You gotta love intellectual gun control advocates. They’re so . . . intellectual. Eggheads like New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik [above] would like nothing better than to sit you down and calmly explain gun control—so you can see that he’s right and you’re a brainless inbred racist redneck. I mean, wrong. Here you are, Mr. Gun Owner: A Few Simple Ideas About Gun Control that you, even you, can understand. If you try really really hard. So, idea number one . . .
No one disputes that there are sane reasons for ordinary people to need a rifle. But there is no imaginable, meaningful sense in which Canadians, or Australians, are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one.
Here’s another idea: 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.
The Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Second Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of the business of contravening, violating, transgressing, breaking, breaching or otherwise infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The way I read it, the 2A prohibits any government regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, I know we have governmental firearms regulation. Lots of it. I know that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision OK’s “reasonable regulations.” And I know that Gopnik views a mandatory safety class as a perfectly reasonable regulation. But here’s another simple idea: I don’t. Millions of Americans feel the same way. They don’t want the government deciding what constitutes firearms safety and what doesn’t.
Illinois’ new concealed carry regulations require 16 hours of training. I’ll bet Gopnik’s dad didn’t spend 16 hours listening to an instructor before he fired a gun. And neither will thousands of low-income Prairie Staters, who cannot afford the time, travel or expense mandated by the training requirements. That’s before we talk about the kind of training that the government deems suitable.
Training requirements are barriers to firearms ownership. Gopnik thinks that’s a good thing. I think that’s a bad thing. More generally, whenever a government compels a citizen to perform an action—any action—they are less free.
So there, sir, are two meaningful ways in which Canadians or Australians are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one.
What we can learn from Canada is how to legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them. Perhaps no existing gun law could have been explicitly designed to stop the shotgun killer of the Navy Yard. But to repeat the central truth of modern criminology: building low barriers against violent crime has a disproportionate effect in ending it. Make something difficult and you begin to make it impossible. You don’t have to back-engineer every law to cover every past criminal circumstance; you just have to sensibly craft laws to discourage the next one.
Call me simple-minded—or not simple-minded enough—but how does one legislate common sense? That’s a bit like legislating lust, only not nearly as much fun.
Equally odd: the caveat dismissing the idea that liberty depends on having as many weapons as [one] wants whenever [one] wants them. Surely Mr. Gopnik knows that liberty must be created and protected by force of arms, as it was when our our Founding Fathers forged this nation. As it is today.
Limiting citizens’ access to arms limits citizens’ ability to limit tyranny. Mexico? Syria? Pick a nation, any nation. Norway? Sure! Time and time again we can see that gun control emboldens and empowers tyrants, whereas gun right defend and extend individual liberty. Hence the Second Amendment.
Besides, why not have as many weapons whenever one wants them? Where’s the harm in that? Isn’t the problem what people do with guns (most likely “a” gun) rather than the number or type owned by an individual? And aren’t American gun owners a peaceable lot? Not to mention that that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution is without caveats.
As for that “building low barriers against violent crime” having a “disproportionate effect in ending it,” huh? I would have thought that our existing criminal laws (including gun laws) are a pretty damn high barrier against violent crime. And here’s the good news: they’re working! Violent crime in America continues its downward trend. So what is Gopnik on about?
Something about laws discouraging crime. Hmmm. It seems to me that laws punishing crime have a disproportionate effect on preventing crime—especially when compared to laws trying to prevent it. In other words, how’d that Prohibition thing work out? Or the War on Drugs? Why would laws regulating legal ownership of guns be any different?
Holy shit! Those aren’t the four simple ideas on gun control! They’re just the warm-up! Silly me. Here they are:
First, fix the background-check system by doing small things such as giving the F.B.I. ten days, instead of three, to complete them; prohibiting “high-risk” individuals from getting their hands on guns (anyone with a restraining order filed against him for a threat of violence, for example); and accelerating federal legislation to keep the violent and mentally ill from having guns. Second, make the A.T.F. more effective through such simple measures as getting the agency a director. Third, encourage research on “personalized” guns and gun triggers. Fourth, ban assault weapons, carefully defined, and with them magazines that fire more than ten rounds. And finally—radical idea—fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.
The FBI doesn’t need ten days to complete a background check. It’s instant! The ATF already has a director! Personalized guns don’t work! The assault weapons ban didn’t work either! Restricting a firearm’s ammunition capacity restricts Americans’ ability to defend themselves and leaves them open to attack by criminals who don’t respect ammunition capacity restrictions! There’s plenty of research already! None of it shows that gun control reduces crime.
Wow. That was simple.
I have the right to own and use my firearms. You do not have the right to drive a car!
Well documented is that the writers of The Bill of Rights did so out of fear of one thing, Tyranny. Think backwards from that and it’s obvious that government regulation of the first 10 amendments is completely precluded. See? Simple!
It is common for those who have no experience with something while nursing a fear or hatred for that object/situation to write with lack of fact or substance. Give me something I know nothing about to debate-I would, because I should, shut the f*ck up…………….guess it is too much to ask from some.
Well done, RF. Too bad Mr. Holier Than Thou will never see it.
The sad thing is that there are people that don’t see that as satire, that believe we truly should only use public transportation.
Little story: I was doing work in a local office building that has the area’s FBI office. My work required me to go through their office space over the course of about two hours. I had to give the nice lady at the door my information to do a security clearance (she wouldn’t let me see my FBI file… I asked). But, it was a matter of minutes. Not hours, not days, not TWO BUSINESS WEEKS. I think, it’s because there’s these things…. called computers…. and this vast amount of information… almost a SUPER HIGHWAY of information. To quote Martin Luther King, a right delayed is a right denied.
I’ve got to say I simply cannot think of a commercially manufactured firearm that I would not like to own. Even if it was not safe to shoot I would still like it just for what it is. What can I say, I like guns. 🙂
Just wait, once the pinnacle city of all things wonderful elects Di Blasio mayor and he does what he wants to do in regards to handling the crime issue, New York will be back in the race for murder capital of the US. Personally, I can’t wait to say told you so, but then again, I have no plans to travel to NYC in the future, if ever. They made their bed, not they can lie in it.
This whole situation scares the hell out of me. This could happen anywhere. If I wasn’t gonna vehicle carry before, I am now.
You know what stops gun violence? Having a gun. As we’ve seen repeatedly, when a criminal meets a good guy with a gun, he stops, be he dead or given up. But I suppose these and other such facts are irrelevant and essentially imaginary to people like this man. Im guessing because he doesn’t FEEL good about somebody who doesn’t wipe his ass for him (the government), taking responsibility and having a gun.
“As we’ve seen repeatedly, when a criminal meets a good guy with a gun, he stops, be he dead or given up.”
What I see repeatedly, in all those reality video shows, is that almost every time a criminal meets a good guy with a gun he DOES NOT engage in a gun fight. He may or may not actually fire the gun he brought with him, but it’s almost always while he is making all haste to get the hell out of dodge. It would be interesting for someone to come up with the statistic as to how many armed robbers wind up in the emergency room shot in the ass.
I cant tell if your missing my point or not.
Lanza killed himself when police showed up. The guy who entered Denver airport killed himself when armed personnel showed up, Holmes surrendered. Etc.
You mentioned the fight-less encounter which supports my remark of “given up”.
Smith 686+ 6″ barrel (pre-lock). I bought it in 1996, since I always wanted an L-frame. It just would not consistently ignite primers. I tried different brands (Federal, Remington, Winchester) and no luck. Apparently random light primer strikes. I marked the chambers to try to diagnose it, but there was no pattern. The smith in the shop I purchased it from tried to figure it out and failed. Sent it to Smith under warranty. When it returned it was a little better but still unreliable. I traded it for a 70’s Model 19 4″ with pinned barrel, recessed chambers and a bright nickel finish plus $200. It looked practically un-fired and I still have it. It is perfectly reliable and dead accurate.
After thousands of rounds thru and hours carrying a 9mm Shield, I have never found the safety on by accident. In fact, the recessed safety on both of our Shields is pretty darn stiff, and I find the suggestion interesting that a casual bump or jolt could engage the safety on either of ours. However, there is no arguing that training is the key to carrying a gun, any gun, with or without a safety.
Will they ban spoilers as a “lethality enhancing device?”
>> I know that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision OKs “reasonable regulations.” … I don’t.
Until you are appointed to the Supreme Court, your legal opinion has no bearing on the matter. Same goes for those who argue that “militia” means citizens outside of military or police forces are disqualified from the right to bear arms. Reasonable restrictions are constitutional, and that’s from Justice Scalia.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
And who says 33 round Glock mags don’t serve a purpose!?! You could shoot a bunch of those ass-hat bikers with a few of those!
Step 1: “I won’t answer any questions without speaking with my attorney. I would like to leave, am I free to go?”
Step 2: Repeat step 1.
They will of course ask you “Why do you need a lawyer? Do have something to hide.? The answer is no but I understand that this a legal process and I don’t feel comfortable talking to you without the presence of legal counsel. Make sure you have at attorney on speed dial. If you are involved in a DGU call 911 then call your lawyer. If you are lucky he/she will arrive about the same time as the police.
The answer is no but I understand that this a legal process and I don’t feel comfortable talking to you without the presence of legal counsel.
No. The answer is: “I won’t answer any questions without speaking with my attorney. I would like to leave. Am I free to go?”
If you are involved in a DGU call 911 then call your lawyer.
My lawyer said to call him first, letting somebody else at the scene call 911. Or if I’m alone, he said to get to a safe location, call him, and let him call 911. The idea is to not talk on a recorded phone line, under stress, with a 911 operator trained to get prosecutable statements out of the caller.
Additionally, there is no legal requirement to inform the police of one’s involvement with a shooting, unlike, for example, a car accident.
Massad Ayoob suggests to say to the police that you will sign a complaint against the perpetrator and to point out any evidence and then shut up. He might also have mentioned one or two other things to say. This man has truck-loads of credibility.
It’s not a good start to be arrested by a cop just wanting to make an expedient arrest.
I don’t think Robert posted this because he thinks that just anybody could armor up his car on the cheap. The tactical advice sans the armor was spot on. When you drive a 6000 lb SUV or truck you have an awesome offensive weapon when attacked by a group of bikers on crotch rockets. By all means evade and escape if you can but if you can’t, as I wrote in the original story, use the laws pf physics to your advantage and turn the tables on your attackers. Even a big Honda, BMW or Harley isn’t going to survive a counterattack by a Range Rover. “Mr. Biker, you want to play, let’s play and see who wins.” Unless you are being attacked by an Hamas suicide squad or a South American death squad it doesn’t matter if you are attacked by 1 biker or 100 because they aren’t sticking around after a couple of their members are laying in street broken and bloody. They will run away like frightened little girls.
“You can do no wrong by putting your Range Rover along side an enemy biker.”
Na-na-na-na
Na-na-na-na
Hey, wanker
Toodle-oo
I guess that chin of his is flinching. Hahahahahahaha
No sweetheart you must stay here until you confess or we frame you. Then you. Can go, Promise.
We need a couple of serious maverick top gun brake checks in a hurry. Get going fast and slam on the brakes hard. In the words of Merlin “Tim Robins”, ” Your gonna do what?!” Watch some taken movies, batman, whatever. Your vehicle is your weapon.
It seems fitting to repost the following:
FROM a poster with the screen name JARHEAD 1982 ====>
….. Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No……… Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No…… Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes…… Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes…… Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes…… Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No……. If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No……. Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes…… Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No…… Do I need a license to buy a car? No……. Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes……. Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes…… Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes……. Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes…… Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes….. In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No….. In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No……. Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)…… Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No….. Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No…… Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No….. Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No….. Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not…. Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes…… Shall I go on?
$20 says this asshat lives in a NYC Co-op with a doorman and possibly a guard. Tell you what Punchy, publish your home address and tell the guard you are expecting company so it is ok to buzz them up. Then tell the Mrs. that you decided to play a game tonite called “strangers can F**k me while husband helplessly watches”. Not interested? Exactly.
Auto-Ordnance 1911. Jam-o-matic, front sight fell off. Completely took me off the 1911 platform. I bought a Glock 21 and never looked back. So now Glock, Berretta, HK, and Walther now fill my gun cabinets.
Allegedly, before the bikers attacking the guy in the SUV, he had fled the scene of an accident after running over one of their friends (At least that is the word in the motorcycling community).
And if a middle-aged woman in an ankle-length skirt armed only with a wooden yardstick and an angry, forceful yell is what they consider “real resistance,” then I doubt this will strike much terror in the hearts of any budding school shooters out there.
1911 mags I have personally found to be consistently reliable in an assortment of personally owned Springfields and Colts:
USGI surplus 7rd
Colt marked 7rd
old Mec-Gar 7rd with round-top stainless steel follower (they haven’t made these since around 1995)
CMC “Shooting Star” 8rd
CMC “Power Mag” 8rd
Kimber stainless 8rd
Wilson 47D 8rd
Wilson ETM 8rd
A Mec-Gar 8rd “anti friction coating” finished 8rd mag is looking good so far, but I’ll need to run it some more before I can be sure I can recommend it.
I haven’t tried Metalform or Tripp Research mags yet, mainly because I’ve never found them for sale at a gun show, but I’ve heard nothing bad about them.
As for the gun show no-name mags that just say “Colt .45” on the floorplate without the little prancing pony stamped on them, I tried some once, many years back. Maybe mine came from a bad batch, but the floorplates had a nasty way of popping off while I was loading them, dumping floorplate, spring, and follower at my feet and scattering ammo around the floor. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I won’t buy any more of them.
Was this technique named after Harry Reid? If so, it didn’t seem to work on John Boehner.
He did use it against Romney and his tax returns. Remember “I’ve been told he hasn’t payed his taxes for years” now prove me wrong?
I think that it is better than 50/50 it is named after dingy Harry or his family.
This guy is a Dope,who thinks he is an intellect .Some famous libatard statements; “why do yo need”,Common sense gun laws’,’ it would be assumed’,we could then assume’,180% of the country wants this’,’ there is no NEED for’ ‘polls suggest that’ assault weapon CLIPS’ ,if there is a gun in the house,it is almost assured ,there will be a suicide’ ‘ you don’t need a gun you have the police’ ?’Only police should have guns’.Stupid BOZOS!
No one needs a GSX-R1000.
Did anyone read the part about how they managed to screw up an AK? An AK! If an AK47 jams you smack it against a wall. Apparently these new ones don’t work as well as the rattley, duct taped communist assault rifles. How did Russia manage to screw that up?
Lets face it, we got suckered! Also lets realize that the design is obviously flawed since they knew about this in April, not August, search you tube. Now ask yourself, if you ever had to use the XDs in self defense don’t you think the other lawyer would attack you on the grounds of using a defective / known dangerous gun? i know I can Never use this as a CCW gun due to liability and the only way I will be pleased with my XDs is with a refund of my $650 investment. By the warranty they can not replace the defective part for the gun itself is defective, Springfield should offer refunds and we should take it, otherwise this WILL end up in a class action law suit. Springfield will pay more than the $150 million in liability and we will get less than our purchase costs since lawyers will get most if it! Worse yet, this will be fuel for the anti gunners!
The President of Springfield armory will be on guntalk this Sunday, I suggest we flood the phone banks demanding refunds.
I just love that slo-mo stuff….myooosik to my ears 🙂
Tom