accept, as you have, the blatant violation of the Second Amendment.
While it could be argued that this assumed power is not real, the fact is that in law, if something remains uncontested long enough, it eventually becomes a de facto standard and difficult to change.
This is the concept of estoppel that I wrote about in comments to other articles! See how it even corrupts the thinking of our own gun people? By allowing violations of the Constitution to stand, regardless of how long, we create an estoppel in the mind of government and the People.
We let ourselves get raped once, twice, etc and now even some gun owners say we must continue to allow it!
To get your way you need to subvert a well-regulated (functioning) representative democratic republic? Fascist idiot.
There is no such thing as an absolute right. Anyone who doesn’t agree doesn’t know the first thing about rights.
Hmm….so, if you try to convince the lawmakers, we either get:
A) lawmakers who support new gun control, which likely fails, who are then forced by their own party to resign or retire by their own party, so as not to risk recall (where applicable) -or-
B) lawmakers who smile and nod at these little think tanks, and then do nothing, because they like being employed, thus wasting their efforts and capital.
Heh, I’m not seeing much downside.
That letter reads like: : “We think you robbed a bank so we want you to prove to us, by our standards of proof, that you didn’t do it.”
I’d like to see that letter get in front of the Supreme Court and hear what they have to say……
What happened to “90% of Americans want gun control”?
Oh right…
How silly of me. Since that lie didn’t work, the words “90% want more gun control” have been stricken from the record.
Apropos of nothing, Hudak ran sobbing from public office, leaving a trail of Bloomberg money behind her (it?), for NO REASON at all!
LOL!
I loaded 150 rounds this morning of .223 – took me about 40min. At the store, that’s still about $70 worth of ammunition – and my loads are more accurate.
Also, it’s an awesome hobby to have with the shelves go bare. I didn’t stop shooting this past spring or summer.
Btw, on .223 you can buy 55g fmj for about .10 a round, shipped to your house. Varget at the store here is $23 /lb (6000 grains in a lb / 25g to a round = .09 per round for powder). Primers are $2.99 / 100, so .02 per.
My brass is free because I’m a range hound and pick up after guys that don’t reload – so my cost per round is .21 cents. That’s for brass cased, accurate as all hell, .223. 🙂
Gee the Federal courts decreed that it’s perfectly acceptable for the Federal government to ignore the Constitution and interfere in the Constitutional internal affairs of a state. There’s a surprise.
Installed my ALG ATC trigger this Thanksgiving morning. What a nice feeling trigger, A+ to ALG.
I started loading 300BLK because, well, I had to. I have been very happy chopping surplus NATO brass and feeding my AR with cheap copper plated 30 Carbine style bullets. My plink loads run 23¢ per. Even my fancy Hornady SST 125s are only ~50¢. With out the door on all the gear at about(press, dies, etc. ) at just over $200. I am very happy. Just started 40 & 308 too.
I’ll also take door number one. Heck, I’ll take two of door number one. Although door number two would be pretty sweet as well.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. Fortunately I was able to down a big corn fed Michigan doe this morning and share a great turkey meal with a family of gun owners, including a former fudd.
Single stack 9mm no bigger than a seecamp… I’ll take it hahaha
Less of an article and more of a “Hey look at that there shiny whatchawhoseit!”
Wouldn’t pay more than $25 for it.
Great piece.
This gets us so much farther than the “libs/progressives are irrational” BS. They’re as rational as we are, and for the most part, a whole lot smarter about persuasion and public messaging. We’re as emotional as they are…about totally different (arguably more important) things.
A lot of good contest entries coming through, but this is the only one I’ve bookmarked. I’m going to go back and read it again when I have more time to take notes.
It’s that good.
The prices in this article are way off. $0.15/bullet for .223? It’s more like $0.08-0.10 at most, at least from my sources. $0.30/bullet for .308 is also way too expensive. There’s cheaper bullets out there, for good Hornady FMJBT, it’s about $0.20-0.22/bullet, and if you’re just wanting blasting ammo, there’s always pulled/surplus M47 ball at around $0.125-0.15/bullet.
Reloading can absolutely be economical. You just have to be good at sourcing components for a low cost, which is where the cost savings manifest themselves over loaded ammunition, especially if your brass is essentially free from range pickups.
The only way I see Glock making a micro-.380 pistol is if they make it in the US. Otherwise, the Glock safety system (or lack of same), coupled with small size in a .380 means that it won’t make enough points for the ATF importation system.
Yes, language is important, which is why my firearms are always called rifles, shotguns or pistols but never weapons. Since Webster’s defines weapons as something used to injure, defeat or destroy, and my firearms have never (yet) been used for such purposes, they will not be called weapons by me.
>> shouldn’t the 13-year-old face some kind of legal penalty for his negligence?
Maybe. Wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a world where bad things didn’t happen to good people?
We don’t live in that world.
The lawful owners of the firearm should be held accountable for not securing the weapon. Period.
The rest of us should double check our gun safes to make sure this type of thing never happens in our homes. My prayers are with the the family of this tragedy on this Thanksgiving.
In the last 18 months I have gone from no SIGs to 3 SIGs. A 2012 P226, a 2012 P229, and a 2013 P938.
Whomever says that SIG isn’t producing a good pistol now is, quite frankly a complete moron. Come over and take any of the 3 SIGs I have to any test you want, and one thing you will have to admit is that they are of dang fine quality.
You may not like SIGs, and that’s fine, to each his own. There may be another pistol that fits you better, or whatever, and that is why they make dozens of different handguns! But only a jack wad would say SIG quality is no good, all that does is notify everyone that you are an internet know-it-all who should be ignored.
I think in washington state it requires 4 firearms offenses before a juvie gets training time at juvie
So this puts you into open like all the rest of the gas pedals?
Not that shooting open is bad just that little dohicker is just the start of the modifications.
Guns were readily accessible in my house too. Fortunately dad took us kids shooting all the time. He was an instructor at the navy range, so we had access to anything and everything.
I would think the adults should have some culpability here. This is just sad.
All our shootin’ irons were in the closet, and the ammo was in the basement on a shelf. I could get into it any time, but I knew better. Until I was at least 15 I got permission any time I wanted to use one, even the .22 I got for Christmas when I was 11. I don’t have it any more, but I still have the .30-30 I got when I was 14.
Practice + common sense = no need for this
This is an item for those competitive shooter guys who go overboard and whose $500 Glock is custom built with a muzzle break, vented barrel, oversized grip, laser, red dot, “special trigger”, and mag pads so they don’t hurt their delicate little hands.
Yeah, and the shooter doing all that to their Glock, is shooting in the Open division against pistols that cost upwards of $5,000-$8,000 with the same modifications.
No, this thing can’t be used in competition, in any division except the Open division against the aforementioned $5k plus pistols. It’s not legal in Single Stack. It’s not legal in Production. It’s not legal in Limited division. It’s not legal in Limited-10. It’s not legal in most 3Gun divisions, since it’s an external modification. It’s not legal in most IDPA divisions, since it’s an external modification. In fact, since it’s job is to mitigate recoil, it’s specifically called in the rule books as being a Prohibited Item….
Non-issue for me. They are not price gouging but rather discounting them. I believe they just wanted to ensure that had enough product for the biggest shopping day of the year.
The Gander Mountain ad is for 50 round boxes of CCI Standard. 10 per customer at $5 each is just the same as a $50 box of 500, and 1000 per store is just the same as only 100 boxes of 500. That’s not a store hording a stockpile in my eyes.
I think you mean 2 boxes of 500. 100 boxes of 500 would add up to 50,000 rounds.
The legal owner of the pistol should be held primarily responsible:
1)for failing to secure the arm against children in the home where he/she/they had not educated the 13 year old in proper firearm safety
2) for not properly educating the 13 year old in firearm safety whether the firearm is secured or not in the first place
3)for keeping a loaded gun accessible to children in the home and not educating the 13 year old in proper firearm safety.
The 13 year old should be held accountable for exposing the 5 year old to a loaded firearm and failing to use his/her brain to recognize a firearm is potentially dangerous, particularly if you don’t know (apparently) how to verify if it is loaded or not, and especially if your Parent or Guardian has not provided any instruction on proper firearm safety. This kid is old enough to think for himself/herself about this kind of thing. The only exception would be if he/she is somehow mentally or developmentally challenged where he/she was not capable of recognizing the danger a firearm could pose to himself/herself or the five year old present. In that case you go twice as hard on the Parent or guardian.
This incident was/is plainly preventable and should never have happened. Hope the five year old recovers fully. Another hoplophobe in the making….greaaaaat!
I own a modern Sig M11-A1 (228) 9mm (before Sig Sauer put that stupid anchor on it. As ex Army Sci-Fi, I wouldn’t buy it now), a S&W 5906 tactical 9mm, a Beretta 70s 380 from the 1970’s and a Glock 23 Gen 4 40cal. My wife owns a Sig 224 SAS 9mm, a S&W 908s 9mm and a Glock 19 9mm. WE both carry the Glocks because when together we are using the 2 most common calibers, they are lighter, are more concealable and if they get damaged who cares? Also, in a SHTF scenario and short on ammo I can drop a 9mm barrel in my 23 and it will fire. That said both my wife and I are more accurate with the M11-A1 but in a SHTF situation groups of 2-3 inches is hardly the goal. I read a review once on why everyone should own a Glock. To paraphrase, Yes you might own a Ferrari but if you want good cheap reliable every day transportation that costs relatively nothing to buy, nothing to fix and has plenty of after market options available, you buy a Honda. Glock = Honda. To answer the original question: given a choice of the HK vs the Sig…….. The Sig. simply because I disagree w/ HK’s corporate culture.
I want one of those harpoon guns.
Why do people care if stores are open on Thanksgiving day? I had to get gas today to visit family. Shoul I have been stranded? Or maybe the government should shut down all transportation for that day. Better yet send all police and firemen home too.
Get over yourselves. Some people actually CHOOSE to work on that day, so give it a rest.
Minnesota has a “permit to carry” that does not restrict open or concealed. I’ve done both, but the reaction to open is different as you get closer to the big cities than in the outstate areas.
They were all carrying concealed until the end when they “untucked” to show what they had all along.
My ideal G40 would be a G27/26 slide on top of a G23/19 frame, basically a snub G23. Most likely it will be a ultra slim 9mm to compete with the PF9/LCP crowd.
…..but where is all the 9 mm!? I’ve been lucky to find some wolf but I had to drive 400 miles to find it!
Glock will branch out and be like Daewoo. They’ll make a Glock Microwave, Glock Sedan, Glock Sofa, Glock Glock Glock….
Its time to vote these idiots out of office, Colorado has teaken considerable steps to gain their rights back. New York can as well, you see all the “Repeal the Safe Act” signs in upstate NY. If we become one voice, we shall be heard.
Once you go to guns, its time to go all out or nothing.
And I hated doing that rolled helo simulator the first time… then I went through it again and thought it was fun.
It’s worth it, to me, when you take an animal or shoot a fantastic group with a round you loaded and tested yourself. I fletch my own arrows too. If I wasn’t so ham-fisted I’d tie my own fishing flies too. It’s part of the experience.
I join the others who are thankful for this site, Robert. It gives me joy to be educated by such knowledgeable folks(including the commenters) on such varied subjects. I’m thankful for the chance to contribute my ideas, opinions and (for me, what passes for) humor.
Thank you and your team for your fine work. Happy Thanksgiving and Hannukah.
Its gonna be a .380 ACP (9mm kurz) pocket pistol. Some fellows here in austria have already seen it or talked to people from glock in deutsch-wagram about it. Allegedly it will be avaliable in austria directly after Shot Show in january, but I doubt it.
The other gun, which is less known about is a .45ACP tactical model (I suppose like G34/35).
Oh yes and the C-Model will be reintroduced for Gen4 Pistols.
I dont know what you will get when in the US but for austria, and among austrian gun forums and enthusiasts. Its pretty rock-solid. 😉
regards
The big hint is that it’s small, smaller than a baby Glock 26 or 27.
That limits the options to 9mm or less which could only be a single stack 9mm or smaller caliber such as the .380 in singe stack.
I highly doubt it would be a .22 caliber being .22 ammo has been difficult to come by for almost a year now. There wouldn’t be much of a market for a new gun if the ammo wasn’t readily available and it wasn’t practical for self defense or use as a backup.
If it’s smaller than a Glock 26 that leaves few options.
I bought mine this past summer At Doc Neely’s in Port Angeles. Price was right at about $300. There were only two that came in on the same day I was browsing. I spoke up in the store after holding it a few minutes and said; “I ll take one” They told me “congratulations you just won the lottery.” (most practical firearm out there)
I noticed there is a limit of five mags on the Ruger site where I plan to purchase a few of the 25 round mags.
The way this is written makes it seem like a neighbors/stranger’s house. Either way, the 13yr old is mentally retarded or wanna be thug/cod commando. I knew from a very young age how to handle guns and never to other peoples stuff or guns, including family members. If it was a neighbor, I feel sorry for him because he is going to be railroaded for another parent’s stupidity and lack of parenting skills.
This is typical of gun grabbers and progressives. They can always find some object or something else to blame versus the true people to blame. The blame here is squarely on the parents — more specifically the mother.
Background check would have done nothing, all the guns where purchased by the mother
Gun registration and magazine registration would have done nothing.
No law will stop a determined crazy person who planned and plotted for some time.
This will happen again, some day, some time, some different place because pieces of paper with magical words we call law mean nothing to determined people who are insane, emotionally distraught and feel they must act out, or are terrorists like those in Boston. There is some serious dissolution that by passing laws that evil will disappear or that evil will not have access to the devices that can cause harm — evil or any determined killer will always find a way.
Those who report stories like the one in this post are delusional beyond comprehension. They have been brainwashed to think in a collective way and have lost all sense of reality and reason. They seem to believe if you keep repeating the same BS over and over again that some day it will come true — but it will not nor will it ever.
So this justifies laws against all? They really need someone to blame because mom is dead and dad has an excuse.
Sorry but the USC doea not have a clause allowing the state to take things away because people failed.
“This tragedy comes down to his access to guns of mass destruction.”
“GUNS of mass destruction”??? Does that also have an acronym, GMD?
Is this neologism an admission of failure on the part of the gun-grabbers that their attempt to conflate the term “assault rifle” to include semi-auto “military style” rifles (with such deadly devices as the bayonet lug) did not work?
This was one of the first points where I realized I made a mistake when I voted for this man in 2008. Unfortunately I didn’t hear it until after the fact. Add it to the long list of things he has done and said since then that has made me hate him and his administration with a burning passion.
Other than being an atheist and gainfully employed for many years, I do “cling to my guns” and I don’t appreciate this president treating me like I’m some backwoods criminal for it.
This is why I like reviews on TTAG.
A regular glossy mag would grab another one and redo the review in glowing terms.
Not here. Huh-uh.
Thanks TTAG. As Taro said above, “why should I bother?”
Interesting.
Keep the feds out of it in every way possible. Everything they touch will become instantly more restrictive somewhere, if not everywhere. And they will, at the behest of the antis’, incessantly encroach little by little, if not in one fell swoop, until there are so many restrictions that there will be no rights left to enjoy – anywhere.
YOU DO AS YOU’RE TOLD! YOU DO IT NOW! GO! GO!
Demand A Plan To Tell Fascist Celebrity Snobs To Go Screw Themselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9RgIbAEp4
I bought mine regular M&P9 used with a bunch of goodies for $425. My friends gave it a go and liked it better than their Glocks they had with them, even with the mushy reset. It’s interesting to read a review that sounds about what I thought about my gun. Oh and Cabelas finally had some M&P9 mags for sale so I bought two. I haven’t seen any around here since June and those were pre-Firearmageddon leftovers at a pawn shop. This is going to be my 3 gun pistol and I finally have enough mags to use it. I might give a trigger upgrade a try if I find the trigger bothers me, but I need to put a lot more rounds through it. I’ve only put about 6 mags through it so far.
If the trigger feels fine just buy the Apex hard sear for $40. Review on TTAG says it fixes the reset with an positive click and lightens the trigger a bit. I actually have enough guns right now, bought a Witness Elite Match for 9mm, but if I was going to buy another it would be an M&P9. Or an FDE M&P45. I’d have to hold them to decide.
I already have a SIG 220 Carry in SAO.
I’m waiting for the 229 SAO IF they ever produce it.
Or if Dan Coonan gets his bum in gear a new Coonan Cadet!!!
You compressed the image too much, now the top bubble starts “do me a favor, nger”
Not so great…. : /
1. I am a current and full-time LEO and a father. I have attended active shooter training with the agency as well as on my own time and my own money. My decision to enter an active shooter situation will be based on my convictions. I believe my quick reaction and immediate intervention into an active shooter situation will save lives of innocents as the shooter(s) will have to contend with me instead of taking innocent lives. This is my belief, conviction and plan. It also fulfills the oath I took.
2. I know and work with many LEOs. Most are great men and women who have and will continue to put their lives on the line for each of us as citizens of this great nation. They deserve at the very least some level of respect for these actions. They further deserve (as we all do) not to be judged by the actions of one or the few who don’t stand as tall as they should.
I used to hate Beck but now enjoy his radio show quite a bit, though I have to remain impartial on some of his crazier theories.
Only real bizarre thing was his conversion to the cult of Mormonism.
O’Reilly is a big government GOP douche through and through, he belongs back where he started on EntertainmeNt Tonight – DO IT LIVE
Couple night tricks back caught a nice worker with tons of ammo cooking off. Did sound like pop corn.
Chief o/s ordered everyone out, I told him it’s does not going fire….
He knew that but with lots of guns in there he was concerned with how many had a round chambered . Hey his call.the good thing was my crew got to go knock down the fire while others stayed back ,where it “was safe”.
Personally I don’t think any burning building is safe to begin with.
Sweet Black Friday deal on two-rifle case from Walmart. Going to pawn store later this month for epic haggling session on AR scope, sling, and disco ball.
Don’t have much in the way of money this year and not really keen on registering anything I buy so I went with a Pietta Colt 1851 Navy 44. Its my 2nd one and wanted a matching pair before I went with the Pietta Remington 1858 44 New Army. Same balls but easier to swap cylinders in the Remington than Colt.
No drawback to these except in reloading speed hence my desire to add in the Remmies.
I wouldn’t count on the House to not pass it.
I also wouldn’t count on them listening to us.
We don’t have the purchasing power to buy their ears. We never really did, truthfully. Not like the billionaire hoplophobes and their emotionally retarded sycophants do, anyway.
But, maybe miracles can and still do happen after all. I’ll be watching this space.
Jim,
What’s fascinating to me, is that rather than respond directly to the many on point rebuttals of your initial article, you decided jump on a post that supposedly equated you with a gun banner.
Your latest comment also appears to indicate that you believe that Constitutional rights only exist to the extent that the “overwhelming majority” of Americans agree with them. I’m reasonably certain that I could design a ‘neutral’ poll question that would get the overwhelming majority of Americans to agree that aspects of the 4th and 5th Amendments should be subject to ‘reasonable’ restrictions. Basing the reach of a right on the opinions of people who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant isn’t a good idea.
While I agree that Cali isn’t going to become a Constitutional Carry state any time soon, I’m curious as to why you have a problem with the concept. All such a law does is put the average citizen on par with the criminals, criminals carry when and where they want to, no matter the law. Gun control laws in general only impact the law abiding.
There is no reason why we should be willing to accept as a compromise any law that can be shown to have not had a socially beneficial impact on overall levels of relevant crimes where they have already been implemented — and I can’t think of a single proposed gun control law that hasn’t been implemented, with no impact on overall crime rates, somewhere in the US or in another country.
The status quo is already a series of rather extreme ‘compromises’ with the anti-gun side. You would think that the history of gun control, from the NFA ’34, through the GCA ’68, to the FOPA of ’86, as well as the myriad of local/state laws (starting I believe with the Sullivan Act in NYC in ’13) would have long sense laid to rest the idea that gun control is crime control.
Gun controllers, at least at the national level, almost certainly know that there is no connection between gun control and crime control, they rely on that fact — every time they get a law passed that doesn’t result in lower crime rates they can push for more extreme laws because the ones already enacted were “obviously” not strong enough. They rely on the ignorance of the general public concerning guns, and to the extent that we appear to accept their ideas of compromise we reinforce that ignorance. E.G. universal background checks — the current ‘reasonable compromise’. Such checks have been required in Cali for a couple of decades, and it can’t be shown that the implementation of that requirement resulted in an inflection point in the overall rates of relevant crimes. (It isn’t even clear that there was an inflection point in the rates of firearms related crimes.) So why, exactly, should we agree to implement nationally something that hasn’t worked elsewhere? (Gun controllers like to do comparisons with other states (or other nations), but as with all laws designed to ‘change’ behavior, a proper causal analysis requires a time-series analysis of behavior trends both before and after the implementation of the law in question.)
Nice article! There are a few comments I would offer…
First, be careful of the use of statistics. You need to know their context, statistical significance, accuracy, limitations and applicability. Bad stats are a sure way to get your *entire* argument tossed out the window, regardless the relevance of the rest of your case. Also, use statistics with emotional appeal. Even good stats often do not help if they are perceived as distractions or noise.
Actually, while your debate should be based on facts, don’t be afraid of using the emotional appeal. Man is both rational and emotional. The strongest arguments satisfy both aspects.
What the author says about controlling the language is very important. Words mean things and the person who controls what the words mean controls the debate.
His comment about asking questions is worth noting. For those who do not recognize it, he’s presenting the Socratic method and the elenchus part of the method is a powerful apologetic tool. Keep the questions thoughtful, civil and realistic. Let him reach his own logical absurdity and reset to an alternative proposition then repeat until only the truth is left.
Finally, assume that you will not be able to change the mind of the progressive you are debating. You won’t. Progressivism is a religious faith more than anything else. And one that requires blind faith, at that! The people you are going to reach are going to be the people watching or reading your interaction. Even if you change a progressive’s position, it won’t be the one your debating, it will be someone watching/listening and seeing the absurdity.
I LOVE the response!
Never mind me, I’m a potted plant.