Previous Post
Next Post

Once upon a time, a left-leaning writer named Dan Baum convinced me to drop the term “gun grabbers” from my posts. Danny viewed “gun grabbers” an “assault noun” (my term, copyrighted). My self-imposed ban lasted about two weeks—until I realized that all the gun grabbers who claimed they weren’t gun grabbers were, indeed, gun grabbers. Regular readers will know that I’ve since deployed that sobriquet for TTAG commentator and gun blogger MikeB302000 who claims he’s nothing of the sort—-despite having written that he’d kinda prefer a ban on civilian firearms. Only that was a slip of the tongue. Now, finally, MikeB302000 has blogged his “official goal” for gun control . . .

Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners. Since that half, although legal under today’s rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

I know, right? Let’s have a little look see at MikeB’s platform of strict gun control laws. And yes, James, he really should quantify the “tremendous” results that would follow the implementation of his gun control program.

As the Brits are wont to say, you’d be lucky mate. Or as my old nemesis Peter DeLorenzo might have said (who remembers?), look for that information at Still, we waited almost two years for this. Who knows what we may learn in another two years? I’d say the mind boggles, but it doesn’t, really.

Previous Post
Next Post


        • I got laid once or twice or maybe 100 times ( Senile Dementia) but I still think it is Pretty Hot , them babes really know how to stroke a Trigger. just not yours gayBoy. I am almost in the grave and those are the kind of women that went west with their MEN!

          You wish to be grownup , we look forward to that for you too. But I may not have all the time you do.
          a Man does not brag , keeps his mouth shut. But males on the other hand well I am sure you get the Pic.

          Since I might forget where I put my weapons I leave them all over and none of them talk to me or Jump at me and say Take Me Bill Tyler.

      • Yes, indeed, I am the enemy of gun rights. But “gun grabber” is too strong. I’d like to “grab” the guns of unfit people, the dangerous ones whom you should be interested in disarming too.

        • The thing is this: who decides who is “fit” or “unfit”, Mike?

          The other thing is, where in the 2nd Amendment does it have one or more asterisks with footnotes identifying qualifications or restrictions?

        • Rebecca you are new so here’s how it works. mike b post something outrageous then never backs up his argument with logic or statistics. To bad i can’t get mike b in a one on one Lincoln Douglass debate.

        • Is that kinda like “fit to vote?” “Fit to exercise free speech?” Or perhaps “fit to not incriminate himself?” Or maybe “fit to have the right to a trial by jury?”

        • I propose that we start “grabbing” the right to free speech and free association of people who are unfit to exercise it properly. That way we can protect the public against dangerous people like yourself.

  1. Check the posture of the women shooters in the video. Almost all of them are leaning away from the gun, when they should be leaning into it. No wonder they’re being pushed backwards by the recoil and are way out of balance after just a couple of shots.

    • Taking a closer look at the ladies shooting stances (admittedly, I had to run it a second time), it appears that most of the shootists who are leaning back were using rifles with stocks that seemed too long for their arm length. Some of the ladies were using fully-extended adjustable stocks that probably should have been shortened a notch or two for their arm length. The guns with fixed stocks were probably an inch too long for most of the shooters – makes it hard to get a good sight picture or cheek weld on the stock. Training, training, training.

      Still, 44 women who seemed to be having fun with guns is a positive thing. And the ladies with the M1A and the .50 BMG rifle looked like they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. And you DEFINITELY wouldn’t want to annoy the woman running the defensive shooting/moving course.

      • I just watched the video. RuffRidr has it spot on. These women are OBVIOUSLY not afraid of the weapons or the noise. They’ve just been trained BADLY in how to hold it to deal with recoil.

        • Partly training, or them not listening to it. For some reason a lot of women are really bad about this. And trying to get some to shift their weight/balance forward is something they resist. Though if the stock isn’t the proper length it doesn’t help at all.

  2. they always want just one more big law. they got the brady bill , under clinton, then moved on to the assult weapons ban, then the lautenburg bill and so on and so on.
    as long a one gun is in civilian hands , the will be after it . then the knives, then the hammers , then long fingernails. think i’m exagerating ? see eangland, japan, mexico, etc.

  3. I personally don’t have a problem with any activity that ensures that only responsible, safe people become gun owners. I don’t think I have to argue the validity of that to any TTAG fan, as we all love to bemoan the “Irresponsible Gun Owner Of The Day”.

    The problem is that the only people who ever attempt to develop gun legislation, have a zero tolerance for any guns. As a result, the legislation they do develop or support are often a practice in ignorance and wasteful law, and not anything that actually helps keep the public safe.

    So I throw my lot in with those who might otherwise seem fanatical in their defense of the 2nd ammendment. Because IMO, eliminating or neutering this right is more of a threat then its liberal interpretation.

  4. Since we’re playing with Constitutional rights anyway, how about flipping this around on MikeB.

    “Extremely strict freedom of speech laws enforced nationally would disqualify about half the present internet owners. Since that half, although legal under today’s rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including arbitrarily eradicating guaranteed liberties, the results would be tremendous.”

    That sounds fair, doesn’t it?

    • When it comes to free speech the internet is a fully automatic assault rifle with high capacity bannana clips full of teflon coated cop-killing bullets and a shoulder thing that goes up. When the 1st ammendment was written there was no way the founding fathers could have forseen being able to reach millions of people all over the world instantly. Maybe we should have a permitting process with full medical and psychological background checks to have a blog.

    • Since cars kill more people each year *by far* than do guns, we need stricter car laws:

      Extremely strict automobile control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present automobile owners. Since that half, although legal under today’s rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including automobile flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

      That work for y’all?

      • Works for me.

        Each driver must take a 16 hour car safety class and pass a safety test and an operator test test for each vehicle (up to three) to be entered on the permit. Apply to local law enforcement for the permit to drive, pass a Department of Justice background check, obtain certificates from two registered mental health professionals, and, if approved, pay a $100 fee for the permit.

        The driver must retake the operator test for each vehicle each year and submit the certificate to local law enforcement.

        The driver must take an 8 hour refresher safety test and an operator test for each vehicle every two years and submit the results to local law enforcement to renew the permit.

        I had to do all of this (except the mental health certificates) for my California CCW so it must be fair.

        • Yeah, I remember having to do that when I was still living in the PRCa (Modoc County). Move to Idaho, Chuck – the state legislature is 81% Republican, and most of them are conservatives/libertarians. Plus, it is NOT a full time “professional” legislature – only in session from January to early April. Which means the members have real jobs and real businesses, and the only lawyers in the legislature are the Sun Valley Democrats. (All 2 of them). We are hoping for 90% conservatives after the current re-districting.

        • Go to and scroll down to the advanced options. Choose ages 1-24. Then click submit. You’ll come to a page titled, “10 Leading Causes of Death, United States
          “, and several of the boxes are clickable taking you to graphs. THAT is where I get my numbers. The CDC: Centers for Disease Control.

        • Whoa, someone who makes a statistical claim and then backs it up with actual statistics. That would just blow a gun-grabber’s mind; they think statistics are just inconvenient suggestions of truth.

        • “By far”: of 9,404 unintentional deaths in the 20-24 year old range, 60.4% are caused by motor vehicles. 0.9% are caused by guns. THAT is “by far”.

        • But of all the deaths that you can drill down through in that age range: transportation related – 5704, firearm related – 4124. Not that “far” apart. So ban cars and guns and save the world.

        • I’m sort of worried that for my age group getting poisoned is my next must likely cause of death after a car accident.

        • Nope, but for ages 25-34 there were nearly 2000 more unintentional poisoning deaths than firearm homicide deaths.

        • Wow – I can’t believe that Mike dares demand evidence for any assertion. Whenever we demand such from him, he just bullies his way through and ignores the request. However, I am pickled tink that when he demands it, he gets shown the stats. I wonder if that nags and digs at his utter disdain for real evidence?

          For example:
          “For some things evidence is not available. For others it can be variously interpreted and is therefore worthless. I try to use my head, I really don’t think you guys do that much. You take your cues from Robert or the NRA and you just keep banging away.”

          He is just jealous that we don’t blindly follow him. Well, the facts and the evidence speak. We only agree with Robert and others insofar as what they say reflects reality. Not all of us want to live in the fantasy world Mike wants to create.

          As for why people don’t make the same argument about cars…

          Well, I think it’s because they don’t have an irrational fear of that particular object. So they don’t need to project that irrational fear on everyone else and demand that we pass laws that support their phobia. It’s like government mandated mental illness. Some people have an irrational fear and therefore we all have to have an irrational fear of the same object.

          I know it sounds harsh, but I really think there is something to it – gun grabbing is the intent of making us all functionally phobic toward a thing that has no intellect or will. Yet they claim that our desire to be able to meet potential deadly force with like force. They claim CCWs are paranoid because we want to be capable of defense in the event of a possible criminal attack. They’re right. Statistically it is unlikely I shall ever have to use lethal force in defense (and I hope I never have to.) But then, how probable is it for an inanimate object to develop a will to cause harm and then pull it off?

          This may not represent every gun grabber. But I bet it comes close to explaining the intent to believe guns are bad in spite of every evidence to the contrary even to the point of ignoring evidence (like Mike does) or making it up (like Mike does.)

        • Classic evaluation of the hoplophobes is in John Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards”. Written about 1991, but still true today. (Type the title into Google).

        • Well if you do a quick search for deaths by car accidents in the US and homicides caused by guns (suicides don’t count), about 2.5 times more people die in car accidents each year than are murdered by someone using a gun.

  5. “And yes, James, he really should quantify the “tremendous” results that would follow the implementation of his gun control program.”

    I hate being so predictable. Then again, if some gun-control advocate would just provide the data I’d be able to shut up about it!

  6. Quoting Mikey: “Since that half [of gun owners], although legal under today’s rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, * * *.”

    Does Mikey have any evidentiary foundation for that assertion? Sounds like complete BS to me.

    • Evidence? “Evidence”?? Mike don’t neeeeed no steenkin’ “evideence”!

      Except he does. And can’t provide what doesn’t exist.

    • I think he is confusing law abiding citizens with law breaking ATF agents on that gun flow into the criminal world.

    • For some things evidence is not available. For others it can be variously interpreted and is therefore worthless. I try to use my head, I really don’t think you guys do that much. You take your cues from Robert or the NRA and you just keep banging away.

      You yourselves should support my plan. Those of you who are sober and responsible people would continue to enjoy your gun rights much as you do now. And having rid yourselves of the “bad half,” you’d benefit in all the ways everyone else does plus, and this is a big plus, there’d be no more harrassment from gun control folks. We’d all have won.

      • “…and this is a big plus, there’d be no more harrassment from gun control folks.”

        Not likely. You yourself have changed the goal posts dozens of times. I’d expect no less from the rest of your comrades.

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

        Tell me, Mike: where does your plan fit in with the 2nd Amendment?

        Answer: it doesn’t. Keep your grubby paws off my guns. Keep your grubby paws off my RIGHTS.

        • Rebecca, my plan has nothing to do with the 2A, just like you and your so-called gun rights.

          The entire understanding of the 2A is in the first 3 words not the last 4.

          The last 4 words mean more or less the same today as they did in 1790, but not the first 3.

          That’s where you lose, which you could see if you weren’t so biased. I honestly think a smart gun-rights advocate would never mention the 2A at all. We live in a free country, you like guns, that should be enough.

        • That’s not what the Supreme Court of the United States said in DC v Heller. They said the EXACT OPPOSITE, in fact: it IS an individual right, and not about maintaining a militia.

          I repeat: keep your grubby gun-grabbing paws off my guns and my rights.

        • Wrong. The reason why people could form a militia (which is just citizens banding together for a common defense) is BECAUSE citizens were allowed to own guns. Do you think that the Colonial militia’s would have been able to organize and then go ask the British to sell them guns?

          And sadly, thanks to people like you, we don’t live in a free country anymore – we live in a country of assholes hellbent on controlling others, which is why both of our main political parties focus primarily on stripping people of their rights (they only differ in which rights they want to remove).

        • Hey Mike, would you mind providing your understanding of the phrase “shall not be infringed”? Or maybe just the word “infringed”?

          Shouldn’t be too hard, since 5-yr old kids have a complete understanding of it when they are riding in the back seat of a car on long trips. “Mom! He put his finger over on MY SIDE of the seat!” They understand that “infringed” even covers entering their airspace, from the seat cover up to the roof of the car.

          How about applying that understanding to what the Supreme Court (law of the land, Mike) has described as “a fundamental human right”?

        • § 311. Militia: composition and classes
          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

          As of January 7th, 2011.

          So “Militia” is still valid. So is “regulated”, especially in the vernacular of the Founding Fathers. “Regulated” meant “trained” or “practiced” in the 18th century.

        • We live in a free country

          Almost let this one slip by. *I* live in a free country. *YOU* live in Italy. I can look to the 2nd Amendment to protect my right to keep and bear arms. You have no such protection. Worse, you want to take away my protection.

      • “to enjoy your gun rights much as you do now. ”

        Under your plan we would enjoy our rights much as we do now? How much? 50%? 30%? 1%? Your freedom depends on my freedom, Mike. We have to safe-guard everyone’s freedom, if we’re not all free, no one is.

        • It’s similar to what I’ve been saying for a long time about gay rights: if MY rights can be voted on, then NOBODY’S rights are safe.

        • Exactly – I tried pointing that out to friends who voted to ban smoking in privately owned places of business. You don’t get to vote away someone else’s rights. If you don’t like the services / ambiance of a private establishment, then don’t do business with them.

      • “For some things evidence is not available. For others it can be variously interpreted and is therefore worthless. I try to use my head, I really don’t think you guys do that much”-
        So in other words you just make $h!t up.

      • “All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go. ”
        – MikeB302000

        So, basically, y’all’ll stop “harassing” us when we no longer have guns. Is that about right?

        • Except that’s what they have in Great Britain, and the law-abiding citizens largely do not have guns. The people who do? They’re the *criminals*. And since almost nobody there has guns, guess what they’re going after now? Knives. Once those are gone, what? Baseball (or, rather, Cricket) bats, then other sporting equipment, then sharp sticks and rocks. Where does it end? It doesn’t – until there are no Humans left to try to hurt each other, we will have this with us always.

      • “Those of you who are sober and responsible people would continue to enjoy your gun rights much as you do now.”

        Maybe for a bit. Until you decide to push through another law requiring another group of gun owners to be stripped of their guns and their rights, and another group until they’re all gone.

        Like the saying goes “First they came for the Jews, but I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a Jew….” and ends “but when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me”.

  7. Wow, I had forgotten about Peter. He still out there pretending to bitch about cars? should be one of his tag lines.

    As far as friend of the forum MikeB302000 goes, he’s a lot like my sister. He can dish it out but he sure can’t take it.

  8. What gets me is that these morons think that simply writing a law and putting it on the books is going to be the end of it. Simply because they themselves are shivering cowards with zero character, they think everyone is. They think people will actually give up their guns or allow the law to stand.

    Yeah, try to enforce a gun ban. See what happens.

  9. I actually went to his blog thinking there would more to his argument than was posted. I was wrong.

    How many unqualified statements can be packed into two sentences? Mike must be going for some sort of record.

  10. MikeB30200 would ban religion and kill all the republicans, or anyone who didn’t like liberal ideals, too.

      • Although arguably that could just lead to some variety of totalitarian government e.g. from the “religion is the opiate of the masses” folks. Human nature apparently contains a need for a potent leader, a god, a father figure, etc. We can’t just wish that away. There are power hungry individuals who will step up to fill that need.

        The old saw comes to mind “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” IMHO we have to be careful about too much concentration of power: civil, religious, whatever. Balancing power unfortunately may be like squeezing a marshmallow where the pushed in part just causes another part to bulge out!

        • I used to be a believer. Life experience and hard thinking made me stop. It was NOT an easy decision, and it took MANY years to reach this point. Please don’t write me off as stupid for being an atheist. Remember: that finger pointing at me? There’s three more pointing back at you.

      • “I wouldn’t mind the banning of religion. It’s killed more people than guns has.”

        Isn’t attributing death to an inanimate concept like religion exactly the same as attributing crime and murder to inanimate pieces of metal/wood/polymer like guns? Isn’t saying “religion has killed” exactly like saying “guns have killed?” At the end of the day, people kill people, period. Religion is an excuse and a misleading motivator for a corrupt mind, much like guns are tools for a corrupt mind.

        I’m not defending anything — I’m not what you’d call a religious person — but I think we as pro-gun people should have consistency in our assertions.

        • Rebecca,

          I imagine your made that comment in a bit of a haste and I assure you we all do make hyperbolic claims now and again but we must support ALL rights guaranteed us in the constitution, regardless of our personal beliefs. If we did not hold ourselves to such a standard the totalitarian mindset of knowing what’s best for any given person starts to take hold.

          The beliefs and feelings of the monarch take the place of laws and rights and that is something that cannot stand and that is why I will vociferously struggle with fools like Mike for my entire life (let’s be honest, it will never end) and that is why we must defend these rights because hypocrisy has no place in a logical and rational mind of moral character. Leave such sentiments for our adversaries for it is their greatest weakness.

          “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
          — Thomas Jefferson


        • I admit: it was hyperbole, but it’s made people stop and think, yes?

          No, I don’t want to ban religion. I would like to see it go away, but that will require people to give up the beliefs. Until then, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Or something like that. 😉

        • It’s better than being muzzled in the name of “peace, love, and kumbaya.”


        • The way you guys give Rebecca a break when she says something a little, how shall I put this, silly, is just heartwarming. But it is indicative of a problem among you. You’re too ready to excuse someone if you perceive them to be on your side and too ready to cut others to ribbons who aren’t members of your group. That’s not open-mindedness, which you sometimes claim to have.

        • Your condescention is, to put it mildly, underwhelming. Go back to your regular trolling, Mike.

        • Humanity always has had a tendency to factionalize in every group. It’s nothing new.

        • Re-read that thread Mike.

          She made a hyperbolic statement (which I think everyone does from time to time.) Someone called her on it. She agreed it was a poor statement and retracted it. That’s why everyone is cool with her and with others who are willing to discuss things maturely and accept instruction from time to time.

          Folks here try the same with you, but you hide from the instruction and reject the truth.

          That’s the difference.
          She acts like a mature human – others, not so much.

  11. Good video – though I absolutely cringed when I saw the girl hipshooting the AK full-auto & not gripping the pistol grip. Yikes!

  12. I found your awesome site a couple weeks ago and check it daily. Over the years, I’ve become a strong gun rights supporter. And after reading some of the comments here, I had to read Mike’s blog myself. I was not surprised, but I felt I had to comment on one of the posts on his blog. He was taking a gun rights supporter to task for criticizing Carolyn McCarthy’s proposed ban on extended magazines, and was stating that such a ban is really a small issue to gun control advocates, even though it is a “common sense” measure. My point to him was that the ban came back to life after the terrible crime committed by Jared Loughner, who killed 6 and wounded 14 in Tucson. But if the a 10-round restriction is placed on magazines, would a crime where 6 people were killed and 4 wounded, or 10 people killed using a gun with a 10-round magazine be any less terrible and horrific? If not, then why not place a 9-round limit? Or 8-round? Or 1-round? In fact, why not just ban guns? Gun control advocates should come clean, stop worrying about magazine sizes, gun shows and registration, and simply advocate for a straight ban on all guns. Of course they won’t do that, because it would never pass and they would reveal themselves to be the extremists they are.

    To his credit, Mike posted my comment, but did not respond. How can he? Because the more I read and hear, “gun control” is just a euphemism for “complete gun ban”. If he is admitting he’d take away 50%, he probably dreams of making it 100%.

  13. Don’t care one iota what MikeB302000 thinks or says.

    Absolutely loved the video.

    My wife went on a road trip with her mom, and took her G17, G22 and Combat Elite along. Peace through superior firepower.

  14. When I watched the video it reminded me of the movie Red Dawn and how these ladies could be defending me and America from the invaders.

  15. Must be great to live a charmed life where the formal systems in place always work instantly and flawlessly and you’ve never needed to protect yourself. If I was that fortunate I’d count my blessings and shut my mouth about the rest of us.


  16. Screw this! Firearms are a tangible expression of Liberty. Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. I don’t need protection by some third party do-gooder to protect me from someone whose intentions are evil. The other two sentiment of the American creed are also on our coinage: E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust. I’ll trust God a far sight longer than someone who wants to protect me by seizing my property based on what I think.

  17. I’m interested in hearing the actual statistics and train of thought that lead MikeB to this conclusion. I’d also like to hear some solid info on what his qualifications would be for people who aren’t fit to own firearms.

    It would sure help foster a legitimate debate instead of just namecalling back and forth!

  18. Well I wonder why MikeB is even worried about our guns and gun laws when he doesn’t even live in the US???? Still in Italy ain’t you Mikey???
    If you want to ban guns go take the guns away from the local Mafia Bosses that are there and see what they have to say !!!!!! I would be willing to bet that you would end up with a severe ventilation problem after they added a few more openings in your torso!!!!
    Really Mikey you should get off your high horse(hobby horsey) and realize that what you are Proposing would cause more harm than good!!!! We do need common sense gun laws!!! As a ccw holder and a survivor of 2 DGU’s w/ shots fired I can tell you from experience that under the gun laws you propose my son and I would probably not be here to carry on this chat today!!!!
    We cannot sit here and intelligently say that stricter gun laws are the cure when all we have to do is look at a city like Chicago,which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US and the highest murder rate in the US!!!!!
    Didn’t work, doesn’t work!!! Toughen up the sentencing of criminals, taking responsibility for our actions and making our elected officials do their damn jobs the way they are supposed to and not the way they want to will help to straighten out and restore graben our great country!!! They are there to do a job to benefit this great country, not serve one or two terms and then be paid well for nothing for the rest of there lives!!!
    Not re elected then no pension!!! Too easy!!! If we get fired from our job we don’t get to draw a pension the rest of our lives !!!!!!
    Putting up my soapbox now!!!!! God Bless You all and have a great day!!!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here