Previous Post
Next Post

“[North Carolina’s prohibition against police destroying firearms purchased during gun buybacks] is a counterattack—an aggressive response to a new wave of gun control activism that borrows its approach from groups like Grass Roots North Carolina, which has a ‘no compromise’ stance and opposes all gun regulations, regardless of other concerns.” – Jamelle Bouie in Gun Fanatics Score Big Victory in North Carolina [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Take a look at Mr. Colion Noir’s video on “compromise”. I think we’ve (law abiding gun owners) compromised enough, if not too much.

    • +1. I don’t understand the logic behind laws about suppressors and length of barrel. And the new re-importation EO makes less sense.

  2. LOL… I have not heard more made up touchy feely BS put forth as “TRUTH” in a while… Always reminds me that its sad that these people (non-property owners) were given the right to vote.

  3. I see the author refers to the same PBS Frontline article I’ve seen before claiming only 10-15% of guns used in crime are stolen – but what they actually mean is that only 10-15% of guns used in crime were stolen by the perpetrator himself. They lump anything that was stolen by someone else and subsequently bought or borrowed by the perpetrator as “not stolen”. They then take this lump of guns that were “bought with cash” and try to imply they were bought from corrupt FFLs using the same garbage ATF indicators that Gary Kleck destroyed a few years ago. A thoroughly dishonest article.

  4. From the article: “…it’s true that there’s nothing harmed by destroying confiscated guns—rights remain intact and manufacturers can continue to sell”

    Let’s play the amendment analogy game here – would the author feel the same about the first amendment? “…it’s true that there’s nothing harmed by burning confiscated books—free speech rights remain intact and publishers can continue to sell”

    From the wikipedia page on book burning: “Book burning can be emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime which is seeking to censor or silence an aspect of a nation’s culture.” Quite the parallel.

    • I think he would say the same thing.

      Book burning is a horrible demonstration and deserves criticism. But as we are often reminded around here we have our freedoms. I would look down on any organization that went around burning books but I certainly would defend their right to do so (my views on flag-burning are similar). And if a local community wants to engage in a purely voluntary gun buyback/destroy program shouldn’t they have the freedom to do so without the state government telling them they can’t? Nobody’s rights are being violated. Nobody’s weapons are being confiscated. Isn’t this the same sort of big government interference that people around here so often deplore?

      • Excellent points, Nordic – I suppose I hadn’t fully considered the analogy. However, in this case it is not a private institution ‘burning books’ if I may continue with the metaphor, but the government itself. If a private organization wanted to have a book burning or gun meltdown, that’s certainly a protected activity. But if the Library of Congress says “it’s cold in here, light a match in the rare books collection”, I would say that’s another matter.

  5. What nonsense. Destroying usable guns is like throwing away potential funds for department or other municipal needs. Why destroy an obvious source of revenue?

    • The departments should receive no funds from those sales beyond that needed to recover their administrative costs. Giving them anything more incentivizes them to seize firearms that should not be. Any profits/retained revenue needs to be donated to non-government charities.

    • Going over to, and reading some (most) of the comments, is the reason I carry. Those people are on some good stuff, or otherwise completely detracted from reality.

      The problem is that living has gotten too easy, and some people who are fat, happy, and complacent have forgotten that their own safety is THEIR responsibility. We all agreed when this little experiment started that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus we have the right to defend our lives. Quit interfering with that!

      (Side rant) Remember that we have the right to PURSUE happiness, we’re not granted happiness. There are winners and losers in life. I get so sick of this feel-good culture they’re trying to create where everyone wins in little league and every college graduate should instantly get a six-figure job!!! And where someone else is responsible for keeping you clothed and protected. The feeling of entitlement sweeping the nation is very troubling to me, what happened to personal responsibility?

  6. Compromise requires two rational actors with compatible end goals. The anti-s are not rational actors given their immunity to data and their goal is total civilian disarmament.

    Ergo, no compromise. Our doctrine of “no compromise” is simply a necessary consequence of dealing with the anti-s deficiencies and motives, not an intrinsic feature of position.


  7. The funny thing is that if you look at the roll call vote on it, the majority of the Democrats voted for the bill also. It passed 98-16

  8. From the article:

    For these advocates, are guns still tools—objects that have a purpose? Or are they relics, totems of a strange faith that demands our allegiance? Is the NRA defending rights, or is it imposing a new religion of gun worship?

    He’s got it precisely backwards. Demanding the guns be destroyed because they’ve been used in crimes is attaching to them a mystical aura of evil, one that must be purged by fire. Selling them on is treating them like any other object that you’ve seized from someone who’s broken the law, such as a car or solid gold toilet seat. It’s not normal practice to destroy these items if they’re in working order, so why treat guns differently?

    • Yup … “For these advocates, are guns still tools—objects that have a purpose?”

      Well … yeah. They help people defend themselves, as long as they’re in the right hands. They won’t get to the right hands if they’re destroyed.

      Should we also destroy cars that are used by robbers?

      Destroy buildings that are used by corrupt businessmen?

      Those make just about as much sense as destroying weapons used by criminals.

      And as Pyratemine said a ways up, departments should receive no extra funds for selling items used in crimes. There should never be a built-in incentive for asset forfeiture.

  9. Those who would destroy objects of intrinsic value for symbolic reasons neither understand value nor posses reason.

    The phobic reaction may manifest broadly, but to the degree that one is fearful of inanimate objects a great distance removed from oneself one moves beyond phobia and into delusion.

    The desire that an inanimate object one has never and will never see be destroyed requires an aversion to such object existing at all.

    While there are surely few who may reasonably reach this conclusion for philosophical purposes they would be a tiny minority (since even base philosophy is now well beyond the reach of many Americans)

    The remainder and large majority of those who evidence such a desire can only do so out of irrational fear of inanimate objects acting with personal malice over great distances. That is they must fear being shot by ‘a gun’ without human intervention and they must fear it personally though they have never seen the gun in question nor, I suppose, has it ever seen them.

    This is not a phobic response but rather stems from delusion since one would need to believe that these guns in particular, and not some other gun, will somehow find them and do them harm.

    Phrasing it a different way for illustration; such a position as these anti’s take is tantamount to insisting that cars held in police impound be destroyed rather than auctioned because by some mechanism those cars, and not any others, pose a threat.

    I submit that the mechanism in question is a mild form of mental illness that has not previously been documented. Specifically: Delusional patterns in which some inanimate objects are inherently hazardous while others of the same type are harmless.

    If one thinks hunting rifles are harmless but sporting rifles are dangerous, guns possessed by police and government agents are safe but those in private homes are a hazard, and that a few guns police have collected are a threat while the estimated 300+ million others in the country are blameless then one suffers from a complex and over arching delusional complex that overrides both reason and experience. Typically people with these sorts of consuming delusions are either medicated and monitored or else are remanded for inpatient treatment because such a severe divorce from reality almost always indicates that the sufferer is a threat to themselves and or others as they may act on the delusion, producing bizarre and sometimes frightening results.

    Though I suppose it’s possible they are just very dishonest people who (not so) secretly wish all guns were destroyed, for various reasons, but count it as a small victory when any guns are destroyed. This position doesn’t necessarily mean that they are free from mental illness, but it is an escape from the implication that they are severely delusional.

    Ardent’s Axiom: One cannot be honest, sane, and well informed simultaneously while also advocating civilian disarmament.
    One leg must always be missing, such that one may advocate for disarmament for political, social or economic goals without believing in it, but then one is dishonest. One may advocate for disarmament because one is pathologically afraid of them, but then one is not fully sane. One may advocate for disarmament because one believes it is for the greater good, but then one is not well informed.
    When encountering an anti, ask yourself, is this person dishonest, mentally ill or misinformed. I think you will find that they are always at least one of these, though they may present more than one at a time.

  10. Enough compromise,compromise for the liberal left is gunowners not fighting to keep or take back more of their Constitutional rights.As for compromise the liberal left has never compromised,it’s either their way or they throw a tantrum and belittle all gun owners or the NRA for all they can.Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here