Previous Post
Next Post

Gun Guys' Dan Baum's gun (courtesy Dan Baum)

Dan Baum, author of Gun Guys: A Road Trip and an occasional TTAG contributor, has had a change of heart re: mandatory gun storage laws, like the one currently in place in Massachusetts. Dan writes:

Von Clausewitz was wrong. War isn’t politics by other means. The purpose of war is to destroy your opponent. The purpose of politics —  in a democracy, anyway — is to win over your opponent. In the context of gun politics, we who enjoy owning and using firearms should concentrate less on whining about our opponents and calling them names, and more on convincing them that widespread ownership of firearms is a good thing. And when people move the right way on this issue, we should welcome them into the fold instead of viewing them forever with mistrust . . .

I am one such person. As I write in my book Gun Guys: A Road Trip, I used to go along with my fellow liberal Democrats in calling for more restrictive gun laws, even though I’ve been a gun guy since I was five years old and own a passel of really great pre-1930 guns. Simply put, I saw the light. If I thought any of the usual “gun control” measures would make us safer, I might still support them. But there’s no evidence that they do, and I’m suspicious of the antis’ real motives. So I’ve swung over on the gun issue — which makes me singularly unwelcome among my peers. But so be it.

Even since Gun Guys was published in 2013, my gun politics have shifted. At the end of the book, I suggested a few measures that I believed at the time would make us all safer, but since then I’ve realized that at least one of them likely does the opposite: safe-storage laws. I’m a big believer that an armed citizen’s gun should be either on his hip or in his safe.

But making it mandatory is, I now understand, a really bad idea. In this political environment, ordering gun owners to lock up their guns — even though doing so is in their own interest — merely turns up the temperature on an issue that is already irrationally hot.

I still hope to convince gun owners to secure their guns in a way that makes sense for them — in a safe, in a quick-open pistol box, or, as Farago argues, by keeping it on the hip even at home. Much of the bad stuff that happens with guns would go away if we gun owners were more careful about maintaining control of our firearms, and when bad stuff drops out of the news, the public’s appetite for gun control diminishes.

So safe storage is a good idea for everybody. Safe-storage laws, though likely produce the opposite effect of the one we want, so I’ve turned 180 degrees on the issue. (I’m hoping to get this change into future editions of the book.)

I became convinced of my error by listening to people explain, in rational tones, why I was misguided. If an Obamatron libtard like me can hear logic, so can others. Know someone who’s anti-gun? Talk to him with respect about why his views make us neither safer nor more free. You might be surprised at the response. At the very least, it couldn’t hurt.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “Much of the bad stuff that happens with guns would go away if we gun owners were more careful about maintaining control of our firearms…”

      I do not believe that this statement is true. It could only be true if “much” is taken as a small percentage of “the bad stuff”.

      It is certainly not true for most accidents, and not true for most crime. So, what is left?

      • i think the sentence could have “we hear about”, no body seems to worry about the “other” or “Urban” gun deaths, people like to sensationalize the toddler that finds the loaded “bump in the night gun”. those little faces are the ones that motivate the fence sitters, MAD groupies, and Low info voters.

  1. My safe was my best gun purchase, better than my Dillon 650. I know where everything is. My fun and costly toys are always in the same place, safe from little hands, safe from the wrong hands, safe from getting banged around and scratched, and safe from rust and environmental hazards.

    The only real problem with buying a safe is that you never get one that’s big enough.

    • My dad had the same exact problem with his safe purchase. Empty cut-outs for rifles and pockets for pistols spurred him into making more purchases that now require the purchase of a bigger safe.

      There are worse problems to have, I suppose.

      • Buy your pop the bigger safe, you take his smaller safe. You’ll likely later inherit the bigger safe stuffed full of gun goodies.

        OK, so you may have to kill off your siblings. And your mom.

        Pesky details… As long as the dog doesn’t get hurt, you’re good.

      • Dammit! I was shopping for a gun safe, and now you tell me it is like the highway “induced demand” situation. When highway lanes are expanded to reduce traffic jams, it attracts more traffic that jams the expanded highway.
        If only I could afford a walk-in vault. Lots of room for expansion.

    • I’m at the point now that before I buy another gun I decide which one I already own is worth parting with. I’m not investing in any more storage and the associated chores of more guns.

  2. Thanks for thinking things through and being candid about the change of position.

    I would add that safe storage laws violate our right to a home free from unreasonable search and seizure, and wrongly place on the government a duty that must always be on the parents.

    If courts decided to impose such a storage requirement on individual parents as a punishment related to a criminal act, that might be acceptable. To impose it on all parents is an unjustified prior restraint (and an unreasonable invasion of the home, as I already wrote).

    • “I would add that safe storage laws violate our right to a home free from unreasonable search and seizure, and wrongly place on the government a duty that must always be on the parents.”

      As a parent, safe storage is most certainly in my best interest. I don’t need a law telling me to do it. I bought the best security I could afford (good locking hard cases) but I can’t afford a safe. Everyone’s situation is different and it’s not up to the government to decide for me (or anyone else) what is in our best interest or how we conduct our daily lives.

      It would be very easy to restrict access to firearms for the poor. Just mandate expensive “safe storage” for all firearms and anyone who can’t afford a $1000 gun cabinet can’t own a gun.

    • That’s a great point. Telling us how to store our property has to be seen as the direct threat to liberty it is.

  3. Every single time I talk to an anti about gun control, I present facts, I listen to their doubts and fears and I calmly explain why such fears are unfounded by referring to said facts. Every time, after the conversation, I feel like I just bashed my head against a concrete wall multiple times. While I have “turned” two or three people into viewing firearms in a positive light…..I don’t know if I can handle anymore of their shrieking, feeling based diatribe.

  4. I stored my firearms safely before it became a public mantra. I had little ones under foot. I also used seatbelts when they were just lap belts. And helmets on motorcycles. And nowadays I wear a helmet on my bicycle.

    At no point do I think any of these safetie procedures should be mandatory. It’s the individuals right to decide how much safety they wish in their lives.

    When the .gov can balance a check book they can make suggestions to me about safety issues.

    • A government only has power over those who break the law. Safe storage laws by their nature require the authority to see if the law is being followed. Until we abolish the insane laws already on the books, we are all criminals in their eyes and under their power and authority.

    • Murdoc,

      Good point. The clearest way to write the first meaning is this:

      “The purpose of politics is to win-over your opponent.”

      Notice I hyphenated the words “win” and “over”.

  5. How do you keep kids from setting off the fire extinguisher that is exposed, needfully so, in every kitchen and in many garages, furnace rooms, and other places? In a safe? With a trigger lock (most extinguishers have a trigger)? Obviously, NO. Why? Because IF you need it, you need it right f**king now. And shaking fingers cannot open safes or locks. So we TEACH children not to mess with the fire extinguisher. And, as usual, education works. It is in the child and protects them always and everywhere they go.

    • Well said. I tell others this all the time, and I usually get blank looks. So I ask why they don’t worry about their kids stabbing themselves or others with the kitchen knives. More blank looks. Then I usually remember why I try not to talk to anti-gunners (except to invite them to the gun range with me anytime).

      • I think those are fatally flawed analogies.

        A fire extinguisher isn’t going to hurt either the trigger-puller or any bystanders if it’s discharged by a curious child, nor is it shaped in a way that invites a toddler to pick it up and noodle with it. The danger of knives is visually obvious even to a toddler who is just barely able to think about his environment, while guns hide their lethality behind an ergonomic, hand-friendly shape.

        The same approach that teaches children to be wary of other potentially dangerous objects will not necessarily work for guns. Although it depends on the age of the kids and their responsibility level, too. Some toddlers would be more responsible with guns than some teenagers.

        • Not to mention children are more likely to see someone handling a gun on TV or in a movie than a fire extinguisher.

        • If a child gets a blast in the face from a fire extinguisher it could cause injury and poisoning. Fire extinguishers are also commonly shown on tv and in movies, depicted in comic and usually heroic situations. There were at least two curiosity-related discharges when I was young (all my siblings’ fault, of course).

        • Guy at work discharged the fire extinguisher, hose came out of its bracket and whipped around, nearly cut his ear off, couple hundred stitches later he was fine

        • ING you are wrong in your theory. The degree of hurt is not the issue.

          Train and discipline kids.

        • Yep. Around our area lawn signs have popped up recently with “Drive like your kids live here.”, to which I respond “I do, I taught my kid not to play in the street.”. Far too many people expect everyone else to raise their children, a major problem that has been growing for decades in America.

  6. Why are we, the People of the Gun, not all over supporting Ruger’s gun safety initiative? Too focused on fighting the negative.

    • Can’t say I remember what this Ruger “safety” thing is about… will look it up.

      In the meantime, if a mugger or a bear is about to make me their lunch, I’m going to deal with the negative as hard and fast as I can. Ignoring the negative won’t make it go away.

      And so, if this Ruger thing has merit, we can certainly do something with it or support it ALSO. They are not mutually exclusive.

  7. Saying that the purpose of war is to destroy one’s opponent is completely missing Von Clausewitz’s point. Opponents are rarely, if ever ‘destroyed’ in nation-state warfare anyway.

  8. Guns in storage should be locked up, if only for keeping them from being easily stolen. But there is nothing wrong with keeping weapons handy in the home, especially when you’re asleep.

    A lot of people don’t have children at all, so why should they be following rules to protect children?

    • As a childfree couple, we have no reason to lock up our guns other than to keep them from being stolen. The HD ones are handy yet out of sight. To be mandated to lock them ALL (or even just ANY) up is just ludicrous.

      • Yup. And even if children are around, if they’re mature and responsible teenagers (and you have the good judgement to make sound determination) it may be safest to make sure they have access to a gun. Responsible family members who do not regularly carry holstered handguns, by choice or by law (perhaps due to youth), should still be able to access weapons if needed.

  9. Von Clausewitz is wrong???? The author lost ALL credibility by saying this. War is precisely politics by other means.
    Go read his book, and the book “Decoding Clausewitz.”
    Then sit in a corner and think about just how wrong you are.

    • Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. This article could use a little more explanation. What were the arguments that won him over? Why, precisely, does he think mandatory gun storage laws are a “really bad idea” now? They are, of course, but I’d like to know why Dan now thinks they are.

    • They way I read it is that gun owners are generally angered by intrusive regulations, and are less likely to value any reasoning that supports the plain intent of safe-storage laws than if no law were passed and the gun owners were simply politely presented with a short but informative line of reasoning and a request that they implement safe-storage in their homes. The carrot instead of the stick, in other words.

  10. Dan Baum, I throw the BS flag on your change of heart. Sounds like free advertising for your book, possibly over declining book sales. Your book was used to hurt our cause and punish us for no reason. If you really care and had a sincere change of heart, then man up and DONATE 100% of all book proceeds to a pro-gun group. Otherwise, you are hot air.

      • Indeed, it is a Frommer Stop. I have one that is in a pile of pieces right now- Finally figured out how to get the damned thing together, and the piece on the front that holds BOTH recoil springs disintegrated. Glad it didn’t happen when I shot it.

  11. “So I’ve swung over on the gun issue — which makes me singularly unwelcome among my peers. But so be it.”

    You need new peers.

    • He’s got new peers, here. And welcome, Dan. TTAG is a diverse group, that includes plenty of liberals, independents, POTG of all colors, sexes, and religious beliefs.

      I completely agree with your educational, calm, fact based approach. Ask any shrink who deals with teenagers, or staff at Juvie. Calm, frank, caring but firm works. Any effort to stage a drama fit ( Moms Demand Action) is ignored as a distraction. Same with personal insults, diversions, or denial. In other words, dont feed the troll.

      One by one, folks with common-sense see the light about individual freedom, vs a Tyrranical State.
      2A rights are the most obvious, and stand as the means to resist more, exactly as our Founders knew, from their own recent experience, here, and past history in Europe.

      • “educational, calm, fact based approach”

        Great in a lot of situations. I’m not seeing how it is relevant here. By what legitimate authority does anyone presume to “educate” some stranger on the storage of their guns – or anything else – much less attempt to mandate it?

        I don’t care how nice, reasonable or calm they are. Unsolicited advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

        • Mama, sorry my bad writing, as I conflared what I took t be Dan Baums style, calm, factual, educational for educating his brethren on the left, as his preface to The Gun Guys suggested, as part of his motivation to write it.

          I also advocate that, here, in converastions with friends, family, and any one with common-sense who dont YET get the concept of 2A rights, and how they apply to individual freedom, from the tyrranny of the Progressive State.

          Dan himself is prrof that it works, if the facts are sound, and he applies common-sense, and intellectual rigor, and self awareness.

          For anyone else, a stout defense, using passion, backed by an appeal to moral principals, as Ben Shapiro proves works so well, at Truth Revolt.rg, and in his monograph, how to debate liberals, is well worth the effort, and entertainment value, from time to time. Google up that question he put to the students at UCLA on the anti-Israel debate to see how poor progtards and wannabe jr jihadi’s headsspun in impotent fury.

          As the wise man once said, Stupid is as Stupid does. You cant fix them but you can at least get humor out of the situation.

        • “You cant fix them but you can at least get humor out of the situation.”

          If that floats your boat, of course. I spent 30 years in a profession filled with liberals, progressives and plain old fashioned socialists, so it was only amusing for a little while… 🙁

        • And to your point, about gun grabbers enacting yet more laws; they AREN’T calm, or educational. Its just more of the “we elites know whats best for you little people” unconscious mindset for too many well meaning progtards. Some you can educate, but it takes time. Others have a secular religious belief in their own moral superiotity. Those you have to vote out, ideally using the power of groups of people and money, wisely applied (NRA) or pay lawyers later, to sue, and undo the bad law. Which works, too, just takes longer (SAF).

          Calling names, is good sport in forums, but doesnt really work, nor does punching someone in the face, in a conversation, real life. In the end Alinskys Rules, dont work, if you stay in the game, and tell The Truth About Guns. My $.02, ymmv.

        • “Those you have to vote out, ideally using the power of groups of people and money, wisely applied (NRA) or pay lawyers later, to sue, and undo the bad law.”

          And who gets to decide which is the “bad law?” The only thing an election decides is which groups are going to impose their will on other groups. Whoever “wins” gets to decide, and continue the vicious cycle of theft and coercion. I don’t think so…

          How about voluntary groups making whatever laws suit them, leaving everyone else alone to do the same – or opt out of any group? But, of course, far too many people seriously want to control other people… and their property.

        • Mama, I hear your frustration, and fyi, I once looked into a job in public education, and in first interview I realized I’d never last in the progressive cloud cuckoo-land, so I give you much RESPECT for your endurance.

          As to your other question, well we are a democratic repblic, and that means frustration.
          “Democracy is the worst form of govt known to man , except for all the others that have been tried”. ~Churchill.

  12. If you don’t have a lot of money, have just a few guns, and there aren’t children in your house, you are better off hiding your guns than you are putting them in a safe.

    A safe is almost by definition going to be the focus of an intruder’s efforts. If its not up to the task, then all you have done is consolidated your valuables and guns in one convenient place for the thief.

    Before I had children, I stored a loaded Glock, a spare magazine, and a flashlight under a false air register in my bedroom. It was far safer there than in a cheap “gunvault” type device that could be opened with a screwdriver in about 10 seconds.

    The idea that hiding valuables is better than securing them in a cheap safe gets even stronger when you consider that I also had a monitored alarm, which denies the thief the luxury of time.

    Sometimes a thief will just pick up an inexpensive safe and leave with it if pressed for time.


    p.s. the reason I recommend hiding as superior to safes only in households WITHOUT children is because a thief has 3-5 minutes to find your stuff. A child has YEARS. Since I’ve had children, I now have good safes hidden and scattered around the house, so all my guns are either on me or in a nice 3/8 or thicker steel plate safe, thats bolted to the floor and wall.

  13. I guess nobody but me sleeps with a gun under the pillow anymore but it’s ok because I haven’t taken a minor to bed since I was one myself. Don’t tell the Federal Bureau of Sleep and Dreams.

    • Putting a gun under your pillow seems nutty to me. An exposed trigger is an ND waiting to happen. Take a look at these holsters that can be mounted anywhere, including the frame of your bed.

      I have one and wouldn’t be without it now. Used to keep my carry gun on the nightstand for many years, but this is so much better and safer. And besides, I now have the top of my nightstand to use for other things, as it should be.

      • I think it’s safe to sleep with a gun under the pillow if a round isn’t chambered. I’d prefer a manual safety as well—hell, maybe even a grip safety for a pillow gun—but a pistol under a pillow is almost certainly not going to rack itself. That said, I prefer a bed holster like you linked or a small nightstand safe that can be quickly accessed for a handgun. For a long gun, I’d just put it in easy reach but out of sight, maybe under or behind the bed. I’d go with a safe if there was a chance of strangers or young children coming into the room.

      • Depends on what you are sharing your bed with. I have slept with an Enfield .38 revolver or Walther P1 under my pillow for 30 years and never had an “accidental discharge”, ever. Have been awakened in the night and been damned glad it was there on a few occasions.

  14. Dan Baum’s remarks about safe storage vs. safe storage laws reminds me of Virginia Governor George Allen’s veto of a bill that would have mandated that adult waterskiers wear life vests.

    To paraphrase what he said when he vetoed the bill, “Wearing a life vest while waterskiing is a good idea. I just don’t think it’s the government’s job to make you wear one.”

    Glad to see you’ve come around, Dan!

  15. “I suggested a few measures that I believed at the time would make us all safer”

    Again, not to insult, but to educate- you fell into that liberal trap… that somehow a few words written on paper would somehow stop the bad guys or the ignorant; by showing them that what they were doing was illegal… Realism vs. Liberalism… Guess who always wins? Realism… want to know why? Reality…. its dominated and run by reality. Liberalism is dominated by a childish dream, motivated by unrealistic and ultimately childish thinking.

  16. “Obamatron libtard”. I just got a great idea for a Doctor Who Bad Guy….”EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE!”

  17. To the author: Welcome to the result of applied honest logic. I was raised in an anti gun home, but it didn’t take, neither my brother nor I stuck with the liberal line on guns once we reached adulthood. Be careful of logic and reason, when honestly applied they can cut into those things we well and truly believe in (this can cut against some Republican politics as well). As to the safe storage thing…I am currently in the market for a reasonable quality safe. There are no small children in my home, in fact the only reason for bringing in the safe is to provide a storage location safe against fire.

    • Gun storage is always problematic. Our regulations (NZ) used to allow wooden locked cabinets for gun storage, but the Police prefer steel heavy safes. And the Police try hard to work with us. I worked with a volunteer fireman who had to hose the blood off a mile of road when two psycho teenagers robbed a handgun collector’s wooden “storage” compartment and went on a shooting spree that only ended after they stole a car from a local farmer. He was trapped in the doorway while being dragged along the road.

      If kids or less mature people are likely to be in the house, a fully locked safe is the best thing. Whether the Government can enforce this is up to local rules.

  18. Once a ‘tard, always a ‘tard. Let me guess, any of you would let this guy back into your “circle of trust” during a SHTF scenario? Then why now?

    • Community is what will get us through shtf. Guys who try the mad max model usually will wind up with a cap in their ass

      • You’re a special kind of retarded. Don’t think that just because you were picked last for every kick ball game in school that people will suddenly want you for their SHTF team.

  19. This is how it went in Sweden after mandatory gun storage laws came into effect. First it was fine, the mandatory safe was “reasonably” priced at around 500 usd. Then came the additional storage laws for when you had “a dangerous amount of firearms”. Where they made you buy a safe for 5000+USD. After that they made you buy an extremely costly alarm used by banks. Basically you had to become a bank and have the same kind of insurance. Collectors had to sell off their collections and no one could own above x firearms. It was a way to reduce gun ownership and put an extreme financial burden on people limiting gun ownership to the rich. This is both a rights issue and a class warfare issue. In Sweden we do not have a 2A and no way to hold government employees responsible. Also no constitutional court system like the US Supreme court. No Jury either, only a kind of variant with politically assigned people that judge you. We are fu*ked. So fight for your rights or they will be gone forever.

  20. That book sounds like good TP for SHTF. Read, laugh till you cry fiction, a real page turner.
    Unfortunately liking guns as a liberal democrat just makes you an oxymoron. You can do the hokey pokey for only so long before you realize that you can’t be a walking contradiction. You need to do more than see the light but actually step out into the light and embrace it.
    If you voted for, support, and give money to Obama and his hack liberal cronies you are still part of the problem. What are you going to do to make restitution? Suit up for a freedom rally? Give money to the NRA or another second amendment .org? Vote for a candidate and give that individual money who supports the constitution and doesn’t shred it like your everyday liberal? If the answer is no then you have peers and not friends in the community for that reason. No hate from me because you have the freedom to think what you will…for now. As a medical professional I know what comes with psych evals and that is thought police. Your liberal friends will have your guns taken from you based purely on your thoughts.

  21. Glad you’ve seen the light Dan but don’t pretend you’re smarter than Clausewitz. War absolutely is politics by other means. Of course, Clausewitz was referring to international politics, while you are referring to internal national politics.

    • Libs love to preach military doctrine while knowing diddly. “Purpose”?

      The OBJECTIVE of military operations is to defeat the enemies will to fight. He accepts your will (knuckles under). See also Obumas (our) defeat by the Mohammedans before the fool first set foot in the White House.

  22. Pass a $500 government credit/refund toward the purchase of a safe. Encourage instead of mandate safe behavior.

    • You plan to apply (register) with Brother Barry and ask him for some the wealth of your neighbors so you can buy a steel box?

      Better have a local building permit also and list the S/N of whatever guns you’ll be storing. The local PD going to inspect to ensure it is properly installed and that you didn’t use the $ to buy a new sofa (or would that be a job for ATF)?

    • I’d rather use my own money to buy my own safe, rather than have the government tax my money to be used to pay for government bureaucracy, plus a small percentage toward paying for someone else’s safe.

  23. I don’t own weapons to collect them, I own them for defense. Locking them in a big steel box means my wife and son would be defenseless, which is kinda counter productive to the whole “own them for defense” point. There is no 100% secure safe, someone wants in it they will get in it. A false sense of security is dangerous. Very dangerous. And being required by law to provide “authorities” access to your gun safe to prove you are in compliance with the said law is the real point the “lock all guns up” crowd is actually pushing. Far easier to confiscate a big, locked box than to search and entire property when seizing people’s guns.

    • I’m with you on the mandatory part. But guns are valuable; why wouldn’t you secure them? And if you need a gun immediately to hand, keep it in a quick-open lock box. Or, better still, on your hip. As Farago says, who wants to be in a footrace with a bad guy? And once your guns get stolen, they become everybody’s problem, which only gives the antis more ammunition.

      • My home is secure. Want to break in and steal my property, any of my property? Go for it. You won’t be the first to learn what a bad idea it is, and doubt you will be the last. Don’t worry about the dogs, or me, worry about the woman with the shotgun. And yes, there is someone on our property at all times, and they have access to multiple weapons.

      • “I’m with you on the mandatory part.” No, you are not. You are the one that suggested that “brilliant” idea, and then you did a step&fetch it move to try and deflect the crap that poured on your head from Americans. Don’t piss down my back and say it is raining. You said it, you meant it, that ends it.

  24. Its my gun/s in my house and I will keep it/them where I want to is how I see it. I cant help it if some irresponsible moron keeps his/her gun where small children can get it anymore than I can stop a irresponsible moron getting in his/her automobile when drunk or doped-up out of their mind. You cant outlaw stupid.

  25. Let us know when he also realizes that universal background checks are just as pointless. I am fairly sure he also said in the postscript of his book that he was for mandatory training to own a gun. Once he drops those beliefs, that won’t do anything to stop gun violence since criminals won’t obey them to begin with, then I might listen to what he has to say.

    • Wrongo, JT. I didn’t support mandatory training to own a gun. I suggested a compromise: We get the right to carry our guns wherever we want — coast to coast, in bars, in post offices, etc. — but in order to get a CCW, we get trained with our handguns as well as, say, and FBI agent. That sounds like a good deal to me. I’d like not to have to worry every time I cross state lines, or want to buy a stamp, that I’m breaking the law. And to me, training isn’t an infringement of rights, it’s an enhancement of rights. An well-trained citizen is more effective in a crisis.
      I know, I know. No compromise. On nothing, ever. Good luck with that. This is a democratic republic. Nobody has any rights that the majority doesn’t agree he should have; ask any African American. As any homosexual. Ask any woman. All of it is a negotiation. We should be looking for — and suggesting — good deals for ourselves, instead of, to use the Boss’s words, hiding in a corner and studying our pain.

      • . I suggested a compromise: We get the right to carry our guns wherever we want — coast to coast, in bars, in post offices, etc. — but in order to get a CCW, we get trained with our handguns as well as, say, and FBI agent… training isn’t an infringement of rights, it’s an enhancement of rights…I know, I know. No compromise. On nothing, ever. Good luck with that. This is a democratic republic…All of it is a negotiation.

        First of all, I disagree with your position. But even if I agreed (and I’m sure some “Conservatives” would), do you have any liberals on board with your recommendation? My bet is a resounding, “No.”

      • “We get the right to carry” ? Sorry, already have the right. As for storage, my home is secure. You want to break in and steal my property? Go for it, you do so at your own risk.

  26. Aren’t safe storage laws a tremendous unfunded mandate? What if you could only own a car if you also owned a garage?

  27. So he no long believes in infringing on an element of my right to keep arms, but he notes that keeping bad news about guns out of the press is a good thing. Why don’t we just infringe on the right of the press to print bad news? He seems to have no compunction about infringing on some of my rights, so why not infringe on some of theirs? Or is it just my rights that he sees fit to infringe upon?

  28. In this political environment, ordering gun owners to lock up their guns — even though doing so is in their own interest…

    This is an unfounded assertion. What evidence can you cite to prove it?

    …merely turns up the temperature on an issue that is already irrationally hot.

    In any political environment, creating laws that infringe on the freedom of law-abiding citizens lawfully to exercise their right to keep and bear arms in the manner they see fit is immoral.

    Much of the bad stuff that happens with guns would go away if we gun owners were more careful about maintaining control of our firearms…

    Come again?

    Things that happen due to carelessness of lawful gun owners pale to the point of statistical insignificance in comparison to the bad things that criminals willfully and intentionally do.

    …and when bad stuff drops out of the news, the public’s appetite for gun control diminishes.

    “News” is a propaganda tool for the Fabian socialists who run the Democrat party and essentially all of the mainstream media. If you think that “bad things” will ever drop out of the news, you’re hopelessly naive.

    • Last time it was studied, Chip, three quarters of guns used by criminals were stolen. No child or teenager (under 18) can legally buy any kind of firearm, so when they get them, they get them from law-abiding gun owners (usually their parents) who leave them lying around. And how is it not in a gun owner’s interest to protect items as valuable as firearms? And if you don’t trust the news, how do you inform yourself? Or don’t you inform yourself? Are your opinions sufficient?

  29. guess Baum doesn’t quite get that ANYTHING “mandatory,” as in something coerced upon you against your will, you know, like: rape, is really, REALLY, REALLY, ALWAYS a bad fcuking idea.

  30. Except there is one big difference Baum and politicians – he isn’t paid to vote for gun control laws. So flip-flopping on his stance doesn’t cost him anything (except credibility). A politician may pay you lip service on gun control, but they’ll vote the way their party and contributors tell them to vote. So don’t trust anyone for a second that flip-flops on gun control. They’ll turn on you at the next media call for outrage and gun control.

  31. Mandatory storage laws are unconstitutional. Massachusetts is ignoring this SCOTUS ruling.

    “Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

    Syllabus of DC versus Heller. Final paragraph.

  32. Von Clausewitz wrote shortly after the battle of Waterloo, at which the Prussian army were major participants. For nearly the next century, Germany emerged from a patchwork quilt of independent principalities into a unified nation. Military actions throughout this period were limited to fast strikes, outmaneuvering of opposing armies, and usually a treaty granting added territory to the victor. This was an ongoing process, and included the 1870 war with France, which led to the addition of Alsace Lorraine to Germany. As the German army expanded, operations developed greater ambition and complexity. This led to the failed Schlieffen plan against Belgium and France, and the subsequent stalemate of WWI.

    Again in WWII (which was WWI round two), the only truly successful plans were those developed by Erich Von Manstein, who had too many enemies to rise to the top of German High Command. He ordered the attacks on Poland and France in 1939/1940. The Russian invasion (Barbarossa) was not his, and it failed. And later on, Hitler (who was a bungling amateur) had too much say in Army affairs and assured German defeat. Churchill even called off an assassination effort because Hitler was doing so much damage to Germany.

    It has always been beyond the ability of an armed force to totally destroy an enemy (except if nuclear weapons are used). The failure to cut off Dunkirk shows the one time that this might have been possible. Again, Hitler intervened.

    Prior to WWI, German force of arms was mainly used to reunite Germany and increase its borders. In effect, this was politics. Brutal politics, not the sleazy, dirty kind we see these days.

  33. Same thing with helmet laws for motorcyclists: It’s a better thing that the State doesn’t get involved in dictating your life, with criminal penalties for disobeying their diktat, but you’d be pretty stupid to ride without a helmet. Texas doesn’t require helmets, yet I only ride with one, usually my full-face.

    If you slip and fall at walking speeds, you could still ‘luck out’ and crack your skull (and given my height and weight, the velocity my head will reach and the mass it has when hitting a hard surface would be more damaging than such an incident with a male of mean height and weight). I’ve cracked my skull (hairline fracture) while helmetless on a bicycle, and learned my lesson early. I reckon that I could abide a law that makes helmet use unrestricted, but assumes that helmetless riders have consented to organ donation and a DNR order 😉

    However, getting the State involved is very rarely a good idea, as it tends to empower and encourage them, which doesn’t end well. On-body and In-safe may be a very good idea, but even so, good ideas shouldn’t be mandatory.

  34. Good on you Dan. Gun safes make a lot of sense, especially if you own multiple firearms, but requiring them by law is nothing but a Trojan horse. We, the people of the gun, must be ever vigilant in order to preserve our great city as it were.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here