Progressives Anti-Gun Dialogue Won't Listen Conversation
courtesy dreamstime.com

By MarkPA

“Poor people own guns. The elite have bodyguards.”  So opines Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine. Progressive elites imagine that drumming the message of gun control will get out the vote of the traditionally captive constituents of the Democrat Party. Instead, they might be having precisely the opposite effect.

Feelings about gun-control range widely on both sides. There are roughly as many Americans with pro-gun sentiments as those with anti-gun sentiments. The difference is that pro-gun sentiment runs deep in the hearts of gun owners, but anti-gun beliefs less so in the minds of non-gun owners.

Plenty of gun owners don’t bother to vote and plenty of non-gun owners don’t vote consistently. As long as gun control isn’t on the agenda in an election, gun owners have less motivation to vote or to get their friends and neighbors to. Fire up the debate on gun control, and the fuse is lit that calls out the militia!

Gun control is just one more plank in the progressive platform, and not the most urgent. Economic issues, civil rights, excessive force by police, public services and more are immediate and compelling progressive issues. But do calls to repeal the Second Amendment bring out one more Democrat voter or one more gun-owning voter? That can be a losing proposition for the forces of gun control.

What could progressives do to defend their overall agenda, along with doing “something” to lessen deaths and injuries from gunshots? It’s a tough question, one that progressives need to answer for themselves.  The first step should be to gather objective information.

What, exactly, is “gun violence”? Who dies? Who is wounded? Start with the numbers. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide and one-third are homicides. (Accidents account for only a couple percent.  Injuries matter but deaths are better measured and the most used guide.) For any proposed policy, what effect might be expected on these two major losses?

Take the “assault weapons” ban. What is an “assault weapon” and how would a ban impact those numbers?  An “assault weapon” is, like art, in the eye of the beholder.  In the various state and federal (now expired) laws, the type is defined by one or two “evil features” such as:

  • bayonet mount
  • grenade launcher mount
  • barrel shroud
  • pistol grip
  • threaded muzzle
  • flash suppressor
  • detachable magazine

Curiously, the bayonet mount has disappeared from some of the latest proposals. Is it conceivable that legislators have discovered the paucity of “bayoneting” as the declared cause of death?  (None ever by civilians in the United States.)

What would a thorough review of death certificates reveal about loss of life from grenades launched from “assault weapons”?

What is a barrel shroud and why should it be regulated?  When this question was posed to anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy she responded: “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is. I think it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”  That’s not the right answer.

And on it goes: pistol grip, threaded muzzle, flash suppressor. How does each of these cause harm?  Why bother banning guns with these “evil features”?  Is a barrel shroud the hill to die on—possibly jeopardizing other parts of the progressive agenda?

Let’s turn to detachable magazines and the number of cartridges they hold.   Does this bear on lethality?   If the maximum capacity of detachable magazines were reduced nationwide from 30 to just 10, what would be the impact on suicide statistics?  Repeat the exercise with homicides.  The vast majority involve a single victim.  How many gunshots does that take? Then what about mass killings?   Mass shooting perpetrators have accomplished comparable death tolls by changing smaller capacity magazines and using multiple guns.  Then ask, how many rounds does it take to defend oneself against multiple armed attackers?

Requiring “universal background checks” is a goal that comes in and out of fashion. But is this any way to reduce smuggling, straw purchasing, clandestine manufacturing or gun thefts that supply the black market?

Gun registration, enabled by requiring checks for every transfer, is ever popular. Canada’s long gun registration led to spending billions before abandoning it because it solved no crimes.  In Haynes v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that felons can’t be required to register their guns under the Fifth Amendment.  A registration regime can be effective only to the extent that it stems the transfer of guns from legal owners to prohibited persons. How, again, will that affect smuggling, straw purchasing, clandestine manufacturing or gun theft?  But dealing with these supposes that we are willing to prosecute these offenses aggressively. And neither universal background checks nor universal registration are supported by majorities once their consequences are explained.

Any gun control proposal should pass certain tests.  How would it reduce mortality or morbidity?  Are there easy ways to evade the law?  Would it impact most heavily criminals or law-abiding citizens?  Would the law-abiding accept vigorous enforcement and strong penalties for violation?  Does each proposal tend, on balance, to promote voter turnout by those who are pro- or anti-gun?

But surely something must be done!  What, specifically?  Preferably, something that could realistically reduce death and injury.  Could the taxpayer’s dollar be better spent on some alternative endeavor?  For example, suicide prevention in general?  Crime control interventions?  School security measures?   Gun owners would be allies—skeptical to be sure—in efforts that might really have positive impact.  To make common cause with gun owners, progressives need offer respectful, honest and wide ranging dialogue.

Legal gun owners have as much, and maybe more, interest in reducing shooting deaths and injuries than progressives.  Suicides by gun impact the community of gun owners along with those close to the deceased. Homicides by gun impact gun owners just as much as progressives.  If gunshot deaths could be cut in half, there might be less demand for still more gun control.

So, what could we talk about?

First, there is plenty of public appetite to enforce the laws forbidding felons from possessing guns.  Can we impose sentences on violators that are stiff enough to discourage adjudicated felons and violent misdemeanants, straw buyers, and those who aid illegal gun possession?  These will disproportionately be members of minority communities, given their disproportionate representation among criminals. Yet, it is precisely these communities that suffer as victims of shootings.  Would trading more minorities in prison for fewer in the morgue be seen as positive for the affected communities?

Second, gun law reform and, more generally, weapons law reform.  Do our laws regarding weapons possession and use apply justly and equitably to all citizens?  If not, are we willing to discuss the points of contention?

Third, background checks.  What, exactly, do we hope to accomplish by them?  Should they be enforced at “point of sale” or at “point of contact” when a police officer encounters a person possessing a gun?  Intrinsic to background checks are the criteria that prohibit an individual from having a gun.  Are these criteria meaningful?  And what are the mechanisms for restoring rights to those who have lost them but have become rehabilitated?

So long as no one from the progressive camp is willing to engage in dialogue, there will be no gun owners to meet with them. The battle will play out at the ballot box and be decided by those who have the deeper commitment to vote. Are Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation spending their money productively?  We believe not.

 

’MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

86 COMMENTS

    • Is that what your girl said on meeting your twin brother, lol? Seriously, I’m an enthusiastic gunowner who’s also concerned about how many cretins, careless slobs, and unhinged folk are walking or driving around. Recent experience should be teaching us that high-capacity firepower just mixes badly with the apparent modern desire of a few people to slaughter groups of people at one time. To protect the innocent majority of our people without harming gunowners one whit (high-cap weapons aren’t used or needed in hunting, sport or target-shooting or the overwhelming near-total of defensive situations in the US) I’d be entirely willing to some legal constraints on anyone’s ability to spray and pray as their inner voices direct.

      Would you really consider such measures to be ‘giving another inch’ that you feel unable to spare? Why?

      • Turns out I’m uninterested in making any concessions to the overwrought fears of yet another ignorant holier-than-thou moron shouting the same worn-out tripe like it’ll actually do anything useful.

        • Is that how you ‘win’ arguments, by insulting people because they dare to disagree with you? You write like a barfly who feels smart after a few doubles.

        • Arguing the issue with you would be a waste of time and energy. You asked a question and received an answer. Now you’ll continue being ignorant and self-righteous, and I’ll get on with my day. That’s a mighty big accusation coming from a guy who started with a lame dick joke though.

      • The ONLY reason laws work is the fear of the penalty. More laws won’t make us safer; eliminating the restrictions on our natural right to defend ourselves will.

      • We do have to admit that the 2nd Amendment guaranties our right to keep and bear arms. Not multiple magazines or speedloaders.

        • We have to admit that the 10 th ammendment only grants those powers to government enumerated in the constitution. Magazine capacity and barrel length is not mentioned. So such regulation is off limits.

          I for one, think the Supreme Court got the main ruling wrong in US v Miller but they did agree with the government argument that “… The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons …”

        • My good sir, we should also remember that “Arms” includes cannon in the eyes of the Founders. It includes being equally matched to the arms of the government. The purpose of the 2A is not hunting or plinking, or even self defense. These things were not even in question. The purpose is so we the people have tools with which we can overthrow a government engaged in tyranny against us. The real question is are we there yet?

        • And what exactly do you think ‘arms’ means? A powder horn and bag of lead balls? The right to a musket or bolt action deer rifle? A revolver with a bullet you keep in your shirt pocket? The word comes from the old french ‘armes’ which means weapons of a warrior. The founding fathers did not want a standing army, as we had just had a bad experience with those, thus every citizen (the militia) was guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms should an army need to be raised. Plus that whole last line of defense against a tyrannical government thing.

        • That’s not how America was designed. Only the powers given by the people and within a specific jurisdiction… America wasn’t designed to be a fascist country where the government has all the power and they can decide what you can do or have.

          liberty: n. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

        • Multiple magazines and speedloaders?

          Speedloaders.

          Speedloaders?

          Can you please spell out how taking away speedloaders prevents one death? I’m kind of slow and I’m just not getting it.

          While you’re at it, could you please estimate how many lives a ban on multiple magazines might save and how many murderers would be likely to comply with it?

        • “Not multiple magazines or speedloaders.”
          Huh? Richard Turyn, you’re pretending to be a gun-owning FUDD, but talking about needing to ban “multiple magazines or speedloaders” shows you don’t own any guns because you have no clue what these things are. Maybe you think a speedloader is the “shoulder thing that goes up,” LOL.
          And what in the world is a “multiple magazine”? There is no such thing, nobody’s ever heard of such a thing, nobody’s ever used that term before.
          It makes me wonder if you know one end of a gun from the other. FYI, the end with a little hole in it is the end where the bullet comes out (you’re welcome).

          Do you actually think there’s a need to ban speedloaders?
          Since when has any speedloader ever been used in any crime? FYI, so-called “speedloaders” were popular in the 1970s (cops used them, e.g. the movie Dirty Harry), because they’re only used by people who still use revolvers, just so they can load a new cylinder (5 or 6 bullets) into their revolver a little quicker than loading loose rounds from their pocket, but still slower than a pistol. (FYI, a pistol is a handgun that’s not a revolver, and most pistols are semiautomatic). Speedloaders don’t make a revolver any more dangerous, and they don’t even make it as quick to load as a semi-automatic pistol (unless you’re Jerry Mikulec).

          Or maybe you were thinking of the Uplula Speedloader, which is a device to keep your thumbs from getting sore while loading magazines for semiautomatic pistols, but loading is still slow with this device. It doesn’t make loading fast (in my experience), it only keeps your thumbs from getting sore. Using an Uplula Speedloader is still a lot slower than swapping out magazines in a pistol!

          2) You think the government should ban “multiple magazines”? what in the world is a “multiple magazine”? There is no such thing. Do you not know what a magazine is, or are thinking that nobody should be able to own more than one magazine? Okay, then what’s next, nobody is allowed to own more than one book, or nobody is allowed to go to church more than once a year? FYI, ammo magazines quickly wear out with use, they often break, and they frequently jam, so you always need to have a couple spares on hand. (Side story: one of my ancestors fought in WWI, and he would have been shot by the Germans, but his pistol jammed so he was taken prisoner instead of being killed). Are you saying that citizens should only be allowed one magazine, and then when that magazine breaks, jams, wears out, or gets lost, the citizen has to fill out paperwork and apply to the government to get a replacement magazine?
          It’s ridiculous (and unconstitutional) to limit someone to only one magazine. That would negate the main advantage of having a pistol instead of a revolver! The government has no right to limit how many magazines you own, whether they’re pistol magazines (2nd Amendment) or news magazines (1st Amendment)!

          So admit it, Richard Turyn, you’re not a gun-owning FUDD, you don’t own any guns and know nothing about guns at all.

      • There are 120 milion plus or minus gun owners. The vast majority are law abiding and peaceable. I recommend you strive to keep them that way. Not all are joking when they say, “If you come for my guns, you’ll get them bullets first”. More and more are joining the ranks of “ I want my cake back”.

        See if this resonates with your expectation for ‘compromise’.

        https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/

        • If you believe that ANY significant numbers of people will go down the one-way, dead-end street you seem to prefer, you don’t have a hope. America’s patriotic, law-abiding people will shun those who threaten violence as if that could be an intelligent way to behave.
          P.S., Inciting others and cooperating with efforts to prevent the enforcement of American laws can carry a 20-year Federal prison sentence. Don’t let it happen to you or anyone you like.

        • Sorry Richard, but you say that “20 year prison” thing as though a citizen who feels the line has been crossed and is willing to die/kill for their convictions cares about a 20-year prison sentence. There seems to be a rather wide disconnect in your thinking; you don’t seem capable of acknowledging the fact that there are indeed people who are willing to go to war to protect their rights (about 3%) and an equal number willing to kill those people to take those rights away. That number has been pretty consistent since the Revolutionary War. Most people just want to be left alone, which is why freedom movements tend to win. History has shown that the 3% who are willing to kill you to take your rights aren’t too picky about who they’re killing.

        • Richard, just because your too cowardly to act when the time comes doesnt mean the rest of us are.

      • Recent experience should be teaching us that high-capacity firepower just mixes badly with the apparent modern desire of a few people to slaughter groups of people at one time.”

        – So what? We don’t remove or restrict basic civil rights because an incredibly small minority misuse those rights.

        “To protect the innocent majority of our people without harming gunowners one whit”

        – How would any ban on standard capacity magazines or ‘assault weapons’ “protect the innocent majority”?

        “(high-cap weapons aren’t used or needed in hunting, sport or target-shooting or the overwhelming near-total of defensive situations in the US)”

        – Incorrect and irrelevant. Standard capacity magazines are an absolute requirement when hog hunting, for one thing. For another, ‘need’ as you suggest it is fundamentally subjective. It does not devolve to you to adjudicate what another person does or does not ‘need’ to defend themselves. On yet another point, the second amendment was absolutely not written because the framers were under threat of hunting shortfalls; it was written to ensure the people – all the people – had the ability to defend themselves from tyranny.

        “I’d be entirely willing to some legal constraints on anyone’s ability to spray and pray as their inner voices direct.”

        – Great. Good for you. Again, however, it is not up to you to determine limits on or abrogations of other people’s civil rights.

        “Would you really consider such measures to be ‘giving another inch’ that you feel unable to spare? Why?”

        – Why yes, what you and your fellows are suggesting as ‘compromise’ is absolutely a demand that law abiding gun owners ‘give up another inch’. When we say not one more, we mean not one more. “Shall not be infringed” is crucial.

        • I’ve put your words in quotes and given you respectful answers.

          “– So what? We don’t remove or restrict basic civil rights because an incredibly small minority misuse those rights.”

          Sure we do, constantly. We can’t buy fully-automatic weapons at the hardware store (where Thompson smg used to be available to any grownup with $35), merely because a few dozen 1930s bank robbers mis-used them

          “– How would any ban on standard capacity magazines or ‘assault weapons’ “protect the innocent majority”?”

          By preventing crazy people from buying them over the counter and using them to do the mass shootings we all abhor.

          “– Incorrect and irrelevant. Standard capacity magazines are an absolute requirement when hog hunting, for one thing. ”

          Do you need a tag to hunt? For those who actually hunt, the tag could license the magazine reasonably needed. The laws already do this, e.g., with times when hunts can and can’t use shotguns, slugs, etc.

          “– For another, ‘need’ as you suggest it is fundamentally subjective. It does not devolve to you to adjudicate what another person does or does not ‘need’ to defend themselves.”

          You might be better off having an enthusiastic gunowner writing gun control laws but I don’t want the job. The Heller decision (which I agree with) left localities a lot of police power to exercise re guns, cars (you know what street-legal means, right?) and lots of other things.

          “– On yet another point, the second amendment was absolutely not written because the framers were under threat of hunting shortfalls; it was written to ensure the people – all the people – had the ability to defend themselves from tyranny.”

          If the government becomes tyrannical as many are warning about the crazies who’ve been keeping children in cages and lying about it, you’ll be dead or in a prison hospital about 24 hours after you’ve taken up arms against it. Being outgunned isn’t while you’d fail, either.

          I’d be entirely willing to some legal constraints on anyone’s ability to spray and pray as their inner voices direct.”

          “– Great. Good for you. Again, however, it is not up to you to determine limits on or abrogations of other people’s civil rights.”

          Again, I don’t want that job. That’s why I employ senators and other public employees. You employ them too.

          Would you really consider such measures to be ‘giving another inch’ that you feel unable to spare? Why?

          “– Why yes, what you and your fellows are suggesting as ‘compromise’ is absolutely a demand that law abiding gun owners ‘give up another inch’. When we say not one more, we mean not one more. “Shall not be infringed” is crucial.”

          As I mentioned to someone else here, think about 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy, and 20 years in a Supermax for working against US laws in illegal ways.

          Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I really am.

        • “(where Thompson smg used to be available to any grownup with $35)”

          Incorrect. The price back then was about $250, each. Roughly $3,600 in 2018 dollars.

          Richard, are you aware of what the word “regulated” meant at the time the constitution was written? Not ‘Government regulations’ that Progressives go ga-ga for, it meant ‘regulated’, as in “proper working order”. “A gang who could shoot straight”, so to speak.

          Now, on to high magazine capacity, that you seem to think didn’t exist in the late 1700s. It did. The Girandoni air rifle had a magazine capacity of 20 rounds and could fire them a few seconds apart. For back then, that was like a machine gun.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juOQ9Ij3G1c

          You seem quite passionate about the issue of ‘gun violence’, Richard. where was your outrage 25 years back when over twice as many a year were being slaughtered? We’re not hearing any gratitude for such a wonderful accomplishment…

        • Single point re: “street legal vehicles”…. anybody (meaning ANYBODY) can buy any (meaning ANY) car they want from eBay and have it delivered to their front door. No background check, no age restriction, no safety certificate, no training, no inspections etc. To use that car on public property requires training, licensing, de-facto registration, equipment checks, exposure to citation enforcement, etc…. in the gun world that’s called getting a “concealed carry license” or “open carry license”. Be careful about comparing gun ownership to vehicle ownership. That is an argument we will win 8 days a week.

        • “If the government becomes tyrannical as many are warning about the crazies who’ve been keeping children in cages and lying about it, you’ll be dead or in a prison hospital about 24 hours after you’ve taken up arms against it. Being outgunned isn’t while you’d fail, either.”

          Tyrannical governments have failed to suppress populations FAR less well armed than ours. Simply put the only possible way our current soft tyranny could possibly evolve into a hard tyranny is post-disarmament. This is as designed.

      • You do actually need a “high capacity” magazine in competition. That’s not important because guns are not toys, they are tools.

        You do need more than 10 rounds to effectively protect life, liberty and property when you are attacked by multiple attackers at the same time. Yes, bad people like to team up to attack their prey just like a pack of wolves, lions or other pack predators.

        I have had a few times when multiple gang members tried to commit a crime against my friends and I. There was a time a car full of them tried to “catch us slipping” for their gang initiation. Another example happened when we were walking through “their” park at night. The car incident had about 4 of them, the park incident had at least 5 of them (one was already in a wheelchair from a prior shooting). Imagine if I had to shoot them to prevent victimization of my friends and myself. I would have needed:

      • Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
        Spineless worms like yourself are why our second amendment rights have been eroded so far already.

        • I’ve been against most gun-control laws all my life. I still have to obey the ones that exist. I don’t like it that crazies are murdering strangers or anyone in mass shootings but I think that it’s really vital for the government to do what our representatives can figure out as ways to prevent such atrocities. If the Supreme Court disagrees with what’s done, that’s how you’ll get legal relief. Not by threatening armed insurrections or other fantasies.

        • The supreme court has shown that it is very fickle depending on the political winds. We have a second ammendment so we don’t have to depend on the whims of 9 unelected people for our freedom…. If those same 9 people said the 13th and 14th amendments were unconstitutional, would we all shrug our shoulders and start buying black people? “Oh well…. It’s the law.” ….. no!… We’d have a civil war where rights and freedom are determined by men with guns.

          And, yes…. the government is meant to be scared of the armed population. They should be terrified of us. We weren’t meant to cower in our homes behind locked doors fearful that we could spend 20 years in prison for mear possession of a few trinkets of metal. Those kind of sentences were meant for the worst of criminals; not for the ordinary citizen in order that the government could effect social change through fear.

      • I would love to carry a sword around for defensive use. I will never give up my guns, but why can’t I carry a sword too? Swords are covered under “arms.” Fudd.

        • If you come to Texas, you can in fact legally carry a sword. Not to long ago, the law changed to allow that (not that it should have been illegal in the first place, but I digress). I would almost say that a 3 ft blade is more intimidating than a pistol even though the pistol has a longer reach.

        • I’m pretty sure here in CA you can also carry a sword. I do not believe that there is a length limit on an open carry blade…..

      • Hunting, target shooting, and self-defense are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, defending a free state is. It turns out that the “ability to spray and pray” is sometimes a necessity in defense of freedom, otherwise known as war. So no, not one more inch, and those other infringed inch also need to be taken back; unless, of course, being able to live as a free man isn’t actually important to you.

      • Richard T. Beyond the whole shall not be infringed of armaments suitable for the battle field by the the whole people; it wouldn’t make any difference; there are multiple examples of mass shootings with low capacity firearms. One example with a man with a pump action shot gun at the Washington ship yards 12 dead and 3 injured, and then another at Virginia Tech with 33 dead and 12 injured by a guy with a Glock and a bunch of 10 rnd mags.

        So no, no more compromises with gun grabbers doing Kabuki theater.

      • Article asks if anyone on the other side wants to talk

        Richard Turyn comments with a disagreeing opinion, clearly explained

        Next two commenters just call him names and don’t engage his point.

        This is a problem

        • For the record, he opened with an insult labelled as a joke, then proceed to lecture as though he was looking down his nose at everyone “beneath” him. That does tend to prevent serious discussion.

      • Magazine capacity has no bearing on lethality when the time to armed intervention is measured in minutes or hours and the victims are defenseless. Most of these mass murderers could have used single shot break actions to kill just as many.

        On the flip side, having more ammo on tap when defending yourself or others is never a bad thing. Missed shots happen, especially during an adrenaline dump. Sometimes multiple shots are required to stop a threat. Home invasions of three or more intruders are not unheard of. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and said “I wish I didn’t have so much ammo.”

    • just observed a black guy…who’s apparently affiliated with the NRA…get interviewed by bill maher…he presented himself and his pro-gun position quite well…seemed to intimidate maher a bit…at one point he said “I don’t want to make you mad”….which was hilarious….

  1. Your article is 100% logic and 0% emotion. You do not seem to have even the most rudimentary understanding of leftist ideology. It may not seem so, but that is a compliment.

    I believe discussion is not possible as we no longer speak the same language.

    • Democrats are changing the definition of many words and concepts in order to mind control their followers. Ask them what the definition of racism is to see what I mean. You can’t carry on a fruitful conversation when the sounds coming out of your mouth are the same as theirs but they mean different things. I would like to be able to say it’s surprising how effectively it works…

      That’s why I don’t simply throw out words. I explain myself with as many words I have to in order to convey what I mean instead of relying on them to comprehend me with their interpretation of the English language. You see how they “interpret” the 2nd Amendment.

  2. “Willing to talk” carries the same message as when said by my significant other: Shut up and listen to me, and tell me I’m right when I ask you.

    P.S. Don’t EVER stop listening, mid “conversation”.

  3. I’d rather shave my eyeballs than spend a single second talking to gun grabbers or any of their brainless minions.

    • Ah, I guess I’m brainless because I have a professional degree, a working lifetime of being paid for the advice I give, of reading many hundreds of books and daily current events honestly reported by journalists who hate official lying. I wonder whether I’m quite the opposite of you, which certainly would make you think I’m brain-less. Funny, I’d never make the mistake of so quickly judging a stranger. As a matter of self-preservation, boy.

      • “…daily current events honestly reported by journalists who hate official lying”

        I would dearly love to know where you obtain honest reporting! I’m afraid most everything one can lay eyes on is steeped in agenda/propaganda. As Mark Twain is (likely erroneously) credited with saying, “If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed”

      • “I have a professional degree, a working lifetime of being paid for the advice I give, of reading many hundreds of books and daily current events honestly reported by journalists who hate official lying”

        First, your “degree” isn’t in gunsmithing, so not sure why anyone here would care that you have a degree. A lot of people have degrees and that doesn’t make them better than others, or even intelligent.

        Second, “you read books”….that doesn’t mean anything at all other than you can read. Everyone here can, I know this because there are very few pictures.

        Third, “current daily events written by reporters that hate lying”……yes, your brain-less if you think there is ANY news organization in America that is factual and without any bias.
        ——————————————————————————————————————————————–

        Plainly put, it is nice that you have an opinion….we all do. No one cares and your opinion is not better than anyone else’s. Please stop trying to shove your opinion down everyone else’s throat because no one thinks your opinion is important other than you (not to mention you haven’t written anything that anyone here hasn’t seen a thousand times before……it has gotten old).

        You don’t need to make your opinion known on everyone else’s comments, Just write your opinion and move on…..

      • Your “pedigree” is meaningless. And let me point out you are trying to use it as an excuse to bolster your opinion over others here who have responded in rebuttal. You be You and I’ll be Me and I don’t give a rats patootie how you feel about guns because the 2A doesn’t bestow any right, it’s a statement of acknowledgement covering such things as I get to band together with my neighbors to defend myself against a tyrannical govt, or some puke in a WalMart parking lot. Now it’s your call whether you consider that important or not, but you don’t get a say in my choices. Cause SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That’s our forefathers saying STFU no further discussion on the matter. Your flawed interpretation would indicate I get to start deciding things about you. You wouldn’t like that now would you?

      • Ooh! A professional degree! One does not have to know what the actual laws are to be a “lawyer,” or have more than a cursory understanding of how the human body works to be a “doctor.” All you need to know is how to manipulate the situation at hand and improvise, then charge lots of money. High and mighty, pompous ass, FUDD.

        • FUDD would mean he “supports gun rights, but….” When he was writing at the begining of the comments section, I believe he was being disingenuous and trying to make us think he was a FUDD. But, man oh man, did he take Ralph’s comment personnal!

          “….rather shave my eyeballs than spend a single second talking to gun grabbers or any of their brainless minions.”

          He ACTUALLY sees himself as a “gun grabber” and/or one of their “brainless minions” … his only response was to wave around how “smart” he is….. “Just ask him! he’s more then happy to tell you how smart he is! Everybody, come here! Lets listen to him tell us how smart he is! Look children! A self proclaimed smart man! He even has a piece of paper to show us how smart he is! He can read AND watch T.V. news?!?! Holy moly he’s smart! 100 books you say? Wow! Thats like 4 books a year for 25 years!” ….. as a self proclaimed idiot, I’ve done all those things multiple times over. He’s a got a way to go before he can even claim to be dumb.

      • @ Richard
        having a degree only means that you retain information you have read and can spout that back on command. it means nothing more than that. i have met doctors who can’t diagnose a common cold as opposed to a chest infection yet they still have a degree. i have met engineers whose structures would fall down if you blew on them yet my grandfather was a self taught engineer who “qualified” engineers came to when they had a problem that they were having trouble with for his advice. a couple of those engineers gave their own eulogies at his funeral and said his expertise was far above their own yet he never had ANY “qualifications”. as for degrees in journalism. these days all it means is you have a degree in twisting the truth. the few that dont are like hens teeth and very refreshing to find. a degree in law is about the same.

        • Richard will rat you out.
          Identify the people like him in your AO and prepare to deal with them when the time comes.
          They could be in your own family.

        • yeah i have met a few of them in my time. they quickly get left behind family or not as i wont tolerate their BS. the only (blood) family member i am really close to was going on with the whole anti-gun BS and i put the truth to her quite firmly and harshly. she hated me for it however a couple months later after trump suggested teachers should be able to be armed in school she brought it up as though it may be a positive step though she was waiting to see where it went from there. too many readily believe “authority” figures instead of thinking for themselves. i am not and never have been one of those. i was a thorn in my parents sides as a kid because of it 🙂

      • All the TV news channels and major newspapers in the U.S. are owned by just three conglomerates. If you don’t view the media with skepticism, then you’re a dupe. They’ve been caught making news too many times to be trusted. Too often, their sources are other news articles whose idea of research is reading the Wikipedia page on a topic. When they aren’t making the news they’re putting a spin on real news, distorting it to the point where you might not even realize that two articles from different media brands are talking about the same event.

      • “Ah, I guess I’m brainless because I have a professional degree, a working lifetime of being paid for the advice I give, of reading many hundreds of books and daily current events honestly reported by journalists who hate official lying.”

        The above proving that having a professional degree doesn’t mean you have any logical thought processes or the ability to analyze statistics to come up with a logical conclusion. I feel for those following you advice.

        or …

        You are just a hopeless troll (most likely).

  4. Didn’t even bother to read the article.
    The question only has one answer.
    NOPE
    Doesn’t matter anymore.
    We cant give one more inch.
    They wont listen to anything and just demand.
    Well screw them and their demands.
    I wont give another inch more.
    I might just take some things back on my own.
    20K + laws and nothing changes.
    Criminals are always going to disobey laws.
    Libitards are well……….retarded………there I said it and believe it too. I wont waste anymore of my time on them.
    Unjust laws demand to be disobeyed.

    • But I’m pretty sure you’re a supportive fan of our police. Try saying that if one of them feels a reasonable belief that you may be breaking a law, any law.

      • Nope. Police exist because government thinks we can’t clean up our own streets. And in places where people don’t parent their progeny I suppose that’s true.

        Of all the books you’ve read, have you stumbled upon Ayn Rand? Some interesting ideas about crime and law.

        For my part, whether or not something is lawful has little relation to if it is moral, ethical, right or wrong. Law is written by man and man is fallible. I’ll trust it not.

      • Oh trust me I have.
        The town I lived in when in NY had over 3K state troopers for southern and south eastern NY state. 99.9% supported individual gun rights. A lot wont enforce 1 bit of the SAFE Act.
        Here in Florida Im very friendly with the local Deputies. The Captain is in the store at least once a week.
        Most LEOs support individual gun rights and don’t care for state laws when it comes to a licensed gun owner.
        I personally use the local city indoor police range. I was given a key to it. I can go there 24/7 when I wish to.

      • Richard T. The Statist….. In your world the police seem to exist to manufacture social change through fear and intimidation. I haven’t heard you say one positive thing about police in any of your posts but you seem stuck on: “The police know everything and you’ll go to prison for 20 years” more or less….. People like you tend to despise the police, call them racist, burn and riot when the “honestly reporting journalists who hate official lying” report fake news. Yet, irony of ironies, you want them to possess a monopoly on violence and force.

        Also, “reasonable belief” is meaningless as a prosecution tool. It just means a cop can tapdance in your sh*t even though he hasn’t seen you break a law. He can devolop probable cause based on what shakes out and actually arrest you, but reasonable suspicion is predicated on what the cop is willing to pursue. Like was said above, over 90% of cops support an armed citizenry and oppose gun control laws that disproportionately burden the citizenry and have little effect on REAL crime (not to be confused with contrived crimes that social engineers manufacture)…. Again, in your world cops will doggedly hunt down anybody who even thinks about violating a weapons possetion law… In reality, 9 out of 10 cops don’t care.

  5. For what it’s worth, I have actually had some constructive conversations about firearms with people that I disagree with. Some pretty progressive, but open-minded, friends of mine who are actually interested in progress and want government policies that produce a better society for everybody. The trick is avoiding activists and also avoiding the types of pro-gun sloganeering and talking points that get repeated over and over again. Have an open and honest discussion, listen to their points, listen to their experiences, and meet them where they’re at. Don’t look at them as the enemy, somebody who wants to take your rights away, because they probably don’t see it that way, and they’ve heard those arguments already. Listen to their concerns, and gently shift the focus from (for example) “guns are bad” to something more like “we want to be safe.” It is also often helpful to not argue from a pro-gun perspective, but instead to concede that killing and death are bad things, and we would like that to not happen. In this example, I find it’s useful to bring up things like the old saying, “God created people, Sam Colt made them equal.” Another thing I’ve found useful is not pretending that I have the solution to all of society’s issues, and that if everybody just went along with my gun policy positions, everything would be perfect. Writing good policies is difficult, and people disagree on that plenty. By not claiming to have solved the problem, and taking a more conciliatory position like “yeah, it’s a difficult problem to solve, I don’t know if this will turn out the way I expect it to,” you can get people to let their guard down a bit. It’s no longer an argument about which of you is right, it’s the two of you looking at a difficult problem together and hoping we can find a good solution and make the world a better place.

    • There is no solution as long as the other side sticks to what is drummed into their collective heads.
      Useless bias untruths backed by lies and no factual evidence is refuted by us with facts.
      You cant talk to a closed mind. Those types wont believe you anyway.
      So why even bother at this point anymore??
      Yes you can talk amongst friends about the subject. Some will actually listen and some even persuade by facts.
      Im tired of banging my head on the wall talking with unreasonable idiots on a daily basis.
      I for one just wont bother anymore.

      • I like exposing fascists/socialists/communists for being white supremacists. It’s even better if you can catch them on video for the world to see. Obviously you can’t get those people to be pro self preservation, but it’s still important to expose them to their followers.

        I was able to change my mother’s mindset from “Fuck guns! Get rid of them all!” to “I don’t want to ban them. I just don’t like them or want them.” This is a person who would throw away all toy guns in the house.

    • “interested in progress and want government policies that produce a better society for everybody.”

      That’s the problem. People who think government policies can manipulate society into something “better” are only fooling themselves. The people make society not their government. If people want a better society then they need to take look at themselves, and make a change in themselves for the better. Coercion by government policy always causes more negatives than positives.

    • I may be painting with too broad of a brush but Ibelieve most progressives see gun control as just one item in a broad agenda. Before I retired I worked as a social work supervisor in a large state agency in an urban environment. The vast majority were died in the wool progressives, on a one to one basis (I was known and respected) I was instrumental in moderating several peoples ideas about guns to the point that several got CPL’s. But I’m sure they still vote straight democrat.

  6. “So opines Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine.” = ‘People’ getting paid to say sh_t. That’s warfare of a very insidious type, and until bad things happen to those people, we’re only going to get more of it.

    In human history, it’s only been solved by mass violence. We’re going to see some radical sh_t in Venezuela before summer’s out, and your going to see some POS communists get “solved”.

    Take notes.

  7. “Are there easy ways to evade the law?”.

    Considering that modern firearms are mostly 19th Century technology, all gun control laws fail because they are generally easy to evade by just making whatever is needed DIY.

    • Soon there will be an app that will help gang members get guns delivered to their doorstep with free shipping. In the distant past people could buy out of a catalog and have their gun show up in the mail. So it isn’t far from a possibility.

  8. One of the best ways to stop a bully is to punch him in the face very hard. In the adult world bullies are called criminals. Punching criminals in the face doesn’t work out well; you are going to need some more power, specifically firepower. Hence why I rather have a law that says everyone has the human right to protect life, liberty and property with necessary force than a million laws that attempt to ban objects and behaviors.

    It sounds contradictory to shoot people dead in a “civilized” country. How is a country “civilized” when it has rapists, kidnappers, pedophiles, murderers, robbers, organized crime, etc? When your citizens can behave themselves then we won’t need to bear and use firearms, but we will still need to keep them because government will never know how to be civilized.

    • Leftists would contest your basic premise and first sentence, that punching a bully is the way to stop them. Those are the kinds of people we’re up against: those who see violence as always 100% unacceptable in 100% of circumstances. They are perfect victims, happily willing to surrender their property, dignity, and lives, and they want us to do the same. I’m young and I went to elementary school in the Bay Area of California (I have long since left that shithole of a state) in the early 2000s. When I was in, oh, 4th grade (?) we had a little schoolwide seminar about how to deal with bullies. Basically, according to the school, we should inform the bully that they were hurting our feelings, and then involve one of the playground mediators to help facilitate a discussion of our respective feelings.

      At a single digit age, I knew that wouldn’t work. I didn’t even have the reasoning ability to articulate why that wouldn’t work, but I can explicitly remember thinking how stupid that idea was. THAT is what we’re up against, folks with less reasoning ability than a fourth grader

  9. “(None ever by civilians in the United States.)”

    I’m sure there has been at some point, but any cases would be closer to 1776 than the present day and virtually all of them predating metal cartridges and smokeless powder.

  10. Kevin Williamson had it about right. Gun control is essentially a left wing identity politics issue. Generally when you want to seriously regulate an activity you learn everything about that activity before you start writing laws or regulations. The left studiously AVOIDS learning about the very guns that they wish to regulate (which is why they sound like idiots a vast majority of the time when talking about guns). Nothing other than Kevin’s thesis explains this.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/orlando-shooting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics/

    • even bill maher conceded that those who want to ban guns sound awfully stupid when they try to sound authoritative about a subject they know little about…….

  11. I do not believe there are any honest brokers on the left to have a conversation with. There is none trustworthy to build a compromise.

  12. It’s my opinion that guns are only a secondary issue with progressives. Their primary objection is to the use of force against violent criminals by their victims. There is an easy way to verify this. Just tell an anti-gunner that you don’t need a gun as long as you have a baseball bat. It’s all the same to you if a home invader is carried out with a fractured skull instead of a bullet wound.

    • yes i have done just that a few times and the response usually shows them to be the sort who would commit such crimes if the deterrent factor of potentially armed defenders was removed

  13. Why should I listen to them when it’s a waste of my time, because I’ve already heard all of their talking points and I know that they are worth precisely nothing. I do value my time enough to not want to waste it listening to deceptive statistics, and faulty logic.

  14. Many progressive, democrats, liberals etc and genuinely ignorant and have believed the lies that the media and fellow party members etc have perpetuated and told them either through more ignorance or malice.

    There is value in engaging with these people who have simply been misled or lied to.

  15. To those that feel the need to make arms illegal and to take that right away from the American public, please recall the Bundy Ranch standoff. If it came down to an Australian type gun confiscation scheme I fully believe that there would be hell to pay in most parts of the country.

    With that said so much of our 2nd amendment rights have been illegally taken from us it seems like we are almost there, only a few crumbs of the cake left on the plate.

    • by yourself …no matter how tough you talk…you’re nothing….but there is strength in numbers……

  16. The time for talk is over. It’s time to mercilessly crush these people financially and politically. When they can so blatantly and obviously lie to the American people with little to no conscious about any given topic- guns, boarders, Russia, etc -then their is no reasoning with them. There is no crossing the aisle. They have indicated their complete willingness to sacrifice truth and reason at the alter of power while chanting the words “by any means necessary”.

    No. Crossing the aisle is like asking Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program. They’ll smile and take your financial aid, but use it to a55fuck you all the same.

  17. After Parkland and Pulse, the anti-gun community assumed that their fight was won. No need to talk or to attack small segments of gun ownership. This was their time to go for all guns. Problem is in the details. They forgot that even the CDC agrees that there are at least 500,000 defensive uses of firearms. Assume only 10% of these save a life, that’s 50,000 lives SAVED with defensive use of firearms. Of the 36,000 killed by firearms (which may include defensive uses) two thirds are suicides, leaving 12,000 of which the majority are criminal in nature. So, when an anti-gun activist says “If a law saves just ONE life it’s worth it” they should understand that restrictions on lawful ownership risk lives. So to save “just one life” we need to stop this anti-gun phobia.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here