happy independence day
Bigstock
Previous Post
Next Post

 

It’s time to bring gun owners into the fold. They are the missing piece of the puzzle. One of the keys to passing the Brady Bill and other landmark gun safety legislation was building a wide-ranging coalition that ran the gamut from victims to police officers. It is time to take the next, crucial step in widening that coalition to include gun owners. Imagine gun owners testifying before a congressional committee, calling upon their senators to pass legislation and joining gun safety groups at rallies. 

But advocating for change is a daunting, near impossible ask when you feel like you’re on an island. Joining a coalition is more inviting and realistic when you know you’re surrounded by like-minded folks ready to stand by you. 

That’s why gun owners need to know other gun owners are united in wanting stricter gun laws. Armed with this knowledge, it will ease the pathway to gun owners speaking out and taking control of their own narrative. And it is the responsibility of gun safety organizations to make gun owners feel supported, not marginalized, in advocating for change. Gun owners must be brought into the gun safety conversation, not left out.  

The gun divide is not impenetrable. It’s time we start acting like it. 

— Mark McKinnon and Richard Aborn in The gun reform debate is not impenetrable — just ask gun owners

Previous Post
Next Post

167 COMMENTS

  1. This is hilarious. It’s like the left bringing in a fake right winger to advocate for their left winger causes. They won’t find any right leaning people to take up this task – they will have to fabricate some.

    • It would take a special kind of a$$#ole to say “Because I own / participate in X, I know that there is nothing about X that is either unethical, or harmful to the rights of others (the only possible justifications for a punitive law), but I still believe that ownership or participation in X is grounds for deprivation of rights under law.” Sadly, there are a few.

      • Most politically inept history illiterate gun owners fold like a cheap tent and are quick to board the same old packaged, repackaged and deodorized Gun Control Train. A train with a baggage compartment filled with centuries of Gun Control related horrors.
        When the flock doesn’t know Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is rooted in racism and genocide they are food for wolves.

  2. What happened to all those surveys and stats claiming the vast majority of gun owners want more gun control?

    Like this and this?

    They’ve gone from a righteous majority to an enfeebled minority cowering in the shadows? Whatever narrative works for the nudge I guess.

    Nobody should believe anything anybody tells them. Most folks seem to operate on a simple system of confirmation bias anyway only accepting what reinforces their world view as truthful or accurate while dismissing anything that may counter their world view.

    • Shire-man,

      Most folks seem to operate on a simple system of confirmation bias anyway only accepting what reinforces their world view as truthful or accurate while dismissing anything that may counter their world view.

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

      And the core reason that people do that: feelings. There are various dimensions to those feelings.

      Some people ignore the facts because they don’t want any factual or ethical restraints on something that they REALLY want to keep doing.

      Some people ignore the facts because they don’t want to be wrong and lower their self-esteem.

      And some people ignore facts because it is truly and deeply painful (analogous to the physical pain of being in a car crash) to accept the fact that their worldview was so horribly wrong and so horribly destructive to themselves and others.

      Overcoming the underlying psychology of confirmation bias is a HERCULEAN task.

      • A bias against bias is still a bias.
        Desiring to not be driven by emotional desires is itself an emotional desire.

        It’s not a Herculean task. It’s a Sisyphean one.

        • Yep. You can’t *not* be driven by emotion.

          Emotion is like an engine with endless fuel — it’s always running, always driving your wheels *somewhere*. Reason is you, in the driver’s seat, doing your best to decide where that unstoppable engine takes you and maybe slow it down a little.

  3. Yeah, we gotta make sure those two people have a powerful platform!! They’re not stupid….they just hope you are!

  4. Sure, Anti-gun radicals. Pass another UNENFORCEABLE law. One that only a law abiding citizen will follow. Even then we can’t even get people to park their car in between the lines at the grocery story and they want another ‘law” that criminals won’t follow anyway.

    They say that if you keep making the same mistake, you only wind up with the same result .

      • Hey, nameless, brainless troll!

        I see you still haven’t gotten that GED, yet. Been perfecting your onanism skills, instead???

        You are too stupid to insult. The cable awaits you; go micturate up it.

  5. The only reason gun owners have been shut out of “the debate” is that they don’t agree with the gun control nuts. You could have brought gun owners into the conversation at any point, and you still can, but that’s going to mean listening to them when they say “no.”

    And that’s what the gun control nuts can’t accept.

    • Yeah they only want the gun owners who want more gun control, there is no desire for a conversation or discussion, as long as they see most gun owners as “those people clinging to their guns and Bibles”, supporters of the “terrorist NRA,” who stand against social progress and public safety, racists, bigots, insurrectionists, and ne’er-do-wells all.

    • I’m waiting to hear from the millions of gun owners who are also convicted felons! They need to go straight to the nearest Federal courthouse and sign a declaration of support, and then be sentenced.

    • We need fewer gun legislations not more. Where did this mentally challenged individual come from? We need to go back to 1933 gun restrictions ( i.e. zero gun legislation).

  6. The search for anti-gun rights gun owners would work better if as part of the package they enforced the law against criminals and imposed an obligation on the police to protect law abiding people. Many new gun owners only got guns because criminals have free reign, some police were defunded by a major political party, and others self depoliced due to the backstabbing brass and politicians (Ferguson/Baltimore Effect). I still would never give up my guns, or want any more regulations, but maybe someone would, if it was safe.

    • Gun owners that support gun control laws have another name. Fudds. A scorned and derided section of the community.

      • Southern Cross,

        Oh, they have MANY other names: Quisling, Benedict Arnold, kapos, traitors, self-centered fools . . . I could keep going, but you get the point.

        There are a substantial number of gun owners in the U.S. (I have no idea what the actual percentage is, but there are a number of them) whose only interest in guns is hunting and/or target or clay pigeon shooting. Cool, that’s their gig, and they have the right. But a lot of them don’t make the connection between their shooting sport and self-defense, or defense against tyranny. And many of them support so-called “common sense gun regulation”. And, again, that’s their right – 1A says so. Just like the 2A says I get to have firearms to protect myself and my family and, in extremis, oppose a tyrannical government.

        I wish I could get their support for my use of guns, like I afford them my support for theirs, but as my dear daddy used to say, “You’ve got to play the cards dealt to you.” I’ll still give them my support, because it’s the right thing to do. Wish they felt the same about mine, but it’s STILL my right, whether they agree or not.

        • “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.”

          Pretty simple, what part of “THE PEOPLE”, “RIGHT” and “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” don’t the Dem/lib/left/commucrats understand?

  7. This site is getting weird. Posting more and more anti gun articles on a supposed pro 2A site? I’m coming here less and less because of it.

    • Know your enemy and the methods he employs. Also lets their agents show their asses in the comments section trying to shill their position and failing horribly for the entertainment of current gun owners and education for newer gun owners. Rinse and repeat and if you want to see the cycle in fast forward check out any similar topic on 4chan’s weapons board.

    • Meanwhile, if you think the opinion of a stranger will decrease our interest in keeping an eye on America’s enemies, or that the fear of losing your teensy attention span will snap us back into line, then you sound like a ‘bot and do not need to come here AT ALL “because of it”.

    • Oh, please! This to both your last two sentences, metaphorically and literally and, I should add, respectively yet devoid of any respect whatsoever, both metaphorically and literally.

    • Let us know when you stop coming here at all. No, wait. Don’t let us know; We’ll figure it out on our own when your absence is noted. Everyone here will weep with sorrow that you no longer come here. Literal weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Rent garments, self-scarification, sack-cloth and ashes, the whole works.

      No, really.

  8. What the hell is this? Are they feeling so desperate to eliminate private firearm ownership like the lunatics and Useless Nations (UN) want that they attempt some sort of cheap psych op to make gun owner FUDDS feel left out so therefore will demand the rest of the gun owners join them? Sounds to me like people who failed to learn to swim are expecting others to join them in drowning once their boat is near sunk. I say YES; isolate these closet communists on their own miserable and barren island so they can live in blissful misery along with their fellow backstabbers and fence riders while they systematically cannibalize each other to the point of righteous elimination.

    • It’s not just in this field lately and your description of the nonswimmers trying to drown others with them is scary in how appropriate it is.

    • GRA,

      Are they feeling so desperate to eliminate private firearm ownership … that they attempt some sort of cheap psych op to make gun owner FUDDS feel left out…

      Yes, that is exactly how desperate they are.

      Virtually everything that Progressives do is a giant psychological operation/manipulation to achieve their idea of victory. They cannot win on the facts. Thus they resort to psychological manipulation, coercion, and abuse.

      Do not EVER underestimate how evil Progressives are and their willingness to “win” at all costs.

  9. One of the keys to passing more gun laws is to have both houses of Congress and the Presidency _and_ those be Democrat. Then anything can be rammed through with no worries about what gun owners think. Like all legislation that is claimed to be beneficial it ultimately turns out to be harmful at the least but usually disastrous. Social security and Medicare, both bankrupt or soon to be, are excellent examples. Gun control fails because it focuses on the wrong people. A mandatory death penalty for gun crimes that result in loss of innocent life would be the best deterrent but that obviously isn’t going to make it by the unicorn and butterfly crowd.

    • Interestingly the rainbow, unicorn, and butterfly crowd have provided a lot of our spree killers with almost all of them being Democrat voters. It’s these people that take innocent lives agreeably should be executed but at minimum should be executed in public using limited means of execution that never includes lethal injection. The chair, the noose, the firing squad, and the guillotine come to mind.

      • Agreed with both. A jurisdiction that prohibits the death penalty guarantees a better outcome to scumbag murderers than their victims, has renounced the social contract by refusing to enforce the right to (innocent) life, and has no claim to obedience / loyalty from its people.

    • Michael,

      You refer to Progressive efforts to institute Social Security, Medicare, and gun control civilian disarmament as failures or soon-to-be failures. That depends on the REAL objective.

      If your objective is the betterment of society, then yes those are (or will soon be) failures. If your objective is to weaken society and create as much chaos and suffering as possible, then those initiatives are resounding successes.

      You should be wondering what kind of entity wants to weaken society and create as much chaos and suffering as possible–and why that entity wants to do that. The answer is simple. An evil entity enjoys weakening society when that entity expects to gain power, money, and control as a result. And an evil entity actually enjoys watching chaos and suffering, just like an arsonist enjoys watching a building burn or a serial killer enjoys watching their murder victim squirm and beg for mercy while dying.

      If that isn’t turning on any light bulbs in your head, let me put it this way. Do you think Adolph Hitler’s speeches and appeals to the masses were about making Germany a better place? Or were his speeches and appeals a massive manipulation of the German population in pursuit of his evil, sadistic goals?

    • Quote: “Michael February 10, 2022 At 08:48
      One of the keys to passing more gun laws is to have both houses of Congress and the Presidency _and_ those be Democrat. Then anything can be rammed through with no worries about what gun owners think. ” End Quote

      Democrats (communist party USA ) are near this level of control today with bitme and hairy ars with BO pulling the strings.

      They are near perfecting their process of stealing elections (see 2018 and 2020).

      In spite of all the media stories of how republicans will win the house and senate in 2022 I predict the left will again “find” all the votes necessary to keep house and senate and probably increase their numbers. I hope I am wrong but cannot forget what they have already done.

      When they finally have full control it will be katie bar the door, they will continue/complete their destruction of the Constitution.

      Be Prepared !!!

  10. Imagine gun owners testifying before a congressional committee, calling upon their senators to pass legislation and joining gun safety groups at rallies.

    Gun owners like David Chipman?

    • Or whenever they grab some politically connected high ranking military officer to say something like “I know war, I know the M-16, and we need to ban assault weapons like the ones I used in combat from the streets.”

      Wow, yep, you gotta believe the expert, I mean he was a general in the army! If he says ban the guns, you gotta do it!

      • I may have not have attained the rank of General during my 25 years in the Army, but I certainly “know war”. Generals, or any other officer that spews rhetoric like that is either a puppet or a malign actor.

        A wise Commander once told me when I was a youngster; “I have no aspiration to wear stars on my collar, as that path leaves a trail of destroyed careers and broken men its wake. The only certainty is that it will compromise your most valued principles.”

        This isn’t true of all Flag Officers, but for those officers that seek it above all else, we have witnessed it throughout history as it continues today.

        • Never trust any officers above the rank of It. Colonel. Literally all Generals are politicians first and military leaders second, otherwise they would not have attained that rank without the appropriate amount of boot licking required.

  11. There are way too many gun owners that would be comfortable banning evil ‘assault’ rifles as long as they get to keep their pistols or acceptable non-evil hunting rifles.

    • Cato, what you have heard is pure unadulterated anti-gun propaganda made up in a concerted effort to divide us.

      • He’s being sarcastic you insufferable 🥾 👅. Did you and Lamp take the same remedial writing course?

        • No he wasn’t, dumbass. Read his subsequent posts. Get your head out of your insufferable ass.

        • Hey, nameless, brainless troll! You’re not getting any smarter, any wittier, or any more educated. Perhaps you should devote some of the time you WASTE here on this blog, making feeble, unsuccessful attempts at being relevant, to pursuing your GED. You probably won’t be any more successful, but you MIGHT gain something out of it. I guarantee the rest of us will – your absences.

          Figure out Balaam’s off ass, yet???? No, you’re too stupid. And too stupid to insult. Go to the cable.

      • WEB III

        Bullshit, if you haven’t heard gun owners that believe ARs are weapons of war and civilians should not own them, you haven’t been listening. Pull your head out.

        • Cato, the “bull shit” is all yours. I own two AR’s and neither are “weapons of war”. There is absolutely NO FATHOMABLE reason why you should not be able to own an AR. All it is is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle. Pull your own head out of your posterior. An AR is NOT an “assault rifle”. “Assault rifle” is a made up anti-gun term to inflame people. I read in the paper the other day that a Rome NY police officer was running done the street with an “assault rifle”. It wasn’t. the Rome City police don’t have “assault rifles” An assault rifle is one capable of full automatic fire, three round bursts as well as single action. Do you even know what “single action” is?
          God save us from anti-gun radical propagandists.

        • I will agree with you Cato.

          I on more than one occasion was shooting a semi-auto military look alike rifle. In one case it was a Mini-14 and in another incident it was an FN FAL. In both incidents I had gun owners who were at the range walk up to me and say “Why would you want to own a gun like that????? None of the responses I gave them were able to convince them that I was not a Far Right nut case wanting to overthrow the government or a nut case planning a mass murder.

          I think in the end if we are to keep such weapons better vetting or even putting them on the NFA list (which is draconian vetting and licensing) is going to save our right to own such weapons because letting all the nut cases and criminals buy them will end up destroying our gun rights forever.

        • “…if we are to keep such weapons better vetting or even putting them on the NFA list (which is draconian vetting and licensing) is going to save our right to own such weapons…”

          So we preserve the right…by turning it into a heavily restricted, very expensive privilege that only a few elite people will ever be able to exercise.

          Progtard “thinking” at its finest.

        • to Ing

          quote————Progtard “thinking” at its finest.——quote

          The only Progtard is you and the proof in the pudding is that silencer companies cannot make them fast enough for sale so your fantasies about Americans not being able to afford things on the NFA list is a fallacy.

          Suppressor Tax Stamp
          Tax stamps cost $200 each, no matter what kind of suppressor you buy or how much it costs. The price of the stamp was set by the Federal government under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and it hasn’t changed since it was introduced back when Franklin D. Roosevelt was President.

        • WEB III

          How dense are you? I own six ARs, I know they are not weapons of war or assault rifles.

          There are people that own guns that do not own ARs that don’t care if they are banned. I never said all gun owners believe this. The fact that you and Dacian think alike should make you think twice about being such a retard.

        • The topic is firearms, not sound suppressors, which are on the NFA despite not being firearms.

          NFA firearms, Dacian. How many of those can YOU afford to own?

        • Quit lying, dacian, you’ve never shot a frickin’ gun in your life. Or if, God forbid, you HAVE shot a gun, that is the best evidence I have ever seen for more mandatory gun training (which I am against) – if someone as stupid, and gun-ignorant, as you is shooting, we’re ALL in danger.

          You are too stupid to insult. You need to go micturate up a cable.

        • to Ing

          quote————–The topic is firearms, not sound suppressors, which are on the NFA despite not being firearms.

          NFA firearms, Dacian. How many of those can YOU afford to own?———————-quote

          Obviously you know little of why machine guns became unaffordable. It was because new manufacture was banned to be sold to civilians not that they would not be affordable otherwise. Semi-Auto rifles are still being sold to the public so making it a law that they would have to be registered with the NFA would not drive up the price of them except for the $200 tax stamp. Only if new manufactured guns would be banned would it drive the price up like it has done to machine guns. This is why new silencers and semi-auto guns are still affordable because they have not been banned for sale to the public.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, BULL SHIT! A Mini 14 is NOT an AR-15. Not even close. The Mini 14 made by Ruger was designed to be what is termed a ‘ranch rifle’ good for very short distance shooting on a farm or ranch out to about 100 yrs on a good day with no wind. The barrel is poorly set in the receiver (you do know what the receiver is?) and is not “free floating” ( do you know what a :free floating barrel” is?) as an AR-15 is. The accuracy of a rifle is dependent on something called “harmonics”. But being an “expert” (ROFLMAOBT) you already know that, right?

          Again, DUNDERHEAD, you are just showing anyone with a smattering of knowledge of firearms just how much you really don’t know.

        • CATO, the DIP, YOU did say that gun owners claim that “AR’s are weapons of war”. That is a direct quote from your own damn post. I have steadfastly maintained that the AR is a civilian semi-automatic firearm which fires either a 5.56 mm rd or a 223 Rem. Those people you allude to that own firearms who don’t care of AR’s are banned are in a very small almost miniscule number. You are repeating anti-gun propaganda probably from the same or similar sources as dacian the DUINDERHEAD. You might want to wake your sorry arse up and smell some coffee.

        • WEB III

          ‘TOO MANY’, asshole, I said too many gun owners think ARs are weapons of war.

          “Those people you allude to that own firearms who don’t care of AR’s are banned are in a very small almost miniscule number.”

          These are SOME of the people I was talking about. They may not make up a large # of gun owners but they are out there. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts. That’s probably a good idea considering how stupid you are.

        • Cato So now you try to qualify your statement. Which is it, Cato, oh gr4eat wise one (NOT)?

          My head has long been out of the sand. What you claim is a miniscule number of people who know little or nothing about the “black rifle”.

          You make a box of rocks look like Einstein’s brain.

        • WEB III

          You quoted me incorrectly. I gave you the direct quote and not a qualifying statement. Smart people would know the difference.

          You say the minuscule # of gun owners that don’t care about ARs know little or nothing about them. No shit, Sherlock. Yet somehow they are still out there.

          We need intelligent people that see the threat of gun control to be in the fight. That means countering all threats or misinformation wherever it comes from. The anti-gunners will present pro-gun control, gun owners as experts even if they are as dumb as you.

          Let the big boys and girls take care of it. You are not up to the task.

        • Cato, “oh wise one” (not) I quoted you exactly as you put it. Again, you are trying to justify your nonsense by walking it back some. Your “direct quote” is Horse Pucky!

          Yes the miniscule number are out there. But they are MINISCULE and you are helping to try to make it out to be larger than it is.

          We sure do need “intelligent people” who see the threat of gun control. But your inflating the opposition does the cause no good. I counter the threats with FACTS, not misstatements.

          Speaking of big boys, You sure as heck aren’t one. You are a hysterical fool.

        • Here you go, Cato, Oh Wise One! NOT

          Cato February 10, 2022 At 10:30
          WEB III

          Bullshit, if you haven’t heard gun owners that believe ARs are weapons of war and civilians should not own them, you haven’t been listening. Pull your head out.

          Now you STFU!

          It’s people like you who conflate the problem of a small miniscule minority. You expose it for what it is. Not inflate it way out of proportion. You DASOB.

        • I believe any number is too many.

          If you haven’t heard of ANY gun owners that believe ARs should be banned, how do you know how many there are, minuscule # or not?

          Ever heard of the term FUDD? Maybe the the person who coined the term was conflating the problem. I doubt it since the term is well known throughout the gun community. I should say intelligent people in the gun community, not you.

          “You expose it for what it is.”

          You’re right, I did expose it for what it is. It’s a problem, maybe a small problem in your small brain, but still a problem.

        • Cato, you are really a piece of work. You exposed nothing but you did INFLATE and gave credence to the Left’s propaganda. AGAIN, Cato, almost wise one. If you say that one is too many so fricking what? You expose that number for what it really is. You don’t conflate and inflate the propaganda with rash dumb repetitions of their propaganda. you attack it for what it is.

          Now do yourself a big favor and STFU!

        • WEB III

          You finally got something right.

          I am a piece of work, and you are a piece of shit.

          Have a good day, sweetheart.

        • Cato, You are damn fricking right I got that right. You are a Piece of Work. A piece of frantic ninny with the intelligence of a half wit.

          I’m having a great day, exposing what an idiot you really are.

        • Cato, you are not intelligent enough to know what a “feeling” is. Did your parents have any children that lived?

          You are the kind if ninny that makes a problem far worse rather than attacking the problem you outline the problem and wring your hands moaning.

          FACT: The number of gun owners that think that AR’s are “bad” is miniscule. You leaving out the word miniscule is the kind of rhetoric that magnifies what isn’t.

          Don’t go away mad, just go away.

        • I’m surprised you responded. I figured you used up all your brain power with the “piece of frantic ninny” insult.

          “You are the kind if ninny that makes a problem far worse rather than attacking the problem you outline the problem and wring your hands moaning.”

          This is the dumbest thing ever said in the history of dumb shit. I mention a problem that needs addressing and your position is the problem is too minuscule to worry about. Now you say I should attack a problem YOU deny exists?

          Come on, Walter, think before you post.

        • Life-long gun owner, shootist, and collector. I cry Bull-Diarrhea. I don’t think AR’s and AKs or any other semi-auto firearms are weapons of war or otherwise problematical. The intent of the Founders when they wrote the Constitution is there to read in their own words and writings. Some states insisted on and firearms clause in the Constitution before they would sign on. The USSC has applied it to people and the states. It is the LAW and there are one hell of a lot of unConstitutional laws in the country on every level.
          The eternal war between the forces of freedom and personal liberties vs the forces of tyranny continues down the ages…

  12. So now that gun control efforts are failing its not failing because its this insane fascists idea of the democrats to remove rights but rather its gun owners fault its failing.

    Oki dokke, got it.

    • I don’t mind claims that its my fault gun control is failing! I’m right proud of it, though I would not claim much credit in that regard. If somebody thinks I’ll be stampeded into yelling for more civilian disarmament by such claims, they are as stupid as we normally assume.

  13. There are many Fudds in the gun community. Many only care about a certain type of hunting, others care about handgun carry only and on and on. These self appointed experts know what is right for everyone else, because they are next to a gun god.

    Many LEOs think those that are not LE or maybe a first responder who works for the government should be the only ones who can carry or even have a gun at home.

    People have preconceived notions and they should change them to go along with the law of the land. If these self appointed heroes really cared, they would get together and train people at the range – maybe they could change their minds about who is good enough to have firearms(which should include everyone who has not misused a firearm in a felonious act).

    • “ There are many Fudds in the gun community.”

      Like it or not, if there weren’t many (Fudds), who are likely a majority of gun owners who are not as passionate as you concerning the RKBA, there would be damn few people still exercising the Second Amendment.

      Rather than belittle or deride gun owners YOU don’t think are worthy, you, and others as pure as you, should start trying to convince them of the value of whatever gat and philosophy you believe is the Holy Grail.

      Certainly you will not be able to ever convince the hard corps gun ban crowd of the value of our God-given freedom. Perhaps, however, you could update a fair number of those who already have a gun in the house. Ridicule and scorn won’t do it.

      The huge numbers of new firearms owners since the rise of Wokeism really take some thunder away from your “many Fudds” assessment. The most sad part of this is that big shot, chest-beating, never-compromise gun owners’ comments had nothing to do with the increase in gun ownership. Good people just opened their eyes and started seeing through propaganda editorials like the one we’re commenting on.

  14. Asking gun owners to join “gun safety” (gun control) groups is like asking black people to join the KKK, asking Jewish people to join the Nazi party, or asking sheep to join a wolf pack!
    Are there any gun owners dumb enough to fall for this?
    Maybe a few Fudds will join, I suppose, people whose only gun is a rusty single-shot 12 gauge they inherited from their grandfather, which they keep in a box in their attic. But such people are not real gun owners.

    • Stuck in NJ You can ask gun owners to join “gun safety courses” to your heart’s content. Fact is tht 99.9990% of gun owners already know the FOUR RULES of Gun Safety. These courses while are great for first time gun owners, are really innocuous.

      Full disclosure: I’m a certified NRA Firearms instructor in 8 disciplines.

      • Walter,

        I’m a big fan of firearm training – safety training, target practice, tactial – I generally take a couple of courses a year, at least, and I go to the range no LESS often than twice a month (more, if I can get/afford the ammunition). I’m just not a fan of MANDATING training, or of having our “benevolent” gummint be in charge of defining or administering any kind of licensing or approval.

        Responsible gun owners will seek to get better. Irresponsible gun owners will do the MINIMUM to achieve whatever approval they need, and nothing more. And, since they are only interested in the outcome, they’ll forget everything they “learned” in their training.

        I CHOOSE to continue training, target practicing, and trying to refine my skills because I WANT to – and I guarantee you that if I were doing it because it was mandated, (i) the level of training would be a joke, and (ii) I would forget the entire thing as soon as the approval came in. I have a CCW, and I took the “required” course. The course was a joke, and at least a third of what they “taught” us was errant horses***.

        • Lamp, I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, we canNOT legislate what you are I know are the “right” thing to do to maintain competency with a firearm. In most states, the only requirement to obtain a pistol permit (or license) is a pistol safety course. No live fire required.

          I also choose to train twice a month and each week use my SIRT training pistol often two or three times a week. You are correct, firearms training is a joke only because the powers that be doNOT understand what firearms training is really all about. .

        • Walter,

          And, as I said, I have NO desire to legislate, or mandate, any required training, licensing, or other government involvement in our sport.

          My usual analogy, when trying to explain to nitwits like MinorIQ, is “So, the government should mandate training and licenses for guns, eh? Just like they do for cars, right? And you NEVER drive down the street and find yourself saying, ‘What nitwit gave THAT @$$hole a driver’s license?”.

          And that would be a valid argument even if gun ownership WEREN’T protected by the 2A. Since it is, it’s a valid, but unnecessary, argument.

          I train and work on my skills as often as I can afford to. I think that’s the CORRECT way to be a responsible gun owner. But I’m damned if I want some goverment bureaucracies, inevitably staffed by incompetent nonentities like MinorIQ and dacian the stupid, defining what “proper” training is, or who is “qualified” to carry a gun.

          My father was a lifelong Democrat (a Depression kid), union member, and either a government contractor (most of his life) or a government employee (later in life) and he used to say, “Always remember; the government could f*** up a one car parade!”

  15. Lol
    These people truly do live in their own little world.

    Gun owners don’t want any of this. If that were the case then there would be no point in owning a gun. This entire thing is so ridiculously absurd that it might as well be a skit on SNL. But there are idiots that will actually believe this type of propaganda.

    Going infront of any governmental body asking to do something is what Washington thinks because it’s what they see. It’s part and parcel of them being so completely out of touch.

    I want fewer laws and the laws that are there to actually be enforced. I want less government not more. Put the animals in their cages and leave them there. Stop acting like America hating tyrants and embecills.

    Just get out of everyone’s way. Now if they cared so much then they can read what I just said. No coalitions, commissions, studies, hearings, or any other bureaucratic insanity is necessary.

  16. Their next article will be about how lesbian women secretly want to be in relationships with men who are domestic abusers.

  17. I do not know of any gun owners that support more gun control. Let’s just call them a very small minority.

  18. Attention: Below is the part of the “Op Ed” that was deliberately left out.

    Eighty-six percent of the gun owners polled said they support universal background checks, with 84 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of NRA members surveyed voicing support. Sixty-seven percent of the gun owners surveyed support “red flag” laws (61 percent Republicans and 57 percent NRA members), which allow police to temporarily remove guns from a person deemed dangerous to themselves or others. Domestic violence offender restrictions, safe storage requirements and distinct markings requirements all polled above 70 percent.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-gun-reform-debate-is-not-impenetrable-just-ask-gun-owners/ar-AATEHcF

    This proves what I have been saying all along about this web site and that is the people who hang out on this web site are not your average gun owner, not by a long shot (pun intended). Anyone who would equate this web site and the people on it with the average gun owner would be very, very, mistaken,

        • The “truth” is a matter of perception, especially with the skewed data you’ll find on the linked website. No self-respecting, independent-minded person would ever consider such a rigged survey as being credible, it’s simple gaslighting for people who don’t know any better.

        • That’s funny, dacian the stupid, the truth (which many of us on this blog dispense to you on the daily) never seems to hurt you . . . of course, it never seems to penetrate that empty skull of yours (since the interior is empty, the actual bone structure must be neutronium, to be that dense).

          dacian, you are a stopehead (figure it out; this one’s easier than Balaam’s off ass – you have a SLIGHT chance of actually getting it). You are too stupid to insult. Go visit the cable.

        • Edward,

          Congrats, my man, you’ve just given one of the best, most accurate summaries of our resident idiot, dacian the demented: “. . . people who don’t know any better . . . “. That describes dacian with respect to EVERY subject.

          Like most Leftist/fascists, the strength of his opinions are in inverse proportion to his actual knowledge of the subject at hand.

    • hmmm, the 97Percent-Beacon Research funded by gun control groups put together and cherry picked a sample of people willing to agree with them on gun control then asked biased questions for a survey the results of which are presented to the public by two anti-gun and gun control advocates Mark McKinnon and Richard Aborn at ‘The Hill’.

      Your poll is a lie.

      • Those polls ALWAYS are lies. They exist to support the paranoid communist/globalist parties of deceit ONLY and never to provide true and accurate information to a law abiding public.

        • This one cherry picked 1000 gun owners willing to agree with them. Their sample size was 0.001% of gun owners in the U.S., an insignificant number for survey sample and for purposes of survey doesn’t exist because its ~15 times smaller than the mean of the curve for a sample group. Then from this group they used a survey that only asked questions they knew the group would already agree with them on.

          So essentially, they ended up verifying that over 97% of gun owners don’t agree with any form of gun control or any of the stuff they claim so many large numbers agreed with. That’s the thing about surveys, for the data to be true the sample group has to represent the majority of the population group in a significant manner and it doesn’t in this case and its obvious. The sample group doesn’t even represent 1%. The research is bogus.

        • to Booger Brain

          Quote—————-This one cherry picked 1000 gun owners willing to agree with them.————qoute

          Now your telling us that you are clairvoyant. See a shrink you really live in an alternate universe.

          quote—————–Plus, I doubt all of those in their survey were really gun owners. They used the general population to cull from, not the gun owner population.———–quote

          Follow my link to the “ordinal article” and read the damn thing in its entirety before making a blabbering idiot out of yourself.

        • Why, dacian, you never let “being a blabbering idiot” slow you down. In fact, that appears to be your “go to” position.

          You are too stupid to insult.

        • dacian;

          “Now your telling us that you are clairvoyant. See a shrink you really live in an alternate universe.”

          I’m not telling anyone I’m “clairvoyant”. I can read and see the data and understand it – which is evidently something you can’t do.

          “Follow my link to the “ordinal article” and read the damn thing in its entirety before making a blabbering idiot out of yourself.”

          I did follow your link to your “article” and I read it. That’s why I can say what I posted.

      • Plus, I doubt all of those in their survey were really gun owners. They used the general population to cull from, not the gun owner population. You can’t survey a sample of a group without taking that sample only from the related population to be sampled. In other words you can’t survey gun owners using the general population, you do it by selecting your sample only from the gun owner population. Its like trying to survey how many dogs are in the U.S. by counting cats.

        • to Booger Brain

          You have rejected every study and survey I have ever posted even those from Harvard University when they did not fit your far right nut case political agenda. Any sane person knows that were there is smoke there is fire and when that many studies all point in the same direction they cannot all be simply dismissed with a nut case far right wave of the hand and with the usual blabbering silly excuses and false narratives.

        • to dacian the idiot

          “You have rejected every study and survey I have ever posted even those from Harvard University when they did not fit your far right nut case political agenda.”

          Yes, I have. And the reason is because of you. The way you present them is a complete bastardization of what they really present in data because you don’t understand what they are really saying with that data. Their data is incomplete for a whole and focused on specific sectors while ignoring those things not consistent with their original premise so they can stay limited. You don’t understand this and try to present it as if it applies broad scale across all in the gun owning population and it doesn’t.

          Its got nothing to do with your imagination that everyone that does not agree with you suddenly has a “far right nut case political agenda”. There are actually very few people in the gun owning population that really are “far right”, and owning a gun does not mean you are aligned “right” either, yet you are constantly on the attack with your accusatory ‘copy-n-paste’ from others material without an original thought of your own that can be used to intelligently discuss.. Its got to do with the facts, and the facts are that all of the studies you have presented are not accurate for the whole, uses data that is incomplete related to the whole, and presented by you in this stupid complete misunderstanding of what you are reading which screaming the lie that anyone who disagrees with you is “far right”.

          In short, you are an idiot.

        • BRAVO, .40cal, bravo!! Excellent takedown, sir!

          Oh, but you did miss the part where dacian the stupid NEVER cites an ACTUAL study – he finds some article, in some reliably left-wing propaganda outlet like Axios, or VOX, or Slate, or USAToday, that references and “summarizes” some study that they CLAIM says something that supports their agenda. Inevitably, if you look at the ACTUAL study, it either doesn’t say what they claim it says, or is so shoddy that it would earn an “F” for a high school Statistics class.

    • dacian, the DUNERFHEAD, Another one of your meaningless slanted surveys? ROFLMAOBT!
      You are certainly consistent if nothing else.

    • It’s called “selection bias”. If the survey is restricted to a known group, the preferred outcome is more likely.

      • Southern Cross,

        I had a Statistics and Probability prof that told the class, “I can design a survey to achieve ANY result I want, and you need to learn that.” He taught us about many of the basic ways a survey can be “gamed”, then gave us an assignment to pick an “outcome” that we wanted, then design a survey and methodology to make sure they got that result, then actually give our surveys. Out of 37 of us in the class, only two failed to get their desired result – and he chewed them out for not listening to his lectures.

        I guaran-freakin’-tee you I can write a survey, design a methodology, select a “random” sample (random does not mean what most people think it means), and get whatever result you want. The modern pollsters have some even more insidious practices – you can get MATERIALLY different results, WAY beyond the “margin of error” by (depending on your sample) using female or male pollsters, how the question is worded, the pollster’s tone of voice when asking the question, what the introductory speech to the poll says, and about a million more (we did each of those as class assignments).

        “Polling” is literally EXACTLY as accurate as the pollster wants it to be, and in this day and age, most pollsters are trying to influence public opinion, not sample it.

    • From the survey linked in the article:

      Who is 97Percent? 97Percent is a new gun safety organization, whose mission is to reduce gun deaths in America by:
      • Changing the conversation around gun safety to include gun owners
      • Conducting and sharing research that challenges conventional thinking
      • Leveraging technology
      Who is Beacon Research?
      • Beacon Research provides quantitative and qualitative research to
      political candidates, nonprofits, ballot initiatives, corporations, and
      foundations
      • Beacon has served as pollster to Fox News since 2011
      • Beacon worked on both of Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaigns

      The survey: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047fde4e149594725e27b9c/t/6193ed52a1f62c1148a0409e/1637084499681/National+Survey+of+U.S.+Gun+Owners+-+FINAL.pdf

      Key takeaways:
      – Survey commissioned by a partisan, anti-gun organization (ideological keywords: gun violence, gun safety, gun reform, change the conversation).
      – Results are mostly in line with what we already know from many other polls.
      – Support for certain gun-control goals is erroneously inferred from imprecisely worded questions; e.g., a question that doesn’t distinguish between the existing background check law and “universal” background checks.
      – A majority of gun owners support “red flag” laws.
      – Most results do not show broad support among gun owners for gun control policies. Interestingly, page 12 shows that gun owners move toward Second Amendment absolutism over time.

      So…not much is different or new about this. It’s a reasonably reliable poll put to partisan purposes by a dishonest organization with ulterior motives.

    • Just curious, but just how will your universal background check prevent anyone from buying a stolen or black market firearm? Also, how would you propose to get those who already illegally possess firearms to either turn them in or voluntarily disarm? Next is you do realize an AR works on the same basic gas system as a 1930’s vintage Browning hunting rifle. Although most AR pattern rifles use a smaller, less powerful cartridge. The old 30-06 is a bit more potent than the 5.56 mm round.
      Been around firearms for most of my 74 years. Yet have never been asked to respond to a survey on gun control, nor met a gun owner who wants more regulation or restrictions.
      But, I have come to see gun control is not so much about guns, or public safety, but completely about control of the populace.

      • oldmaninAL,

        Just curious: If a pollster called/approached you on the street/came to your door, and wanted to survey you about your guns – would you answer them? If you did answer them, would you tell them the truth?

        I have been called (twice – I was living in Los Angeles, and they thought I’d be a reliable “yes” on gun control) to respond to a gun poll. I told the first it was none of their damn business, and when the second called, I decided to answer them – they way they “wanted” me to answer them, so I did.

        Nobody I know would tell a pollster diddly squat, PARTICULARLY about their guns.

    • Jeebus, dacian the stupid, you’re pulling this shite AGAIN?????

      Once again, you pathetic idiot, you cite a story from CNN, purportedly DESCRIBING a poll (that got the results CNN wanted). I’m familiar with the poll. Didn’t define “universal background checks”, didn’t describe what it would entail and how it would affect the average, law-abiding gun owner, and the sample selection was . . . well “suspect” would be generous. Samuel Langhorne Clemens, in addition to exhorting you to remain silent, also provided you with wisdom about statistics – “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” The one you are “citing” (you didn’t – learn proper citation, nitwit) is all three.

      Piss off, troll. You are too stupid to insult. Go micturate up a cable.

    • Eighty-six percent of the gun owners polled said they support universal background checks

      Polls are wrong Dacian. You know what is more accurate than a poll? Elections. And the politicians elected, by the people, on the right, are for the most part ardently anti-gun. You don’t have your universal background check laws, because the people don’t want it. It’s that simple. It’s one thing to be confronted by a leftist surveying you for a poll asking you questions whose answer is known o both of you to be possibly politically incorrect, and quietly, and anonymously voting in a ballot box. Hint: the ballot box is more accurate!

      Now soak it up.

  19. Law Enforcement should be indicting irresponsible parents for leaving loaded guns accessible to children. especially when they take them and commit mass murder with them. Lets hope these two irresponsible gun owner parents will be given the maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for the mass murder their son committed at his school.

    It will send a clear message to parents that long prison terms await them for committing irresponsible acts with their firearms.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/mother-of-oxford-school-shooting-suspect-was-having-an-affair-and-snuck-away-from-work-to-meet-with-her-partner-at-a-costco-parking-lot-coworker-says/ar-AATERNw

    • dacian, “Law Enforcement” as you call it can’t indict anyone; that is up to the States District Attorneys. God, please get your ugly head out of your posterior.

      • to Walter Jed Clampett the Beverley Hillbilly

        A district attorney is part of law enforcement you idiot. Nice try on one upmanship and grasping at straws but it only made you look like a fool once again.

        District attorneys are the top law enforcement officials in each county. Even though the police and sheriffs are organized independently from the DA’s office, they work very closely to respond to alleged crimes.

        https://theyreporttoyou.org/issues/police-accountability#:~:text=District attorneys are the top,to respond to alleged crimes.

        • No dacian;

          The sheriff is the top law enforcement official in each country.

          DA’s don’t enforce law, they prosecute offenders. The sheriff (and by extension of deputizing and appointment his/her deputies) enforces the law and does not prosecute offenders. (and in the cities the city police departments also enforce the law).

          Law enforcement can’t indict anyone.

          dacian, are you even an Amercian citizen?

        • correction: “The sheriff is the top law enforcement official in each country.”

          “country” should have been “county”

        • No Booger brain

          Blabber all you want, pontificate all you want but I will go with the ACLU statement and their lawyers every time not some pontificating nut case playing all day on the internet.

        • No, you stupid idiot, they are not – they are OFFICIALLY “officers of the court”. Since your ignorance is so total, let me put you some knowledge – the oath a DA has to sign, AND their ethical obligations with every Bar Association in the country, is to FAIRLY charge and present the cases referred to them, IF they find sufficient evidence. It is actually a conflict of interest and violation of professional ethics for a DA to be acting in any other way. Yes, some of them do, despite their ethical obligations (the Soros prosecutors would be a good example), but that doesn’t make it right.

          You are too stupid to insult. Please hie thyself off to the theological place of eternal punishment.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. The District Attorney is not “part of law enforcement”. The District Attorney represents the PEOPLE seeking JUSTICE. It is the job of the police to enforce the law, the job of the District Attorney is to obtain a conviction of the guilty based on evidence presented by law enforcement.

          Nice try, DUNDERHEAD, but you don’t know any more about law than you do about firearms.

    • So, dacian the stupid, now you’re an expert on parenting, in ADDITION to being an “expert” on guns??? I believe your BS “parenting” advice exactly as much as I believe your BS about firearms – which is to say, not at all. HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU RAISED, brainless Leftist/fascist idiot??? How’d they turn out??? I managed to raise four kids, with multiple guns in the house, and we NEVER had a ND, a shooting, or whatever.

      The ONLY gun I ever had stolen was stolen from . . . wait for it . . . my CALIFORNIA LEGAL gun safe, you pathetic T***. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT WAS IN IT, you purblind fool.

      You are too stupid to insult. Go micturate up a cable.

      • To the Lamp that went out in his head.

        I quoted the death rate as published yearly and it averages 1,300 kids killed a year by irresponsible parents leaving loaded guns laying around the house, not to mention the kids that take them to school and commit mass murder with them. You can scream from the rooftops you do not believe it but those are the stats for sane people to contemplate and be horrified by. For a nut case like you “Losses can never be too high”.

        Yes you may have just been lucky being an irresponsible paranoid jerk by leaving loaded guns laying around the house but thousands of other irresponsible parents were not. They either have kids in graveyards or crippled for life in wheel chairs.

        • dacian the stupid,

          First, nitwit, your reading comprehension is as pathetic as your supposed, alleged “education” and your (lack of) logic. NOT ONE TIME in my response did I EVER say I “left loaded guns laying around the house”. I very specifically said I had guns around, and I don’t believe in keeping them in “gun safes” – because “gun safes” aren’t safe.

          Second, you pathetic bag of douche, you COMPLETELY ignored my question/challenge to you – HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU RAISED, dacian the stupid???? Until you’ve raised a kid, YOURSELF? Ess Tee Eff You. You don’t know WHAT you are talking about. (Just like your mythical “gun knowledge”). Let’s see, now – my youngest is almost 19, my oldest is almost 28, so I’ve had children in my house, WITH guns around, for about 90-100 “kid years”. No accidents. No shootings.

          Tell me again about your “expertise”, dacian the stupid. And go pound salt in your @$$. You are too stupid to insult. Go visit the cable.

          You are too stupid to insult

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, My your are terrible with your stats. According to your own figures, of roughly 1300 kids alleged to have been killed that accounts for less than 1 per 1000 deaths. Nice try, DUNDERHEAD but your mouthwash is designed to inflame not inform.

          Every death of a child whether by a gun or disease is a tragedy.

          I raised a fine young man to respect the firearms I had in the house. He was allowed to examine and fired some of my rifles at target practice and hunting. He never had a negligent discharge. He entered the US Army at the age of 18 and served three tours in Iraq in the infantry and subsequently as an MP.

          Other than McDonald’s what have you ever served? Did you have any children (God FORBID!)?

  20. “That’s why gun owners need to know other gun owners are united in wanting stricter gun laws.”

    Um, let me think. No.

    • They’ve cherrypicked a couple of results and crafted an emotionally manipulative argument around them, but their own poll actually says no to almost everything they claim gun owners are united in wanting. Par for the course.

      • Ing,

        I am very familiar with the “survey” that is referred to in the CNN article (which should tell you everything you need to know!) dacian the stupid is citing. In the first instance, the “survey” was designed to achieve the results reported . . . and it did, quelle surprise! The questions were “leading”, no background or context was given for the questions, and the sample size and selection was crafted on purpose.

        You will note that there is an AMAZING similarity among gun-grabbers about the use of that particular statistic, just like the “97% of scientists” who support globull warmening – they generated ONE bogus study/statistic, and they will ride that hobbyhorse for years AFTER it is dead.

        Both of those studies have been debunked so many times it isn’t even funny, but the Leftist/fascists keep citing them. Why?? It’s all they’ve got. They don’t want to go to the trouble of creating another fake statistic, that would take time, cost money, and get debunked just like the first one. Instead, since their audience is mental defectives like dacian the stupid, they just keep shouting their lies more loudly, and the bobblehead idiots (like dacian) will just bobble harder.

        • To the Lamp that went out in his head

          Quote———— just like the “97% of scientists” who support globull warmening –————-quote

          Only an ignorant uneducated hill jack like yourself would refute scientific studies that have been going on about Global Warming since the late 1940’s. The evidence is overwhelming and even a retarded Dotard would realize that when you are pumping tons of deadly pollution daily into the atmosphere its got to do tremendous damage to the environment, not to mention kill people with cancer deaths.

          Your desire to rape the environment for blind greed and profit will do you no good when there is no planet left to sustain life, but that is way over your head.

        • dacian the stupid,

          OOH!! I am verklempt! dacian the dunderhead called me a “hilljack”!! Yep, sure am – born in San Francisco, lived most of my life in Los Angeles, currently live in a SMSA of over a million people. Four degrees. A published author (both fiction AND professional journals).

          Yep, I’m a “hilljack”, and you’re a jackass, and getting stupider by the minute. Cite me all your “evidence” for anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming. Cite document, peer-reviewed studies. I’ll wait, you jackass (or, in your case, jackoff is probably more accurate).

          What field is your science degree in, serial onanist???

          You are too stupid to insult. Go micturate up a cable.

        • To the Lamp that went out in his head

          Published author with four degrees my ass you demented clown. Most of the time you cannot even write a coherent sentence let alone publish a book. Let us know the titles of all of your published books and manuals. You cannot because you never did.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. Give me a break. What you know about any given subject couldn’t fill the bottom of a thimble, yet you claim to have a “higher education” and are an “expert” on the subject of firearms.

          Your dumbass can’t even tell us the firing sequence of a cartridge. The only think you have ever done is blow smoke up people’s posterior just like miner MINER49ER.

          I’d trust Lamp’s word long before I would anything that emanated from your fingers. (I’m sorry; did I use a word that is not in your vocabulary?)

          God save us from Leftists and fools! (Aren’t they the same thing?)

        • dacian the stupid,

          So, what you’re telling me is (i) you’ve never raised a kid (not surprising; I can’t imagine any woman being willing to get close enough to you to procreate), and (ii) YOU are accusing ME of not being able to write a coherent sentence??? YOU????? That is f***in’ comedy gold, right there.

          Yes, dacian the stupid, I have published, both commercial and professional. NO, I will not give you the names and ISBN numbers of my published works, for the same reason I won’t tell pollsters about my guns. It is literally none of your f***in’ business what my name is, where I live, etc. I would not put that information out on a blog inhabited by the likes of you and the nameless, brainless troll.

          Don’t believe my assertions about my education and background?? I am your huckleberry. Challenge me on ANY subject relating to law, the Constitution, business, finance, economics, history, cooking (worked my way through high school, college, AND part of law school as a chef). I’m HAPPY to put you in your place on any of those subjects. Hell, I’ll throw in philosophy, comparative religion, government and public policy, statistics, and psychology. Take your pick. Give it your best shot.

    • Ralph, if they want to blame me for that, I am more than happy to take the credit!

      That is what is known in the trade as a “good outcome”, so I’ll take credit for it, even if I didn’t earn it.

      In my experience, MOST serious gun people are well-informed about politics and policy, VERY knowledgeable about their sport, enthusiastic, welcoming to “noobs” (well, I have run across a few exceptions), and just genuinely nice people.

      I keep remembering William F. Buckley’s brilliant observation that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. He was not wrong.

      • To the Demented Lamp that went out in his head.

        Buckley was as big a clown and wacko as you are but at least Buckley later in life changed his mind about a lot of the stupid comments he made and the racist beliefs he held. Racist people always have been your kind of heroes.

        You have proven you know less about Buckley than you do about rocket science.