Previous Post
Next Post


Despite seminal Supreme Court decisions such as Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010, gun banners never cease in their efforts to limit liberty. State law, federal law, nothing stops them. No matter how old, unlawful, illogical, or discredited the argument, they revive it, time and again. A recent article in The New Yorker titled “The Newtown Lawsuit And The Moral Work Of Gun Control” speaks of a lawsuit filed on the behalf of survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack against Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the AR-15 pattern rifle used in the killings. Their claims are as unlawful as they are based in emotion . . .

From the filing:

“4. The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon, and it has always excelled on the battlefield. Born out of the exigencies of modern combat, the AR-15 was engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.

5. The AR-15 proved to be very good at its job. It has endured as the Unites States Army’s standard-issue rifle and has more recently become a valuable law enforcement weapon. In both contexts, the AR-15 is subject to strict safety measures, including advanced training and regimented storage.

6. The AR-15, however, has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes. The rifle’s size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to the battlefield, are in fact liabilities in home defense.

7. But there is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings. Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired an AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle’s lethal power into our streets, our malls, our places of worship, and our schools.”

The remainder of the suit’s points argue that Bushmaster knows the AR-15 is good only for murdering large numbers of innocents yet they continue to sell it, posing “unreasonable risks.” To those what have followed the gun debate for decades as I have, all of this is entirely familiar, and entirely false.

Briefly, the military versions of the AR-15 family are, with a handful of exceptions, actual assault rifles, fully automatic weapons of intermediate caliber. They have not always excelled, and in Vietnam, problems in design, manufacture and ammunition cost many soldiers’ lives. Over the years, various other issues have been identified, and the relative lack of stopping power of the 5.56mm round continues to be the source of argument.

Any projectile propelled with sufficient velocity has the ability to kill. The .223/5.56mm cartridge used by the AR-15 is of only moderate power. Most hunting cartridges are far more powerful, though AR-15s are well suited for hunting, and are commonly used for small game. One of the primary reasons police agencies use the rifle is because it’s useful in close quarter battle, and its ammunition does not tend to over penetrate in an urban setting.

Few rifles of any kind are used in crimes in America, the AR-15 included. The AR-15 used in the Sandy Hook attack was nothing more than a common, semiautomatic rifle. It wasn’t uniquely dangerous; millions just like it are in circulation. Its “firepower” is anything but overwhelming and in no way uniquely capable of producing“maximum carnage.” It is indeed well suited to home defense and is commonly so employed across the nation.

The suit also raises the fallacious “not suitable for sporting purposes” argument discarded by the Supreme Court in Heller. The New Yorker’s article was obviously written by a true believer:

“The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door—is worth reading in full, however painful that might be, not only because of the unbelievable suffering and cruelty it details on that terrible morning but also because it offers, in neatly logical fashion, an indisputable argument: the gun manufacturer is guilty of having sold a weapon whose only purpose was killing a lot of people in a very short time. Despite the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives having previously declared that such weapons “serve a function in crime and combat, but serve no sporting purpose,” Bushmaster sold it anyway…[skip]

The lawsuit is discouraging because the death-by-gun lobby has successfully advocated for legislative prophylactics that prevent gunmakers, almost uniquely among American manufacturers, from ever being held responsible for the deaths that their products cause. If a carmaker made a car that was known to be wildly unsafe, and then advertised it as unsafe, liabilities would result. The gun lobby is, or believes itself to be, immune. Some experts have outlined legal principles that might let sanity triumph, but it is hard to think it will. (Right-wing judges tend, these days, to be more creative than liberal ones in creating legal precedents that no one ever before imagined possible.)”

Right wing judges do this? The word for that is “projection.” These arguments are particularly deceptive. Manufacturers that knowingly make a defective product are liable for damages caused by that product. No law has exempted gun makers from this basic legal principle.

But manufacturers that make a legal product that isn’t defective, those that function as designed in normal use — whether a firearm or a blender or a car — aren’t liable for the misuse of those products, particularly not their criminal misuse. Were this not so, what company could produce and sell any product? Virtually any product can and will be be misused and tragedy may eventually result.

This, of course, did not stop gun banners from trying to destroy the firearm industry by filing frivolous lawsuits with language virtually identical to that of the Newtown defendants. The result was 15 USC Chapter 105, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, which lists as its purposes:

“(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products of ammunition products by other when the product functioned as designed and intended. [skip]

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.”

Even for federal legislation, the language is remarkably concise and clear. This section is even more clear:

“(a) In general

A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.”

The New Yorker continues:

“Indeed, one of the ironies of the whole story is that there already is a long-standing ban on truly automatic weapons—machine guns—whose legality not even the N.R.A. or their allies dispute. If anything, they tend to make a sniffy point of discriminating actual machine guns from mere semi-automatic ones, among them the Bushmaster…But all of the talk about legal and illegal weapons, automatic and semi-automatic—as about the treatment of the psychologically troubled—evades the simple, central point: it ought to be very, very difficult, as it is in every other civilized country, to get your hands on a weapon whose only purpose is to kill people quickly. The N.R.A. and their allies make it very, very easy.”

I’ll discuss how “civilized” the rest of the world is compared to gun-crazy American shortly, and the difference between semiautomatic firearms and fully automatic firearms is substantially broader than “sniffy” would suggest. As to how fully automatic weapons apply to this case, or constitute irony, I leave it to readers to determine.

The New Yorker asserts that the majority of Americans agree with it, despite recent polls demonstrating just the opposite.  But to its way of thinking, there is a more powerful argument:

“On some subjects on which we wish sanity and common sense could prevail over fanaticism and irrationality, it’s apparent that the mental work is not yet finished or even entirely begun. In public life, there are subjects about which the mental work is done, but the moral work still needs doing.”

And consider this recycled, completed discredited argument:

“But on the problem of gun control, no matter how far we may seem from a sane solution, the public deliberations are finished. Instead of bleeding natural allies, new ones join all the time, including the voters who rejected attempts to eliminate checks and delays on weapon sales in the last election. No honest or scrupulous person can any longer reject the evidence that gun control controls gun violence. It can be rejected only by rage and hysteria and denial and with the Second Amendment invoked, not as a document with a specific and surprising history, but as a semi-theological dogma.”

By examining only the Clinton gun ban, the rational non-fanatic must conclude that ten years of gun banner’s most desired laws accomplished nothing whatever for public safety, nor has there been a single credible study that proves otherwise. It is, rather, those that would destroy the portions of the Constitution that stand in their way in establishing a utopia that must rely on “rage and hysteria and denial,” and on “semi-theological dogma.”

Behold the voice and reason and morality:

“The majority is there, and the mental work is accomplished. This means that though the moral work—of persuasion, conviction, and shaming—needs to go on, we can be confident that it will go on and win, too, in the long run. There is nothing so irresistible as an idea that happens to be true. Piece by piece, legislation by litigation, the curse will be lifted. Time and temperament and patience will win out. [skip]

Gun control stops gun violence. Gun possession does not deter crime; it merely makes it more lethal. Making these inarguable truths into necessary law takes the work of persuasion and legislation and litigation. The mental work finished, the moral work goes on, often in modest invisibility.”

These people don’t care about the Constitution. They don’t care about public opinion. Reason, Supreme Court decisions, the laws of the several states, all mean nothing to them. Such trivia are illegitimate barriers to worthy Progressive policies. They take the long view and expect to eventually win. Those that wish to live in a constitutional republic can never forget this progressive article of faith, so clearly expressed.

But is it possible they’re right, at least in some ways? Does gun control restrain gun violence? Does gun possession fail in deterring crime, instead making it more lethal?

The invaluable Bill Whittle recently issued a new edition of The Firewall, titled Number One With a Bullet.

In it, Whittle, citing Wikipedia, explains that America is number one (2012 figures) in the world in per capita ownership of firearms: 90 guns per 100 people. If The New Yorker is right, America must be a cesspool of violent crime. However, it is indisputable that as Americans have purchased firearms at incredible and accelerating rates over the last quarter century, violent crimes of all kinds have continually and substantially decreased. And where does America stand (again, 2012 figures) in the international murder per capita carnival? We don’t even make the top 100. Honduras is first with 90 per 100,000. America is number 111, with 4.7 per 100,000.

According to Whittle, analyzing the murder per 100,000 rates of major American cities controlled for decades by Democrats, cities with the kind of draconian anti-gun laws for which the New Yorker longs, those cities would be near the top of the nations of the world in the murder carnival, far above America as a whole. Those are cities with the kind of gun control that disarms the law abiding The New Yorker calls a moral imperative.

Such statistics, particularly where Wikipedia is concerned, may be a bit slippery, so I checked Wikipedia before writing this article and found that in 2012 America was actually 91st in the world, though still with a per capita murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000.

The nation with the highest level of private firearm ownership — according to some sources, enough firearms to provide one for every man, woman and child — is somehow around 100th in murders per capita. That translates into cognitive dissonance at The New Yorker’s editorial offices, but common sense in flyover country.

Sandy Hook was undeniably horrific, so horrific the school itself has been demolished. The home of the killer, where he killed his mother with a common, .22LR bolt-action rifle before attacking school, will also soon be torn down.

Perhaps the Newtown survivors aren’t done removing reminders of the attack. Perhaps all the ghosts have not yet been exorcised. Whether or not it’s logical, it’s eminently understandable. People of good will everywhere wish them peace and rest.

However, neither peace nor rest may be obtained by damaging the rule of law or the Constitution. The Newtown lawsuit is plainly unlawful and must be dismissed. I suspect any “right wing” judge would apply the law as it’s written, which would take no imagination, but at least some moral work.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • box cutters where used to take over the airplanes that took down the towers in NYC, last I checked, they are still available at Home Depot without permission from the government.

    • Well, if the killer used a Stanley-brand-Stanley hammer, the Feds couldn’t do anything.

      Stanley, manufactured in New Britain, Connecticut.

    • You don’t sue Toyota for a drunk driver who kills someone in one of its vehicles. You don’t sue Smirnoff for making a product that it knows is intoxicating. You don’t sue Texaco when a drunk driver fills up there most recently before killing someone (gun example is the lawsuit brought against the ammo retailer that sold the Aurora theater shooter much of his ammo). You don’t sue Henckles when somebody uses one of their knives to stab another person. These examples would all be RIDICULOUS on their face and you’d be laughed out of court. The anti’s would agree. Yet, when it comes to guns, it’s “different.” What it is is absurd.

      • Unfortunately, these lunatics are fueled by the one example where they successfully sued an entire industry for proper, legal use of it’s product; the tobacco industry. They desperately cling to the hope that they can do to firearms owners what they did to smokers.

        • Great point! Its all about shaming shaming shaming, particularly with smoking and the precedent set with sueing big tobacco. Because free will is a bad thing I suppose, guess theyre not a fan of the peasants choosing how to live 🙂

        • I see what you are saying, but there is a difference (that I think they try to overlook). If you use tobacco as intended, it will harm you, but the industry told people for years that it wouldn’t. If you use a firearm as intended it won’t (self defense use aside).

        • Right. So, 20 or 30 years later, after fueling the government with trillions of dollars of tobacco taxes, all the shaming, all the prohibited places, all the panty twisting, why doesn’t anybody ever point to the results? Has there been a dramatic drop in all the illnesses caused by tobacco? I’m suspicious that if there were any significant decline at all, it would have been screamed to the rafters, yet I have heard absolutely nothing of the sort, the only claims made are whether fewer people are smoking.

          I can tell you, for absolute certain, smoking does not *cause* lung cancer. I smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years before quitting because I was tired of funding the government all by myself. 2 packs a day for 40 years. If smoking caused cancer, I would be dead long ago. If there were any truth to all the claims of “sidestream smoke”, including from 50 yards away, the sidestream smoke from my cigarettes alone would have killed me several more times. Instead, I have been healthy as a horse. All the fuss was about money, not health. And, BTW, the corporations involved paid nothing, the smokers paid it, and they were not the ones sued. And the money was supposed to go to help with medical expenses, but has been spent on just about everything but.

        • Larry, I would love to see the studies that say tobacco is bad for you. Not cigarettes, not cigars, not commercially available chewing tobacco. The tobacco plant. Why? Because the PSAs always trumpet how there are 3,000 carcinogens in a cigarette, but never explain why they don’t feel the need to ban Philip Morris from putting 2,999 extra carcinogens in it. If they cared about the cancer, they would force tobacco companies to take out any extraneous toxins. But they don’t care about cancer any more than they care about dead children. They care about control, and they want to stop people from doing things they personally don’t like doing.

  1. AR 15 was designed as a civilian rifle. The military liked the idea and bought them. If you want to talk about weapons designed for military use, we would be going after the Fudds bolt caption rifles. How many were based on the Mouser or Mosin action.

    • Also don’t mention that the 5.56 is designed to maim.

      If you wound 1 it takes 4 more off the battlefield to move & provide aid. If you kill them they wait until there is time to move them if at all.

      • “Also don’t mention that the 5.56 is designed to maim.”

        [citation needed]

        5.56 was designed to be smaller and lighter than 7.62 so a soldier could both carry a higher round count, and be able to fire in full auto due to lower muzzel impulse. This came out of studies that determined volume of fire was more important than accuracy. The maim idea is a myth. No military fielded round was ever designed to maim. In fact, as it was fielded, the M-16 55 grain round was designed to be more lethal than .30 cal rifle rounds, due to the high velocity in the air, combined with the lightweight bullet’s tendancy to ‘tumble’ after hitting the target.

        see here:

        • 5.56 was adopted because the Vietnamese soldiers were smaller than American soldiers and were unable to successfully adapt to the M14. American soldiers liked the hell out of it, especially being able to carry twice the ammo on patrol, and there were precious few places in Vietnam where a 1000 yard shot was possible. So US forces adopted it as well.

  2. If you’re not questioning the official narrative of Sandy Hook, you deserve the consequences. Go ahead and flame.

        • Pray tell. I’m not being an ass; I genuinely would like to know what you think needs questioning.

          I am not without doubts myself, in particular the lack of info and conflicting info and excessive secrecy (of some things), but few ever elaborate on what they think needs to be questioned.

        • @Matt, not being an ass, but too many discrepancies to list here. The event seemed fishy before they even rolled out the official story.

        • I think one of the biggest questions pointed out even written in the article here is why they are tearing down the house he lived in?

          Tearing down the school I can understand since that is where it happened but even then I question that considering Columbine was not torn down or Virginia Tech both institutions that had horrible mass shootings so what makes Sandy Hook special? Then you have the shooting that happened in 1928? in Michigan? where a nut job used dynamite and a bolt gun to kill more kids at once than Sandy Hook but no one brings that up but I digress. Why not tear down the Aurora Theater it had a mass shooting there too?

          So why tear down the house? What good does that do? Only the mother was killed in the house. How many people are killed in houses across the country yet those houses are still standing? Again, what makes this so different or special? Oh because it was the house of a murderer? Please. How many serial killers still have houses they lived in still erect? Most likely all of them. This screams of coverup somewhere.

    • Here’s a hypothesis: Adam Lanza happened and those kids really are dead, and no one knew about it prior to the act but the murderer. However, maybe certain people in power were waiting for just such a crisis and had a strategy in place for how to use it, but their normal incompetence only made it come off as suspicious and secretive, and thus the conspiracy theories. Probably some plain old lies after the event as well (how do we, or the kids’ parents, know what type of round killed those kids) that would make gun control policies more attractive, but I’m not a believer in total orchestration. They just aren’t that good, and this stuff happens in real life, it doesn’t need to be made up.

    • FWIW I agree with you. The 26 are dead and NOW they are tearing down the house. And we heard several conflicting stories as it unfolded. Like a Rahm Emmanuel quote “never let a crisis go to waste”…

  3. Good article.

    On a different note, which according to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that the suit against Bushmaster has no legal standing, will Bushmaster be able to countersue or otherwise seek legal sanction against the parties that brought the suit against the company?

    • Maybe a public defamation type suit–slander or libel maybe. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say for certain.

      • Nope. Pleadings filed in a legal action are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis for a defamation action. The fact of the action might form the basis for a malicious prosecution action if and when a judgment is entered in favor of the defendants, but in this case the plaintiffs are arguing that there is a loophole in the law through which they are trying to squeeze, which, for reasons I won’t get into, is enough to be a defense to any subsequent malicious prosecution case.

    • And this is why there needs to be a “loser’s lawyer pays” statute. No lawyer would have filed this bogus suit knowing that it is in fact an illegal law suit and that they would have to pay all the costs for the crime of filing the law suit.
      Bushmaster can’t recover any legal costs from the families. They don’t have anything to take. But the lawyers that lobbied them and convinced them to file this lawsuit thinking that if they find the right judge that will ignore the law too, just maybe they can extort a settlement.
      If the gun barrel exploded and killed someone, then that family might have a cause of action. But that did not happen here. And the lawyers know the law is not on their side.

    • I believe there is an action in tort known as “abuse of process” (ie filing frivolous lawsuits with the sole purpose of harassing someone). Maybe some of the better lawyers hereabouts (better than I am, I mean) can correct me on that. Something like that might work. Or, if the lawsuit filed against them is flagrantly groundless enough, the defendant can ask that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees. I think a good start on such a case could be made, considering the suit on its face is based on a lie (ie that the AR-15 is a military weapon).

      • The law/rule exists, but if an article I read a few years ago is correct, the defense seldom wins that judgment. The article alleged that judges and lawyers are part of one big brotherhood, and if they start forcing the plaintiff to pay for bad lawsuits, the financial opportunities available to lawyers would shrink significantly.

        • Sounds about right. Costs/attorney’s fees are hardly ever awarded to the other side. But it’s there in concept anyway.

      • From a PR perspective, going after greiving families is a BAD IDEA. Even if they are acting stupidly and unconstitutonally, it’s just a terrible fight to pick.

        • That thought did cross my mind. OTOH, depending on how flagrantly frivolous the lawsuit is, simply asking for for the plaintiff to reimburse you for your costs for a lawsuit that never should have been filed might not be seen so much as “going after” the plaintiffs.

      • Abuse of process is a cause of action in tort arising from one party making a malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. So far that is NOT the case here. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, a tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the court, i.e., the filing of a facially frivolous action for the purpose of harassment. An element of a claim for malicious prosecution is that the claimant had to have prevailed in the lawsuit. Both are VERY difficult to prove. This case is filed in federal court, and under the Federal Rules of civil Procedure, parties and their attorneys can face court imposed sanctions for misconduct (FRCP Rule 11), and you can be assured that judges are not loath to impose sanctions.

    • Realistically, they may be able to get their costs (including attorneys’ fees), but unlikely anything more. I expect that the defendants will raise this statute in their response, asking for (early) dismissal, and then ask for Rule 11. (Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court) Sanctions (Connecticut most likely has a similar court rule) sanctions for the suit being frivolous, with those sanctions including the attorneys’ fees. And, yes, the case is objectively frivolous, given the statute (15 USC 105 et seq) .

      I do think that it would have been nice if the statute had been written requiring the imposition of attorneys’ fees and the like, if a lawsuit is filed in violation of the statute, but it wasn’t.

      • I may have been a bit hasty there. Most of the states have adopted to some extent the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least in some form, and it is usually fairly easy to map between the FRCP and the rules for those states. But, Connecticut appears to be different. After digging through their court rules, I was unable to find a Rule 11 equivalent.

        That doesn’t make the case non-frivolous though – the federal statute specifically forbids this sort of law suit being brought in any federal OR STATE court in this country. Plus, the statute is pretty clear that federal preemption is envisioned, and that Congress was using its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce to effect this legislation (and, indeed, there is a question whether it would apply in purely intrastate commerce, but that is moot here, since the defendants are mostly intrastate).

        • I’m pretty sure that it was filed in Federal Court, and even if it was filed in state court it is probably removable anyway since liability is dependent upon the proper interpretation of a federal statue.

    • My understanding is that there would first have to be a “successful” law suit against Bushmaster, THEN they could sue for the resulting damages. But I think it’s also true that any competent judge would know the law and simply disallow such a suit against Bushmaster. After all – such suits ARE illegal.

      Worth adding: the Federal law quoted in this article actually came about BECAUSE of the earlier “Progressive”/ Democrat suits aimed at gun maker companies like Smith & Wesson.

  4. “Briefly, the military versions of the AR-15 family are, with a handful of exceptions, actual assault rifles, fully automatic weapons of intermediate caliber. They have not always excelled, and in Vietnam, problems in design, manufacture and ammunition cost many soldiers’ lives.”

    Way back, when I was a young sprout, I remember reading about the rifle that would replace the M-14 in Viet Nam, in Popular Science. The nickname soldiers gave to that Mattel toy in the article?

    “Jamming Jenny”.

  5. There isn’t an army in the world that uses the AR-15, or any other semi-auto, as “standard issue”.

      • Glad it’s not just me. Some gun-grabber lies irritate me more than others, and that is one of the most noxious. Especially when you try to base a lawsuit on it.

    • I’m going to have to talk to my 1SG and get the armorer to change the nomenclature of the weapon on my official record!

  6. There is not a single military in the world that issues AR-15’s to its soldiers. But that doesn’t stop the mantra of “these are military rifles” from the left…

    • It is the Big Lie Theory writ large. Tell a lie big enough and long enough, eventually people will start believing it is true even in the face of facts proving it is not.
      My wife doesn’t think her M&P15 Sport is a military rifle.

  7. Actually, regarding the Wikipedia numbers, Bill Whittle is correct in his video. You need to re-sort the numbers by “Rate”. I’m not sure what the default sort criteria is, since the US numbers will show 91st in the initial view, but 110th now, for some reason, when you hit the “Rate” toggle.

    • THANK YOU!

      Apparently, Mike McDaniel failed at Wikipedia. Click the up/down arrows under Rate once and it orders in ascending order, where America is the 108th safest nation. Click it again to reorder in descending order, where America is listed as 111th most murderous. However, it’s important to note that in both listings, we’re technicly tied with Latvia and Niger in the 4.7 bin. It depends on how the list was ordered prior to clicking the Rate data column to sort descending whether we are 110th, 111th, or 112th most dangerous.

      So, depending on how the list is ordered secondarily, depending only on whether the list is ordered primarily by Rate in descending or ascending order we land at 109 or 110 respectively.

      I think that’s what you call a “happy medium”. (apologies to Madeleine L’Engle)

  8. “6. … The [AR-15] rifle’s size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to the battlefield, are in fact liabilities in home defense.”

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

    It’s a freakin’ varmint rifle, people!

    • Yeah, that one stuck out for me, too – I’d like to know where people are buying this “overwhelming”, “high-powered” 5.56 ammo.

      • I think they are referring to the rapidity of fire, not the power of the cartridge. It’s yet another way to deceptively conflate AR-15s with actual military weapons, basically to imply full-auto capability in reference to a semi-auto rifle.

  9. Let’s compare apples to apples, the rate of ‘evil assault weapons’ use in murders, vs legal ownership, country by country. ‘Crazy America’ won’t even be in the top 100.

  10. No amount of facts will change their mind, theirs is an irrational obsession, based on fear and emotion.

  11. “7. But there is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings. Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired an AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle’s lethal power into our streets, our malls, our places of worship, and our schools.”

    Huh? The Sandy Hook Elementary School attacker used an AR-15 to kill 26 people in 2012. And then Joker tried to use an AR-15 to kill people at the theater in Aurora, Colorado but his rifle promptly jammed and he used a shotgun and/or handgun to kill most/everyone. Finally, Mr. Clackamas Town Center shooter only shot three people. Outside of those three events, I know of no other mass murder event where the attacker/s used AR-15 rifles to kill anyone.

    On the other hand Joker used a shotgun to kill lots of people at the Aurora, Colorado mass murder event. The Washington D.C. Navy Yard killer also used a shotgun to kill lots of people. Of course the University of Texas clock tower spree killer used anything but an AR-15 to kill 16 and wound 32 people.

    • I think you’ve got your facts wrong. As I recall, he started with a shotgun and tear gas, emptied it and moved onto his AR, through which he managed fire 76 rounds (out a 100 round mag) before it jammed. Then he moved to his handguns.

      • Mark N.

        That is a good question. I had heard something different. Where can we find a reliable source that describes what really happened?

        Even if Aurora theater Joker (I refuse to write his name) used his AR-15 to kill many of his victims, that makes only two spree killers that have used an AR-15 for their weapon. Keeping in mind that AR-15s have been available to the public for something like 50 years and they are arguably the most popular rifle these days, it is unremarkable that two (of dozens) of spree killers have used AR-15s for their weapons.

        • I think the most important and commentable factor at Aurora was that in a packed theater, not a single person returned fire, even so much as throwing a cup of soda at the jackass. Pitiful.

  12. Does anyone remember the last time we violated the Bill of Rights in the face of tragedy? Following 9/11, when we said to hell with the 1st, 4,th and 5th ammendments? State-sponsored mass surveilance, torture, and withholding of due process. I feel that it shouldn’t be that hard to envision the consequences of eroding yet another ammendment.

  13. “it ought to be very, very difficult, as it is in every other civilized country, to get your hands on a weapon whose only purpose is to kill people quickly. The N.R.A. and their allies make it very, very easy.”

    Obviously the author wasn’t paying attention to the Charlie Hebdo attack, in which the attackers used fully automatic weapons and an RPG. Obviously it’s not that difficult in France, which has all of the laws he’s clamoring for. Is France not civilized?

    • “Is France not civilized?”

      From the guy who took six years to finish four semesters of college French, I’d say their LANGUAGE is not civilized!

      But German and Mexican beer might have had some influence as well, if I’m totally honest.

      • HAH! A civilized school, you attended! After failing 1st semester French twice in a row (17 avg followed by 63 avg, passing 70) I changed curriculum to avoid language, since failing the same course 3 times equaled expulsion. Plus 2 years of the language would take a long time. Never did figure why I needed 2 years of French as a math major.

  14. “… it ought to be very, very difficult, as it is in every other civilized country, to get your hands on a weapon whose only purpose is to kill people quickly.” — New Yorker magazine

    Quick! We have to contact all of our police chiefs and have them immediately remove all of the AR-15 rifles in their possession! Surely the mission of police is NOT to “kill people quickly”, right?

    By the way does this mean our country is not “civilized” if it is easy for good people to purchase an AR-15 rifle? And why does the New Yorker magazine have the authority to define “civilized”?

    • “Killing people quickly ” as opposed to boring them slowly to death as the New Yorker has been doing for years

    • As goes the joke, the New Yorker is perfectly qualified to comment and judge upon the uncivilized, as they can see New Jersey from their office desks. Whatever lies beyond between New York and Los Angeles is a mystery

  15. “No honest or scrupulous person can any longer reject the evidence that gun control controls gun violence. It can be rejected only by rage and hysteria and denial and with the Second Amendment invoked …” — New Yorker magazine

    Ah yes, the old canard that people who disagree with you are either stupid, crazy, or corrupt — and therefore have no rights of course. I tip my hat to Mr. Ben Shapiro for enlightening me in that regard.

  16. “In arguable truths.”

    “Gun control stops gun violence. Having a gun does not deter crime, it simply makes it more lethal”

    You can believe that is no higher power or that there is no god, and still be a religious fanatic.

  17. “There is nothing so irresistible as an idea that happens to be true.

    Gun possession does not deter crime; it merely makes it more lethal.” — New Yorker magazine.

    Finally, the New Yorker magazine got something right. The irresistible idea that happens to be true: firearms are an invaluable tool that frequently help good people prevail over the sudden attacks of violent criminals … which is why public favor for gun control is evaporating. And, yes, gun possession does make crime more lethal: for the attackers … which is another reason why public favor for gun control is evaporating.

  18. But, seriously, they don’t want to take our guns away, right?

    Au contraire!

    Fmr. President William J. Clinton does.

    “And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”

    “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans …And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – MTV’s “Enough is Enough!”, 22 March, 1994

    “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” – USA Today, 11 March, 1993, pg. 2A

    “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – 12 August, 1993

    “You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – From his speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall Courtyard, 28 May, 1993

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country – anyone except a police officer or military person – to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” – While signing The Brady Bill, 1993

    “The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – MTV, 1993

    “I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” – 11 August, 1993

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.

    “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

    “The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

    Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.

    “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

    He died in 2013.

    Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.

    “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989

    “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

    “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”

    He died in 2008.

    Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.

    “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
    that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”
    – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001

    Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI) did.

    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992

    He died in 1999.

    Then-Senator (now Vice President) Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.

    “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

    Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.

    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp

    “We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” – The Global Dispatch, 12 March, 2013. – Interview by Jason Mattera

    Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.

    “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

    “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” – Congressional Record, 10 November, 1993

    He died in 2013.

    Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.

    “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

    Fmr. Representative Craig Anthony Washington (D – TX) does.

    “This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.” – Mark-up hearing on The Brady Bill, 10 April, 1991

    Fmr. Massachusetts State Governor and State House Representative Michael Dukakis (D) does.

    “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

    Fmr. Representative Henry Waxman (D – CA) does.

    “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”

    Fmr. Representative William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D – MO) does.

    “The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” – St. Louis Dispatch, 6 May, 1991

    Senator Charles Ellis Schumer (D – NY) does.

    “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NBC Nightly News, 30 November, 1993

    Representative Shiela Jackson Lee (D – TX) does.

    “I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) does.

    “I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.”

    Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.

    “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing
    who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”

    Colorado State Senator (and Majority Leader) John Morse (D) does.

    “People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.”

    New Jersey State Senators Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham, and Linda Greenstein all do.

    “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate… They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

    Fmr. California State Senator Leeland Yee (D) does.

    “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.” – CBS San Francisco, 20 May, 2012, before he was arrested and charged with gun-trafficking, taking bribes, money laundering, and official corruption on 24 March, 2014.

    United States Attorney General Eric B. Holder does.

    “[We have to have] as part of the gun initiative, though, an informational campaign to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, D.C., and in particular our young people. They are saturated with guns in media and entertainment, [and] by the entertainment industry with violence, and I think too many of our young people, in particular our young men are fascinated with violence and in particular with guns. And what we need to do is change the way people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that’s not acceptable, that’s not hip, to carry a gun anymore.

    In the way we changed out attitudes about cigarettes, y’know, when I was growing up people smoked all the time. I mean, both my parents did. But, over time we changed the way people thought about smoking, and so now why have people who cower outside of buildings and kinda’ smoke in private and don’t want to admit it. And I think that’s what we need to do with guns.

    … One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we jut have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and really just brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – C-SPAN2, 1995

    Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.

    “Gun registration is not enough.” – On ABC’s “Good Morning America”, 10 December, 1993

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

    Fmr. Director of the ATF John Magaw does.

    “The truth is, [handguns] are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket.” – When interviewed by ABC’s Day One correspondent John McKenzie.

    Boston Police Commissioner William Evans does.

    “Having long guns – rifles and shotguns – especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” – Boston Public Radio, 23 July, 2013

    Fmr. Chief of Police for Los Angeles, California Bernard Parks does.

    “We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for show or someone having it in a collection.” – Reuters, 9 June, 2000

    Fmr. New York City Police Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy did.

    “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.” – Testimony before the National Association of Citizen Crime Commissions.

    He died in 2011.

    Fmr. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara does.

    “My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.”

    East Palo Alto Police Detective Rod Tuason does.

    “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night. Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!”

    He is currently being investigated for ethics violations.

    Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does.

    “I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his . . .

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert C. Brunetti does.

    “No one in this country should have guns. I never return guns.”

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Edward Mullarkey does, too.

    “Those who support the Second Amendment should be ashamed.”

    New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.

    “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” – New York Times, 21 December, 2012

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel does.

    “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

    Fmr. Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass does.

    “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”

    Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.

    “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

    Chester M. Pierce, Fmr. Harvard psychiatrist, does.

    “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” – Speaking as an “expert” in public education, 1973 International Education Seminar

    Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.

    “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”

    He died in 2012.

    Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does.

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

    “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

    “We must get rid of all the guns.” – Speaking on behalf of HCI, with Sheriff Jay Printz (of Printz v. U.S. fame no less!), “The Phil Donahue Show”, September, 1994

    “The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” – Tampa Tribune, 21 October, 1991

    James Brady, husband of Sarah Brady, did.

    “For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments.” – Parade Magazine, 26 June, 1994

    He died in 2014.

    Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI, does.

    “Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition –except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors– totally illegal.” – The New Yorker Magazine, 26 July, 1976, pg. 53F

    Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, does.

    “Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it’s going to be the gun industry.” – Newsweek Magazine, 16 ay, 1994

    “The word ‘hate’ is a very carefully chosen word. There’s got to be a real sense of revulsion and disgust. People are looking for someone to blame, someone who’s the cause of their problems, and it should be the gun industry. These guys are the living embodiment of the slogan, ‘Guns don’t kill people-people kill people’. They’re complete mercenaries.” – The New American Magazine, 13 June, 1994

    “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”

    “We need to ratchet down the firepower in civilian hands. We need to get assault weapons off our streets and off the gun store shelves … We should ban handguns.” – “NRA’s “really big problem”: Why it’s dependent on a dwindling fringe”,, 13 June, 2014.

    Michael K. Beard, Fmr President of The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, does.

    “Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.” – The Washington Times, 9 December, 1993

    Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Action, does.

    “I’ll be pretty clear on this. @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.” – From Twitter, 10 June, 2014

    “Banning assault weapons. If you ban the assault weapons listed in the (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein bill, you would still have 2,000 firearms to choose from.”

    Time Magazine does.

    “As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” – Letter to the NRA, 24 April, 1981

    The New York Times does.

    “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” – Unsigned editorial, 24 September, 1975

    The Washington Post does.

    “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” – “Legal Guns Kill Too”, 5 November, 1999

    The Star-Ledger Editorial Board does.

    “So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.” – “What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks: Editorial”, 19 September, 2014

    Michael Gartner, Fmr. President of NBC News, does.

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” – USA Today, “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?”, 16 January, 1992

    Charles Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – From “Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.”, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1996

    “I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.” – From “The root of mass-murder.”, The Washington Post, 20 December, 2012

    Molly Ivan, another nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” – 19 July, 1994

    Gerald Ensely, of the Tallahassee Democrat, does.

    “How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

    Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

    We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” — In “Stop the insanity: Ban guns”, 23 Bovember, 2014

    “Professor” Dean Morris, Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association does.

    “I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”

    J. Elliot Corbett, Secretary of the National Council for Responsible Firearms Policy, does.

    “We are now supporting the President’s bill which provides stringent restrictions on rifles and shotguns. We shall also get behind the bill which provides for national registration and licensing. I personally believe handguns should be outlawed.” – 17 June, 1968

    “Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” – Interviewed for the Washington Evening Star, 19 September, 1969

    Rosie O’Donnell does.

    “I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999

    “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.

    The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

    “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47, adopted by its Board of Directors in Semptember, 1976

    The United Nations does.

    “Tighten controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations.” – UN Disarmament Commission

    Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkayik (R) knows the truth.

    “I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

    He is currently running for New York State Senator, 41st District.

    Sioux City, MO Mayor Bob Scott knows the truth, too.

    “I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.”

    So does Madeira Beach, FL Mayor Patricia Shontz.

    “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

    Nashua, NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau knows.

    “I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions.”

    Edgewood, KY Mayor John D. Link found out.

    “Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, I was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns, or hunting, and never will be.”

    Oldmans Township, NJ Mayor Harry Moore knows better now.

    “It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg’s] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses, and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception, and falsehoods is disturbing.”

  19. Oh, and for you people who like statistics, remove all of the murders where the attacker used a firearm for their murder weapon (about 2/3 of all murders) and look at the per capita murder rate of the U.S. versus other countries of the world. If we make the utterly foolish assumption that violent attackers would not have used alternate weapons to kill their victims, the U.S. per capita murder rate would still be around 1.6 murders per 100,000 people. That would improve our position from 125th place to 192nd place … still worse than countries like Slovakia, Macedonia, Hungary, Poland, Ireland, Croatia, Portugal, Serbia, Oman, Australia, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Luxemborg, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Monaco.

    In other words our per capita murder rate in the U.S. is the same or worse than all of Europe even if we remove all murders where the attackers used firearms for the murder weapon. Conclusion: we have a murder problem in the United States, not a firearms problem. Correction: we have an urban poverty problem in the United States, not a firearms problem.

    • A poverty of morals, family and values. Most of America’s “poor” are actually doing pretty well, globally speaking.

      We certainly have a problem of too many uneducated, fatherless young men getting benefits to sit around and do nothing.

      We also have a Prohibitiion problem (War on Drugs).

      We have an unassimilated immigrant problem too.

    • …..we have an urban poverty problem…

      That’s a Leftist lie and falsehood.

      Would you go out and kill people if you went bankrupt?

      There are billions of dirt poor people who live moral lives without resulting to violence to try to improve their lot.

      • Excellent point doesky2.

        I like Anon in CT’s description that there is a poverty of values and healthy families in urban centers.

  20. Wow, that photo is gonna give me nightmares. So scary looking.

    The (evil black) rifle is not so bad, however.

  21. I think I’m going sue Chevrolet for making the Corvette because they have knowingly manufactured a car that can get speeding tickets much more easily that other cars!!!
    Chevy has known this for years yet it still sadisticly sells them to middle aged white men all over the country. It makes me sick to think of all the OFWG who have been speeding behind the wheel of this high performance murder machine…

  22. The author asks if they’re right, at least in some ways. I’ll key in on this statement:
    “No honest or scrupulous person can any longer reject the evidence that gun control controls gun violence. It can be rejected only by rage and hysteria and denial and with the Second Amendment invoked, not as a document with a specific and surprising history, but as a semi-theological dogma.”

    I submit that we tend to invoke the Second Amendment too quickly, too often. It’s quite a chore to teach people its true meaning. Rage and hysteria have their place, but we adopt those postures too often, as well.

    The facts are overwhelming in support of gun rights. Over the last twenty years, gun ownership in the US is up big time. Concealed carry (and open carry) permits are up. Big time. Violent crime is down. Big time. Gun accidents are down. Suicide by gun has not significantly changed.

    I’m not minimizing the importance of 2A but we don’t need to throw that in people’s faces every time. Even Supreme Court Justices disagree on its meaning. We just need to show people the facts. The facts are clear, they are overwhelming, and they can’t be disputed by any rational mind.

    • “The facts are clear, they are overwhelming, and they can’t be disputed by any rational mind.”

      You probably already know this but for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t already know, we are not dealing with rational minds. We are dealing with elitists or clinically hysterical people — facts do not matter to either group. We can neither reason nor bargain in good faith with either group. Nor should we bargain about how much of our rights and human dignity they can seize from us solely for their benefit.

  23. Correct me if i am wrong, i could have sworn that the initial reports of Sandy hook said that the ar15 rifle was found in the trunk of the murderer’s car and not on the body of the murderer when the cops took him down. Then why are these idiots filing a law suite against a manufacturer when the gun was never used in the crime?

    • If I recall correctly, initial reports did indicate the bushmaster being found in the trunk, but the official story changed and the shotgun was then Found.

    • I never heard that the “cops took him down”. Did I miss something? The closest I came to information was a picture of his car out front with what appeared to be a body on the ground by the passenger side. I ASSUMED he had committed suicide after he had had enough fun, the cops (as usual) were not involved. Somebody have some actual facts? Even some educated assumptions? Or is everything somehow some kind of freaking SECRET?

  24. So what if a weapon is a military weapon available to civilians. Those are the weapons we are supposed to have. These people need to get over the fact that good people own guns and target criminals and what causes them directly. Yeah, that would take a lot of work. It’s really easy to attack the boogeyman NRA and super scary AR 15s!

  25. What about the most legitimate use of a military rifle in civilian hands, the most legitimate because the Constitution specifically mentions it. For the MILITIA, damnit, which is basically an armed citizenry.

    Also, there is a “civilized country” where “assualt rifles” are easier to get and more prolific: Switzerland. The government gives them to people and lets them keep them even after they retire. Nearly every household has one. Many are fully automatic, not just semi-. And other than one incident in recent years, they have had almost no problems with them. So it’s not the guns, dummies!!!

    Also, who are these people to judge what a “civilized” society is? What is the criteria for that? Is it Europe? Gimmie a break, Europeans have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of human history. I think some so-called “primitive” societies are more civilized.

  26. Guys, I’m thinking, if it gets that far, a Request for Admissions is in order:
    1. Admit that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
    2. Admit that the US Army standard-issue rifle is a select-fire weapon with fully-automatic capability.
    3. Admit that Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Plaintiff’s original Petition are factually inaccurate.
    Etc, etc…..

    If the requested admission is patently true, the requested party must make the admission of face sanctions. Given this particular petition’s character as deceptive propaganda rather than a factual recitation of the basis for a legal cause of action, I think a properly-worded Request for Admissions, followed by a motion to dismiss based on such admissions, could short-circuit the whole thing. But then, I’m something of a legal dreamer…

    • Doesn’t really matter. The case is frivolous on its face, based on the federal statute cited above. It clearly preempts just this sort of lawsuit, in both federal AND STATE courts. Moreover, it clearly preempts state cases such as this, and in 15 U.S. Code § 7901 – Findings; purposes, lays out the justification for the preemption, and predicates it under Congress’ power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. I do not see a good faith attempt to ignore or modify the reach of the statute possible, and if there were, it isn’t found in the pleadings. If Connecticut had followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which they don’t appear to have), or it had been filed in federal court (which it wasn’t), you could probably move to dismiss even before requesting admissions. They failed to state a claim upon which they could legally gain relief.

      • Ah, yes, the 12(b) (6) motion, as I recall. I don’t recall, do the pleadings even attempt to address the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act issue?

  27. Fyi, actually we are still 111th. Default sorting on that Wikipedia article had us at 91, but if you click the column to sort by per 100k capita, we’re 111.

    • I confess that I am often guilty of stereotyping people and judging them on their appearance, though it is a human failing that has not served me well.

      All I can say is, if she was pro-2A she would be welcome to shoot next to me at the range. We don’t know much about her opinions on that. She’s a Connecticut State Trooper following orders.

  28. Ban keyboards and other methods of typing in the hands of gun banners and see if they consider the 1st Amendment a “dogma.”

  29. Remember they qualify the hell out of it with “Developed nation” or “1st World nation” or anything that gets Russia, South Africa, Brazil and all the rest of South America out of the mix.

    …and some of those countries below us on that list? Like Iran or Libya? I suspect they’re lying.

  30. The insanity of the Left and gun-grabbers is demonstrated by their tearing down of the school and house like those inanimate objects are cursed.

    To boot their side is always the ones yapping about how “nuanced” their though process is.

    Total F’ing imbeciles.

  31. If they can win they can go after all semi-auto firearms. They will take the pro-firearm arguments of comparing the similarity of firearms and say, see, they are all the same and must all be outlawed. Nothing could stop them.
    But of course this is exactly what will stop them. The similarities. It makes their argument non-nonsensical and impossible.
    We need an AR-15 makeover to make it look as boring as possible. Hold the two up and ask if this one would be better?

    • They won’t win, though. The “lawsuit”, if it can even be called that, flies in the face of federal law. As soon as a motion to dismiss is filed, it must be thrown out under the law.

      This is literally nothing more than harassment.

  32. Why Bushmaster hasn’t asked this simple question that would put this whole circus to bed is beyond me.

    Why were there no prints or DNA of Adam Lanza’s found on the Bushmaster, or as the official report says; “insufficient amplification products to generate DNA profiles…” and “no identifiable latent impressions found” (per page 2, section 1, of document #06223)

    I’m making no accusations nor am I offering any theories, only what the official CT State Police Forensic Laboratory Reports prove.

  33. Gun-banners demand more guns laws, which lead to more gun-free zones, which lead to more mass shootings, which lead to more demands for more gun laws.

    Methinks the only way they can claim the moral high ground is by standing atop the pile of corpses their laws create.

Comments are closed.