Previous Post
Next Post


“For whatever reason, we have put guns on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations.” – Former intern to Gabrielle Giffords, Daniel Hernandez, Jr. in What are Americans doing about gun violence? [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “For whatever reason, we have put guns on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations.”

      I think this guys needs to have a reasonable conversion about dieting..

      • More appropriately, we should have a conversation about spoons and forks. You know, those inanimate objects that magically jump off of the table and stick food in his mouth.
        I would suggest a chinese diet. All you can eat with only one chopstick..

      • What this guy needs to realize is that when the anti’s want to have a reasonable conversation, they really mean shut up and listen to our point of view….. and we’ve stopped buying that line a while back.

    • 2nd amendment aside (I can’t believe I actually wrote that), until folks like him can admit the problem is people who want to randomly hurt/kill other folks with ANY tool, I won’t waste my time/breath talking to him. People who think the tool is the problem are so far off base to begin with, that any engagement is akin to trying to make orange juice by starting with apples.

      And no, I’m not concerned at all that this might support his point in some roundabout way. Obvious is obvious, Captain Obvious. Once we can agree on the base problem, then we can discuss it. As long as you labor under delusions that it’s all about the tool, you’re preventing discussion of the problem, which also prevents solving it.

  1. Sacred and abhorrent are two sides of the same coin. Both cause non-rational reactions, interfering with clear thought and communication. For examples, see religions.

      • The first amendment has nothing to do with religion. I define religion as faith that cannot be swayed by logic or science. See fans of certain sports teams, automotive manufacturers. No matter how blatant the proof you’ve got, they’ll either ignore you or scream and leap.

        On the firearms related side, the question of “How many people have died from bayonet wounds in the US this century? Then why do we want to bother banning them?”

    • We get irrational even without religion. Most liberal/ progressives ,( that mostly don’t believe in a god) still have an almost religious belief that a sign with a picture of a gun with a circle and slash through it has some magical power to keep out a mad man with a gun. This, even with multiple examples of having no such power.

      Now that is irrational.

  2. The Right for self defense is sacred, yes…of course the ability to protect my family is important and off the table for discussion. I’m not willing to rely on the police that are a few minutes drive away to get here when the threat could be standing in my home now.

    How about these same people ditch their fire extinguishers…what do they need them for if the fire department is only a few minutes away?

    • Because liberals are more concerned with material possessions than human life. If they can’t own it they don’t care, hence the abortions of hundreds of thousands of black babies yearly.

      • Its also more important to feel safe than to confront the personal responsibility of what it tactically may take to actually be safe (or relatively so).

        • One should never feel safe. You are not experiencing much of what life has to offer by seeking a perpetual state of safety. Not that one should live in fear either but safety is but a false state. Embrace fear and enjoy life. And do it intelligently.

        • A Liberal would not be a Liberal if he had enough sense to recognize fear. Liberals do not fear guns. Liberals do not fear anything. The sight of guns remind them that we live in a world that has many dangers. To a Liberal, those dangers pose no threat therefore guns are unnecessary. Liberals love soccer. There is no fear in playing soccer. Children’s recreation leagues even take away the anxiety of losing a game by not keeping score and everyone gets a trophy. No child left behind, common core, two examples of trying to eliminate fear of poor grades. Welfare removes fear of unemployment or single parenthood. Abortion removes fear of parenting altogether. Social security eliminates fear of being penniless in retirement regardless poor decisions made throughout working life. To a Liberal fear is wrong. That explains why they call Conservatives “fear mongers”, “homophobes”, “Islamophobes” or “racists”. Liberals say “I’m not afraid to vote for a black man for President”. I’m not either but I was afraid to turn the country over to a party that has no fear.

    • How about they just replace the word “guns” with the words “freedom of speech” and see how they feel about rights then?

      • The left is for freedom of speech, but only if it is the right speech. The IRS scandal was all about silencing conservatives. Rich leftists buying up the media is about drowning out other voices. They are not against their bodyguards having guns, just us. See, they want rights for them, but not us.

  3. “For whatever reason, we have put guns on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations.”

    It is called a human right, and your “reasonable conversations” are nothing but attempts to run over our rights.

  4. He’s right they are sacred because tbe right to defend our life, liberty and property from enemies foreign or domestic is unalienable and granted by our Creator.

    • Not to be “that guy” but assuming the creator you speak of is the Jewish/Christian creator that right and any other right you care to name are readily alienable in the service of said creator. Moderate tolerant Christians are the biggest sinners of all, what with allowing sin to proliferate under the guise of freedom of speech the right to bear arms and freedom of religion.

  5. Two things:

    1) Schools should be required to teach the constitution
    2) Liberals purposely want us to forget history and the constitution. Multiculturalism is designed to kill the USA and other countries.

    I believe stupid statements like that stem from one or both points above.

    • Amen, we need to take back the schools from the leftist when we do that that leftist will lose the next wave of minds and like all parasites they will die with out a host..

    • Schools are teaching bits and pieces of the Constitution–the “new and improved” edition. It’s been slightly reworded for modern times so the children know what the founding fathers “really meant”. Only for the sake of clarity, the history being taught has been filtered through a liberal lens and adjusted accordingly. It’s better that way.

      • In current textbooks: Free speech is allowed only in Free Speech Zones. The Second Amendment allows Governors to maintain a National Guard and nothing else.

        I didn’t believe it until my co-worker brought his kids’ textbooks to work.

  6. Every gun owner that hasn’t been asleep since Bill Clinton was in office knows why we cant have a ‘reasonable conversion’

  7. One of the biggest reasons that conversations about the 2A are so difficult is because the folks against guns do not really understand the definition of “reasonable”. I think their definition of reasonable requires their feelings to have the same weight as facts and that if you have to agree with them. So when they assert that we are in an “epidemic” of violence and that regulating law abiding firearm owners will somehow impact crime, they think that is “reasonable”.

  8. “For whatever reason, we have put guns on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people …”

    How many times do I have to tell gun grabbers that it isn’t about guns?!?!?!? It is about liberty and personal responsibility!!!!! Gun grabbers have no place telling me what personal property I can own or possess, PERIOD! I don’t care whether that personal property is a tube of lip balm or a firearm. I don’t care how intense their feelings are. I don’t care how intellectually superior they think they are. I don’t care about their assessment of the pros and cons of owning or possessing certain personal property. It is MY property and MY business.

    Firearms are simply the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” and show us when someone wants to infringe on liberty.

    • Well, the US Army is thinking about things like this:

      When the US Army looks to the future, it sees cities. Dense, sprawling, congested cities where criminal and extremist groups flourish almost undetected by authorities, but who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state. [emphasis added]

      And the service is convinced that these “megacities” of 20 million or more people will be the battleground of the future.

      And here’s the “cast of characters:”

      …The problem from a military strategists’ point of view, however, is that no army has ever fought it out in a city of this size. So in thinking through the issue of what to do about the coming age of the megacity, the US Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) got together with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence in February to explore these types of urban operations.

      Note that that “bastion of individual liberty and freedom,” the UK, is a participant.

      Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  9. Who is making the big deal about guns? It is the anti’s. So Mr. Hernandez, how about a big dose of STFU?

  10. He’s true to a point. I’ve met plenty of people that, should you say you’re in favor of background checks or waiting periods, blast you as if you’re the most evil left-wing “libtard” there is. Such stereotyping reveals an “us or them” mentality, sort of similar to the logical fallacy of “all or nothing”. There is no such thing. Someone can be in favor of gun ownership yet still want common sense checks and balances in place, just as someone who loves free speech can still insist that there be a separate section for “adult” magazines in a bookstore.

    Now I love liberty, but with liberty must come responsibility. Many of our laws are in place because some idiot somewhere did something stupid, therefore a law was enacted. I would like to see laws relaxed but punishments made more severe (so that liberty can be had but the penalty for misuse or abuse of the liberty deters people from taking it lightly). So I lobby for it.

    But one thing’s for sure: people who “drink the NRA kool-aid ™” (not that the NRA is the problem, but those who read into their publications with an agenda or fear and paranoia) need to stop stereotyping anyone who says they want any mild common-sense controls (such as background checks). They’re only hurting their own cause by trying to make this a “I’m more of a zealot than you” contest, pushing away everyone who’s not as extreme in their beliefs as they are.

    Case in point: on a major forum, one you’d know, I was branded as basically a gun heretic because I insisted that background checks for ammunition (assuming there were no waiting periods and the information was anonymous) wouldn’t be a bad thing (i.e. trying to keep felons from stealing guns but then buying ammo). For someone with a CWL who loves guns and believes in guns (and believes that ATF restrictions need to be relaxed, and no limit made on the # ATF licenses in our country), it’s tough when the group you want to be or should be a part of, out of your beliefs, brands you a gun heretic simply for one minor thing they don’t like.

    Really, we’d all benefit from stepping back and analyzing our own thinking for “all or nothing” thinking.

    • Im sorry, but BGC’s to buy a lousy box of ammo is a big deal. Im sorry you don’t see it that way.

      We just narrowly defeated that asinine idea in California not even 48 hours ago thank God. I don’t believe in all or nothing, but I fundamentally believe that we dictate terms as winners, not compromise from a position of weakness.

      Brute force is the only thing a bloomberg understands, we beat gun grabbers until they politically cease to exist, then we can talk about solutions.

    • Nice trolling! However, I saw the words “common sense” and knew immediately where that came from.

      Oh, if you were actually serious, note that there are numerous studies showing that background checks either 1) do nothing – the majority of the studies, 2) actually cause more gun violence by a small amount but just barely statistically significant – a couple studies, or 3) slightly lower gun violence by an amount less than statistical significance – 1 study. The number of actual prosecutions from these “common sense” background checks is shockingly low (under 100 the last I remember). Since the effects of background checks for gun purchases are either nil or negative, the idea that a background check catches a criminal who buys a gun from his buddy (out of the trunk) and then suddenly decides to go to a gun store and go through the whole hassle of the background check to buy ammo is laughable. If such a criminal does exist, that one single criminal (I can’t imagine there being more than one on the planet) won’t be smart enough to know how to get the ammo in the gun.

      I realize you think that referring to the constitution is all-or-nothing thinking. However, that is a response to the incremental chipping away at rights that you and your fellow anti’s are doing. There is no reasonable conversation with somebody who won’t answer the question of how many given up rights is enough.

    • Unfortunately your common sense gun laws are anything but. Why should I automatically be assumed to be a criminal because I want to buy a box of 9mm. Let’s not forget about the additional 5 dollars for a nics check every time I buy ammo if that was in place.
      These universal background checks are foolish and are another way to allow the government to permit a right they have no authority to permit in the first place. This isn’t just about gun rights it’s about my right to not only privacy, your inherit right to sell personal property, your right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, and another way to drain tax payers of their money since NICs checks aren’t free.

    • Sorry but I kind of feel youre one of the “Im a gun owner but ….” types, and after seeing the words common sense and you talking about background checks for ammo, I cant tell if youre a troll or not tbh.

      Please google slippery slope.

    • Why stop there? Why not jam a tracking device way up the ass of anyone who expresses a desire to buy ammo? They might buy the ammo and then hand it off to criminals. Can’t have that – Common sense and all.. /s

    • TwinReverb,

      I see three primary factors at play here.

      First, gun grabbers have piled law upon law upon law over the last 120 years to make firearm ownership as onerous as possible with the end goal to forbid firearm ownership. We would be foolish not to view any new laws in that context. Strictly from a political perspective, any discussion of new laws must involve the repeal of existing laws. But that never happens.

      Second, most, if not all firearm laws are beyond the legitimate purview of republican government. Violent criminals have used pillows, fabric, and rope to kill people. Why not require background checks before anyone can purchase those items at stores? How about thread and string? An enterprising criminal could purchase thread or string and weave their own rope to kill people. Shall we require background checks before anyone can purchase thread or string? The notion that laws can prevent crime is absolutely foolish because laws are nothing more than words on paper. Another reason that such laws are foolish: humans are clever and creative and will always find another way to create a weapon or an alternate weapon no matter how many methods we try to criminalize with pre-emptive laws. Such laws simply create a giant administrative burden and cost with no benefit.

      Third, it is patently offensive that government requires me — a good, honorable, responsible, and free person — to do anything before I can purchase or possess any object that I desire. Background checks are offensive. Laws that restrict what types of firearms that I can legally fabricate or purchase are offensive.

      While you may not object to firearms laws, others do and for good reasons. Imagine if government started writing laws about if, when, how, and for what reasons, you can be intimate with your spouse (assuming you are married). Of course government would justify such laws claiming that they are for your own good and for public safety. Would you find such laws patently offensive? Would you oppose ALL such laws?

    • Since we are on “common sense” – let’s go there

      Voter ID

      Mandatory infant/child education for anyone having a baby

      Mandatory DNA swabs from everyone (so we can catch criminals sooner)

      4th amendment – allow warrant less searches since good guys have nothing to fear

      Require genetic screening

      Microchip everyone at birth so we can turn on the system to track criminals immediately after commission of a crime

      Govt mandated portion control to protect us from over eating and obesity and diabetes

      Mandatory breathalyzers on all vehicles

      Mandatory wrist watch monitors to check vitals and determine drug/alcohol use

      And a blast from the past, how about poll tests to make sure people understand what they are voting on?

      • Those are freedoms that the vast majority would oppose but somehow, to far too many, firearm (and all that goes with it) ownership by sensible and law abiding people should be heavily restricted.

        • That’s because the Rothschilds and other banking elites have their hands shoved up the rears of every leader in the Commonwealth. And no, that isn’t a conspiracy theory. That’s conspiracy fact.

    • I personally have mixed feelings about BGC’s, emotionally (which means that in the real world this doesn’t matter) I think that they may stop someone who shouldn’t have a gun. But then my adult side comes up with the facts: black market guns are easy to get & cheaper than going to a gun store, the number of false denials are huge compared to the infinitesimally small prosecution rate or smaller conviction rate of denied individuals attempting to buy a gun, the costs to benefit are astronomical, the chances to build a back door registration are significant, & the costs to run the system are unnecessarily high as they are with all government programs. And that’s just what I came up with while I was typing, and I think I forgot a point or two.

      What rights should be about are personal property & private contract. The classic example of the right of free speech is the shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, but if you buy a ticket to the show you entered into a contract with the owners of the theatre that you will behave accordingly. Not only do you not have the right to yell ‘Fire’, you don’t have the right to disrupt the show & bother other ticket holders. All firearms laws are inherently against private property rights. I have the right to defend my self, my family, & my property any way I see fit as long as I don’t infringe on others’ property rights. If I do something stupid & damage my neighbor’s house or my neighbor himself, then I am liable for the damages, whether that stupidity involved a firearm, a car, or a turkey fryer. If I commit a crime, I’m liable in the same way just as before, no matter the inanimate object I use. The object’s legality or regulation should never be questioned, but my actions with the object that damages other’s property is alway the determining factor.

      • Blackmarket prices of guns?

        Are they *really* cheaper than retail? This is an interesting point if they are because it means that economics are such that buying retail is a total sucker game. If I’m a criminal, a gun is a tool like a carpenter’s hammer so I’m making an economic decision as the value of that tool either as an item for defense or a means to earn a living.

        Here in Chicago, our dear Father Pfleger rants about $25 guns on the street – I can’t see how that would be the case unless the supply is so huge than an individual gun has very little value. If that’s the case, buying through gun stores doesn’t make any sense – for anyone is you could buy it cheaper. Granted you aren’t going to get an HK or Sig or high end 1911 but $25? in 2014? OK, 2012, the last time I remember him saying that.

        If that’s the case, the entire set of laws on legal purchases has very little impact because the value of the item has been set by people that not only can’t buy retail, but plan to commit crimes which is a high risk endeavor,

        It would seem that this is hard evidence of the futility of restricting legal purchases if it doesn’t add to the criminal’s cost of gun acquisition. I can imagine there are $50 burner .380 pot metal guns (like the Davis Industries model – I wrecked someones by shooting two whole boxes of ammunition through it which caused the pot metal band holding the barrel to crack and the front of the slide to crack and bend up as well) but what does a G17 go for on the street? Really less than retail?

        • At the height of the panic some guy wanted to sell me an AK for 300 but wouldn’t sign a bill of sale or give me his name, needless to say I declined.

        • When I re-joined the ranks of the AI, I was offered “black market” guns at a price that could only have been illegal. Full-auto AK for $150 and don’t ask any questions?

          I declined the offer and went retail. But yes, guns on the black market are cheap, dirt cheap. They lack legitimacy and have a target customer who doesn’t have thousands to spend. What do you do with a stolen handgun or a crate full of AKs? You can’t exactly pawn them or sell them on Armslist. You don’t sell them at a premium price to someone with the right ATF tax stamp.

    • So the guy was able to steal a gun, but he’s incapable of stealing ammo? As has been pointed out numerous times before, criminals are criminals. They break laws, that’s how they become criminals. Make new laws, they’ll break those, too.

      You raise a good point about the enforced orthodoxy in the gun community, but background checks aren’t dumb just because the “zealots” say so. They’re dumb because they simply don’t work.

    • “…on a major forum, one you’d know, I was branded as basically a gun heretic because I insisted that background checks for ammunition.”

      You’ll likely get the same treatment here.

      • Even the People’s Republic of California shot that concept down.

        ATF tracked ammo purchases from 1968 to 1986. It was discontinued for being an administrative nightmare that didn’t yield ANY results. Good thing it only took 18 years to figure out it wasn’t working…

    • “trying to keep felons from stealing guns but then buying ammo.”

      Felons don’t buy ammo, they steal it along with guns. I don’t know about you but I don’t wait until a trip to the range to buy ammo so have both locked up together. You steal my guns, you steal the ammo for each caliber I have. Even if I only had one gun and one box of ammo. bad guy would still have enough to do harm. It’s not like bad guys need a lot of ammo for the gun range. Ammo is expensive as it is, why add additional cost for law abiding gun owners?

    • TR, the point you are missing is that the antis aren’t ever going to settle on compromise. They don’t like the 2a and their goal is to grab all the guns. Every compromise will be met with a demand to compromise on the compromise. Isn’t it obvious that gun laws so far have had a minimal effect on crime? Does anyone really think that the majic law is right around the corner? I think that the thing to do is to hold the line without sounding nuttier than the antis. All this talk about some leftist conspiracy to enslave America, please quit embarresing us. FWIW if anything our government is clearly for sale and I don’t see a bunch of no-money leftists outbidding the Kochs any time soon. If you’re looking for a canary in the coal mine-given the increasing plutocratic nature of our country-the threat to our liberties will come from the right, not the left. Which basically means a flip by the GOP. But credible evidence for any totalitarian scenario is lacking, to say the least.

      • It’s OK Mike; you have just become used to the level of your enslavement over time, this is by James Madison (1788) explained that “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

        The definition of a free person versus slave for all of history is by whether they are free to KABA without permission by government; by that definition alone, we can accurately call New York and California slave states. and that every state that requires a permit to carry a concealed weapon is violating a fundamental right. By that definition we only have five free states that have Constitutional Carry, all the rest are at varied levels of enslavement.

        Along the way we have asset forfeiture; where a government agent seize your property, assets, and savings, as a possible drug dealer, then you have to go to court with no money to hire a lawyer to prove your innocence.

        Road blocks with warrantless searches on the public roads where your car can be searched because a dog “hits” on your vehicle as a possible drug mule. By a dog. That gives the government a “legal” excuse to violate your right from unreasonable search and seizure. Last I looked, a dog can’t be deposed on the stand. It’s a DOG.

        You child can be taken from you if you spank them because the government has determined you are “abusing” them.

        Strip searched at the airport as another direct violation of your right from unreasonable searches and seizure without a warrant.

        That a local government can “with a plan” seize your home to demolish it to put in a business park to raise more taxes.

        Then there is the NDAA where you can be arrested, held without bail, without the right to a lawyer, without seeing the evidence against you because some bureaucrat labels you a “terrorist”. indefinitely. for the duration of the hostilities, in a “war” Bush said could last a “hundred years”.

        Like I said Mike, we took on the greatest military power of its day and won in a revolution over much less violation of our fundamental rights. This is how inured, how beaten down we have become, how use to being abused by our “representatives” that you can look me in the eyes and honestly say to me “what Enslavement? and you can look me in the eyes and honestly think that I’m a kook for believing such a thing.

        • I agree that there are many misguided laws but disagree that they are part of an organized effort to enslave. It seems that voters are much too quick to give away rights in the interest of catching bad guys, rights that would not be given back by an abusive government. Very short-sighted. Your list is a good one and should be of concern.

        • @MikeFromStLouis, think about it. Whether the path to slavery is “organized” or not is irrelevant. The salient point is we’re on such a path, and we need to get off of it. You can bet that once the die is truly cast, and the political and legal rubicon has been crossed, there will be people ready and positioned to step into the “masters'” shoes. Why do you think Bloomberg, Gates, spend money on this? Think it’s kind hearts?

        • The point is Mike, right now, you can have your home seized for the “greater good”,; your children seized because of traditional discipline, your property, assets and bank accounts seized on the word of a confidential informant; strip searched when using public transportation, your car stopped and a warrantless search of you and your car on the word of a dog; denied completely the right to KABA and you can be disappeared, with no access to a lawyer, no evidence shown and no recourse for justice on the word of a bureaucrat,;

          If this isn’t the definition of totalitarianism, of tyranny? Then what is? Seriously, what then is your definition of a totalitarian regime?

      • DempsterDumpster: Yes, the path is dangerous. And you are right, someone could take advantage of it. But conspiracy theories are a major turn off to most people and will not get us where we want to go. It is hard to find parallels but the closest I know of is the Nazis. They were fooling no one, taking over a country requires so many people that it can’t be kept secret. In our case there is no evidence, so talking conspiracy hurts our side. Here’s something I see: Big Money is buying government. SCOTUS gave their OK. Cheap Mexican labor, Chinese imports and outsourcing, and the financialization of the economy marginalized workers by manipulation of supply/demand. The Nigerian model of plutocracy calls for the police to suppress those dealt out of the economy. We know that prison building has been big business, and on these pages I need say nothing about the police. The recipe for an abusive plutocratic government is being followed very well, but I am not all all ready to say that a conspiracy exists. There’ s just no evidence. I think enslavement is way too strong a term, but there are many corrosive messes that need to be cleaned. It’s all about the voters, assuming votes still count!

        • ThomasR! My origional post was to twinreverb…anyway name a time in the history of the country when there weren’t rights violations. Slavery, women’s rights, asylum abuse, Japanese internment, there are always problems. I can work where I want, travel where I want, or call the head of the MO hiway patrol a clueless douch bag. Or even thePOTUS! Some German may have called Hitler a clueless douch bag in public, but I’ll bet he didn’t last!

        • I’m with you. I would just caution folks that parties need not formally conspire to be a force toward a common goal. It is human nature to want to control others. People of great wealth may well cause great and widespread harm each independently serving himself.

          Our founders recognized this fact, perhaps above all else. They endeavored to diffuse politically power to avoid giving any individual or group the chance to use government as a lever for selfish gain at the expense of another. They did not turn away from their goal thinking that they might risk being seen as “conspiracy nuts”. We should be no less vigilant in obstructing those who seek to diminish our individual sovereignty, which is our American birthright. We should obstruct it wherever we find it, whether in powerful individuals or widespread movements.

  11. For whatever reason, we have put illegal immigration on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put abortion on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put racism on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put Islam on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put gay marriage on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put afirmative action on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put welfare on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put Barack Obama on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

    For whatever reason, we have put the IRS on this very different level. It’s a sacred thing to many people, which forbids us from having reasonable conversations

  12. Well Mr. Hernandez, suppose a stranger has incredibly intense, all-consuming feelings of lust and desire for your wife and the stranger demands to have sex with her. What is wrong with a “reasonable conversation” with that stranger to determine what type of sexual activities to allow, how often he can have sex with her, where he can have sex with her, etc. ?????

    • Correct. You can repaint the walls, change the drapes, rearrange or replace furniture, and even build another wing or knock out a wall in your house. But the foundation, if properly built, and the Constitution is such a foundation, remains intact upon which all other things set. The 2nd amendment is carved in stone.

  13. Daniel Hernandez Jr needs to understand that the anti’s are not having discussions about guns, their trying to dictate how I conduct my life when it comes to protecting my self.

    • Whenever somebody uses the term “reasonable,” you can assume their views are anything but. I’m certain that to Mr. Hernandez, very strict gun laws in NY, NJ, MD etc are either reasonable or maybe too lenient. But the reality is that in blue states our Constitutional rights are being infringed upon daily with unreasonable restrictions (and he has no problem with that at all).

      Mr. Hernandez and people like him demand a reasonable conversation, but that’s just a euphemism for “guns are icky, we don’t like them therefore you shouldn’t have them. We’re also considering more restrictions or an all out ban, we’ll see how far we can push this.” In other words, there’s nothing reasonable that they could bring to the table, and yet we’re the a-holes for pointing that out.

      I’ll ask again, what’s the percentage of legal gun owners who commit gun crime? I’m sure it’s not 0, but it’s minuscule. Legal gun owners and our “arsenals” are not the problem, Mr. Hernandez. I’m getting tired of pointing this out and of people like you who just refuse to accept it. Take your “reasonable” conversation elsewhere.

  14. A New Zealand web site runs an anti gun story.

    Well, well, what a surprise.

    I read foreign (English, Australian) news websites and it’s not uncommon that they publish breathless news stories about the Americans and their silly guns, anti gun opinion pieces and hyped up stories about crime here.

    It’s kind of cute really how they spend so much time handwringing about our freedoms, while they completely miss the point concerning their own knife crime problem, (hint: it’s not the object) home invasion robberies and homeowners charged by the crown court when they dare defend themselves from violent burglars.

    There is also a strong undercurrent of class division wherein the intellectuals are completely horrified by the prospect of the peasants owning firearms. I mean, my God, firearms are only for gentlemen, and then only for fox and pheasant hunting twice a year.

    Guess that’s why we agreed to disagree on that whole freedom thing. Poor dumb bastards.

    • Then again, these are probably the same they didnt want the peasants to have swords either, it made tax collection much more difficult when the serfs are armed.

    • I was in a chat room with someone from New Zealand and she assured me that you could buy full auto Uzis off the shelf here in the United States. No amount of my explaining how much experience I had with guns and the process of purchasing them here could shake her absolute conviction that she, a Kiwi who had never set foot in the US, much less purchased a gun here, knew more than I (with a middlin–by the standards of many here–sized collection) did about what it took to buy a gun here, and what types were available. And Oh By The Way, BOTH of the Columbine shooters had full auto uzis. Betcha didn’t know that either. I had thought, up to then, that just one of them had a Tec-9. (The safest place to be is in front of the Tec-9 once the first round has gone off, as that piece of crap will have jammed.)

  15. I must have a different definition of “reasonable conversation” because my version does not have one side starting with “you are future mass murderer that wants children and people to die”. Forgive me if I don’t wish to engage in your conversation when all you can do is hurl bile, rage and hatred at me without even knowing me.

  16. Look at Washington DC. Their gun owners are the most trained, tested, vetted, background checked and limited in the country (no assault weapons, no normal capacity mags) and STILL the anti second amendment crowd wants no compromise on the right to carry.

    When the anti second amendment crowd gets what they wan the want more. In every state where they got what they wanted they are currently engaged in efforts to get even more gun control.

  17. If these people are really so interested in a conversation then why are all dissenting views deleted from the anti-gunner’s social media? Ask any gun owner that tried to have a conversation on the MDA facebook page.

  18. They keep saying they want a “conversation.” I don’t think that word means what they think it means. Whenever I have a “conversation” with someone, it doesn’t start with me screaming childish obscenities at them. It never continues with me accusing them of murder by proxy, for having a certain hobby. And it certainly never ends with me demanding their property to ease my irrational fears. If we were to “conversate” the way these people do, we would be demanding our machine guns back, and constantly attempting to charge them with treason.

  19. Perhaps our “obsession” with guns is the reason why an attack on a politician is front page news here in the USA?
    In more enlightened countries like Mexico, the murder of public officials is a common occurrence.

  20. I would love to have a ‘reasonable conversation’ with someone on the pro-gun control side – it would be a first! In 30+ years I have not encountered any reasonable gun control argument (that’s no exaggeration). Has anybody?
    A ‘reasonable conversation’ pre-supposes that both sides are informed about the topic, use sound logic in forming principles and drawing conclusions, and are intellectually honest. Has anybody encountered such an anti-gunner? In my estimation anti-gun arguments ALWAYS come in two flavors: ignorance and B.S. – presented as being ‘reasonable’ or ‘common-sensical.’ I am tired of firearm illiterates and shysters defining what is ‘reasonable’ regarding gun laws. They are like astronomical illiterates who think it is ‘common sense astronomy’ to believe that the sun revolves around the earth.
    We know what we are talking about. We don’t have to distort things in our favor. We don’t have to resort to making up crap. They always do. We should start defining in this debate what is reasonable and bring the conversation up to our level.
    For instance, someone is anti-gun. Fine. First ask him if he has a basic understanding of how a gun works. He probably doesn’t. So much for a ‘reasonable conversation’ about guns. Right now they want to ban guns based on how their actions operate. How do we have a ‘reasonable conversation’ with loons like that? They want to restrict magazine capacity to what they say is a good number of ammo and ban mags that hold a bad number of ammo. They are superstitious numerologists! No ‘reasonable conversation’ there either.

  21. Not sacred. And what prevents us from having “reasonable conversations” is the absolute infantile and immature behavior of the people who dislike guns.

  22. Every time Rev. Al Sharpton opens his mouth to give forth another racist rant either against whites generally or against Jews or whatever his latest target may be, I do not hear leftists lament and advocate a restriction on the First Amendment. When leftist pro-Democrat churches in Detroit and most inner cities invite particular candidates for mayor or advocate particular candidates for other offices, the ACLU does not alert the IRS, nor does “Freedom from Religion” zealots sue for violation of some IRS limitation placed on non-profits’ freedom of speech.

    Are there any African-American residents of any inner city across America advocating limitations on the Second Amendment? No. The ones advocating limitations on the Second Amendment are white suburbia leftist racists seeking to deny ownership and use of firearms by the law abiding citizens of the inner city and elsewhere. All are Democrat leftist racists.

    • Not all are. Bloomberg doesn’t live in the suburbs. When he’s in the US, that is. And Gates doesn’t live in the suburbs either. He OWNS the suburbs.

  23. My guns are not sacred. It is my absolute right of self defense that is, the gun is just the best tool for the job. Since no one has come up with anything better, more reliable, and more portable, all conversations about what I will give up to satisfy the anti crowd is: nothing. In fact I want more, more freedom, more guns, and better guns. Put that in your “peace pipe” and smoke it.

  24. “The six men — four Democrats, two Republicans — discussed gun policy almost exclusively for weeks. They debated whether features such as thumbholes and pistol grips would qualify a gun as an assault weapon. They made calls to state police officers and held up photographs of different types of guns and asked each other, “Would this be one? Would that be one?””

    Bless their little hearts. It’s beyond me why 6 mature adults would think that banning certain rifle parts has anything to do with stopping mass shootings, especially since our worst mass shooting was done with handguns and 10 and 15 round mags. if I had been in that room, it would be impossible for me to keep a straight face. Can’t you just see them sitting at that table, mulling over the deadly thumbholes? Yeah, that’s right guys, ban those and our kids will be safe. What a riot.

    These politicians have less sense than God gave a baby squirrel. They should’ve been discussing increasing security at schools, and maybe mental health issues, and that’s it.

  25. Here is a “common sense” question Liberal gun grabbers ask when they try to “reason” for more regulations: How many have to die before we DO something about gun violence?

    My reply: How many more people will die after you do something?

    • Exactly. I have yet to be persuaded why Texas should want to raise its murder rate to match California’s. Those are two large urban border states with similar racial demographics, so the difference between them is gun laws, which I believe cause California’s murder rate to be higher than Texas’.

  26. We can’t have a conversation because a conversation takes place between two or more parties that are willing to listen to the others points of view. They don’t want to talk, they want to dictate. The other thing is that they are so uneducated on firearms that we might as well be speaking different languages.

  27. Still can’t get over how the folks who disable comments on their videos and ban dissenters from their blogs are always yammering about “having a conversation”.

  28. ” Four months after the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, lawmakers banned at least 115 types of semiautomatic firearms.

    Four months after the shooting of a congresswoman and a federal judge in Arizona, lawmakers there named the Colt Army Action Revolver the official state gun. ”

    And how many school shootings have happened in Arizona since then?

  29. “For whatever reason…”

    NO! Not for “whatever reason.” For “the security of a free state,” dammit!

  30. You can use the same argument about race, immigration or religion. It’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any of those things nowadays.

    • Not even the weather, because now our betters tell us we must pass tax bills that will fix the weather.

  31. Hey Sir Zog I live just south of Chicago. I have some insight into gun sales. Most gangbangers steal their guns. A LOT of guns coming from NW Indiana. Lots of Hi-Point 9mm. Even criminals can’t get a Cobra or JA to run. I’ve witnessed straw purchases at Hammond Indiana Cabelas too. And ironically enough a story ju
    st popped up on WGN about the flow of Indiana guns to Illinois. Good guns ain’t cheap to buy either…

    • I really cannot comment on the Gary Hammond area as I have lived more in NE and SE Indiana; but usually not a lot of straw purchases in my areas. Many of the gun stores are run by Deputies in their spare time. They usually are sticklers on their customers passing NICS and 4473. Most of the cops privately state the real “River Of Iron” is predominately stolen guns flowing in the “Drug River Commerce”. Most cops will tell you that most of the criminals are habitual, repeatable, with long records and histories.

  32. Reasonable Conversation is anything anti 2A. Any thing pro-2A is done by gun rights extremists, such as the ones that shop at Kroger.

  33. If you are above the age of 19 and the most prominent part of your resume is that you were once an intern for a congresswoman then you’re doing it wrong.

  34. Seems to me that gun crime is way down, at least statistically. Let’s do something about tobacco and car crash deaths. Car crashes kill as many as guns and tobacco kills ten times the amount that guns do.

    • As a Fudd cigar smoker, I wouldn’t mind it one bit if Uncle Sam banned cigarettes.
      1.) They come in high capacity packs (20 at least)
      2.) They are cheap and easy to obtain, unlike my stogies.
      3.) They look much more undignified and tacky (read: menacing) in the hands of common people.

      Besides, nobody NEEDS to smoke 20 cigarettes a day. I personally find it adequate to smoke just one high quality cigar every now and then (mostly on pleasant weather days). If someone needs 20 cigarettes to enjoy the stimulation of tobacco, then they need to re-evaluate their inhalation technique and/or overall general way of life. Or, I could just leave people the hell alone and mind my own damn business, but you know, what fun would that be?

  35. I pretty much agree that there are people who cannot discuss the subject rationally. In fact, I’d suggest Giffords is one of them! But I’m afraid he is imagining the problem reversed from reality. I have never really heard a rational discussion from a grabber.

  36. Well here’s a thought experiment for the guy. What other rights would be okay to curtain to these types? The constitution is a pretty big document. We should trim a little fat off of it. It is the progressive thing to do.

    How about we we remove the 10th amendment? We don’t needed individual states going against the Federal governments plans. We’ve already trimmed the 4th down pretty well over the years. Really need to get rid of it all the way as this lets ‘bad people’ get away with crimes against the state by not having everything public knowledge. Definitely need to get rid of the 5th amendment. We wouldn’t have let that bastard Zimmerman get away with his crime if we could have been able to try him again and again until we got the ‘right’ verdict.

    Of course I’m being factious here. Just trying to illustrate the absolute lunacy of making placing caveats and limitations on our rights.

  37. Forbiden Comment is exactly right. I tried to post the following to the comments section on website and had it removed three times. It is clear no other voice than theirs is what is acceptable.

    The problem with your proposal is who are the “they” that gets to decide this vetting? I was in London a week after the riots and the only people vetted to carry guns were the police, who were guarding Buckingham Palace and White Hall. It was clear that those doing the vetting get protected but the common man and his family gets to face the molotovs and gangs defenseless. This is why the USA is different, the rights of the common citizen are enshrined in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is one of the best embodiments of a natural right being protected in law. It guarantees the rights of the common citizen to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

  38. You know, as I noted above, these folks really don’t seem to want conversation. But it occurs to me that they really aren’t much into the “reasonable” part either. I mean, we’ve got them talking about “30-caliber magazines” that can be emptied from a semi-auto “assault rifle” in “one second”, we’ve got magazines that are “ammunition”, so they are “used up” once they are emptied, we have “shoulder things that go up” called “barrel shrouds”, we have “school shootings” that didn’t happen in school and no one was shot, we have Don Lemon buying “machine guns” over the counter with no Class III license–I could do this all day….

  39. How can one have a “reasonable conversation” with a group that claims to be intellectual but is immune to facts? A group that wishes violence upon peaceful people? A group that responds to reason with logical fallacies? A group that believes those who disagree should be rounded up and forced into compliance? A group that believes a popular opinion means stripping others of their rights? A group that knows nothing factual about the objects and behavior they want to regulate?

    I think we would have better luck negotiating with ISIS.

    PS: Why isn’t the ACLU defending gun rights?

  40. Why shouldn’t there be something almost sacred about the only category of weapons that lets the meek or infirmed protect themselves and their right to life against those that would harm them?

  41. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” – Ayn Rand

    “All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.” – Mahatma Gandhi

  42. Guns are not on any more sacred level here in the U.S. (note that this article was published in New Zealand) than any other of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Comments are closed.