Previous Post
Next Post


“So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.” – Nicholas Kristof in Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals [at]

[h/t firearm concierge]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Exactly. This quote might just be the only truth told in the entire original article. If you follow the link and read the whole piece, the author ends up spewing just about every one of the usual false cliches. The tone of the article is basically “Hey Libs, your biggest hurdle with gun control is your ignorance on the subject, but don’t let that stop you pushing for it.”

    • DC and NYC Libs don’t make that argument, because (1) they know nobody would believe it and (2) it would make them feel too dirty. They leave that to their flyover cousins and proxies, like Space Cadet.

      • Will these work: I’m an aborted baby but I think we should outlaw all abortion. I’m gay but I think marriage should only be between one man and one woman. I’m a black, lesbian, amputee, dwarf but I think we should outlaw all affirmative action practices in hiring and college admissions. I’m a meth and cocaine trafficker but I think we should legalize drugs. I was raped and murdered but I think we should ease up on incarceration rates for violent sex offenders.

    • I usually reply with something like, “Oh really, what kind of gun? How did you get it? What is the functional difference between that firearm and one with a different grip?”

    • Agreed. The drafters of the legislation knew full well almost all pistols would be banned until new magazines were manufactured.

    • right –

      “We don’t want to take your guns! we only want to ban the Dangerous ones!!!”

      They’re all equally dangerous when handled negligently or maliciously.

      “Your point”?

  1. The lack of magazines isn’t a bug in their eyes. It’s a feature. They knew full well what they were doing.

  2. Let the liberals be kept ignorant and let them keep spouting their inane arguments and solutions. It only works with people who have NYC type values anyway.
    I think most of the conservatives got Ted’s drift.

    • +1
      I look forward to new York values being explained in loosely cigarettes arrests, laws that tell a chef how to fix food, telling people what they can’t eat. People being arrested for cooking outdoors with a BBQ. New York values that limit second amendment civil rights.

      • And most importantly, a cradle to grave dependence on and surrender to the collective for anyone born or raised there. A very good case, Mr Cruz needs to clarify, for arguing those born/living in NYC their whole lives are culturally not American and inelgible for high office. Those in the South and Texas know this, but the sound bite may not resonate in suburbia and among the few disaffected urban folks without him spoon feeding the meaning. Cruz arrived in Houston at age four; Trump was born in Queens and came back to the rotten apple melting pot after school where he has remained ever since.

      • …all of which were brought to you by the same person… the (dis)honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City.

    • I think most of the conservatives got Ted’s drift.

      I think everyone who is fairly sharp and lives beyond the Boston-Washington D.C. Megalopolis got Ted’s drift. There are plenty of people who self-identify as Democrat who despise New York City “values”.

      And for anyone who doesn’t understand “New York City Values”, here are a few:
      (1) NYC residents think they are superior to everyone else.
      (2) NYC residents think that culture in the rest of the U.S. is “backwards”.
      (3) NYC residents are rude, inconsiderate, self-absorbed, and in a hurry.

      Since I am none of those things, I don’t have any problem at all no matter where I travel in the United States — even to remote/rural regions of the Midwest and Deep South. In fact I can expand that to the world having been off the beaten path in Canada, Mexico (off the beaten path being an understatement), Caribbean Islands, and Germany. A typical NYC resident would not be able to say the same thing.

      • And yet several of the contributors to this blog are New York natives. Sounds like someone has never been to NYC, or perhaps you didn’t know how to properly use the subway and were gruffly informed of this fact by your fellow passengers.

        • I think his description is spot on and this is coming from someone who spent half his childhood in Brooklyn and Queens. The majority believes NYC is the world and everything to the left is just an appendage.

          Every time I go back there I get heart palpitations from having to put on the “I’m not taking any shit” attitude in order to blend in, otherwise you become a target for thieves, scammers, and vagrants.

  3. “So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate.

    Isn’t that the truth! Go to any liberal rag with a comments section online and get ready for some vitriol and hatred. A gun owner goes there to talk and is immediately bombarded with insults, condescension, accusations, and something about a little penis. Criminals and mass shooters are not the enemy! Law abiding gun owners are.

    • Just look at the comment section for that article. Kristof is getting lit up by the NYT’s leftist readers. There is simply no way to have an intelligent conversation about guns with a large segment of our society.

      • I submitted replies to about 10 different commenters with facts and no foul language. Of coarse they all get sheet-canned.

        • As I have mentioned before, people who are all too happy to throw the Second Amendment under the bus are just as willing to throw everything else under the bus, including Free Speech.

          This is NOT a conflict of values regarding firearms. This is a conflict literally of existential proportions. The other side — whether you think of them as gun-grabbers, statists, liberals, progressives, communists, elitists, atheists, or whatever other label you like — quite literally want to define your entire life, even to the point of declaring you unfit for life just for having the “wrong” beliefs.

          Thus shrieking from gun grabbers is the proverbial dead canary in a coal mine. Their shrieking about firearms simply reveals their deep seated contempt for people who ARE “wrong” — in the eyes of the gun-grabber. Notice that I said people who ARE “wrong” rather than people who have actually DONE something wrong, e.g. harmed a victim.

      • The comments section of the NYT is NOT a large segment of the US population. It IS a small number of carefully selected voices that agree with their editorial “spin”. All other voices are censored out to maintain the illusion that a large number of people support gun controls. The last couple of elections and the polls both show that that stance is not factual, but simply the NYT’s wet dream…

    • After the anti goes off on their penis size, intelligence level ad hominem fest, just respond to their comment with “not an argument”. The leave it at that. Their heads will explode. Keep doing it until they start forming an argument against your position based on rational thought and reason. There is nothing more fun than calling sone one out who thinks they are a super intellectual than to call out their inability to form a basic argument.

      • Actually I think “Not a “conversation” (with air quotes!) or argument!” Is more relevant these days, remember the Antis don’t want to “argue” they want to have a “conversation” on gun rights.

        • Isn’t there something new we’re supposed to say, now? About “microaggressions” or some such BS? I feel threatened, must retire to my safe space? Other gibberish and silliness?

  4. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.
    So where was the polling done, the lunchroom at the NYT?
    One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. …and most gun sales have background checks. Did the poll question pertain to expanding background checks?
    New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month. Which was total smoke and mirrors and only fools would not see that.

    • Lies, damn lies and statistics. I think the term for this sort of thing is ‘push polling’. The object isn’t to learn but to generate propaganda.

    • How do they know who are NRA members when the list isn’t public? Because the person says so? LOL.

    • I’ve never understood how these numbers work when the number of people who want “more strict laws for purchasing firearms” is never as high. Except that it means a fair segment of the population has no idea what the laws are and yet is willing to form and share an opinion on those laws.

      • Imagine a poll question; Background checks have been mandatory for purchasing a gun for 20 years (or whatever), without any effect on crime. Do you support background checks twice, at twice the cost to you, for purchasing a gun, which would have no effect on crime?

  5. “by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate.”

    Yeah, “coming across” isnt the right words, they actually ARE all those things. Don’t forget ignorant, descriminitory, insulting…

  6. In Australia they cut it to 10 round magazines then some “inspectors” supposed specially trained police tried to claim that because you could chamber a round that was 11 and illegal. They lost that one
    Then we had the lever action shotgun issue just before Xmas which so far shooters are winning.
    Never let government pass restrictions as they can take years to repeal or sometimes never. Much easier to stop first

  7. Well, I’m not realy sure it would help us if the antis become better informed. On the plus side, I’d hope that many of them would stop being antis. On the downside, an informed and educated enemy is more dangerous.

    Hoping there’s a trustworthy study on this topic would be too much, I guess?

    • Yeah, the antis have a real dilemma going. They are getting shown up for their ignorance enough that it is becoming a problem (think Representative Degette and her non-reusable magazines), but once the real facts come out, they undermine the gun-control cause (eg. an AR-15 is not, in fact, a bullet-spraying military machine gun; all rifles, including semi-autos, account for only a miniscule percentage of criminal homicides, which are actually declining; the overwhelming majority of gun-show and internet sales already involve background checks, etc., etc.). So the grabbers can either keep repeating idiotic falsehoods and getting caught and thereby become more and more ignored, or they can acknowledge the facts about guns and thereby show their cause is stupid and unjust and ineffective.

  8. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.” A better term is progressive gun ban and confiscation. Any knowledgeable person knows that Gun Safety has little to do with government.

  9. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars.
    OK, so my Indiana carry permit is good in NYC and I can carry my Indiana legal AR-15 anywhere in NYC that I want. I can go down to Licence Branch and get my permit and put a plate on the rifle. Just like a car….

    • So me owning and using any gun I like on my property and never have to register it would be fine by the NYT then?

    • Humorous that he would use ‘supercillious’ to add faux intellectual bulk to his statement, seeing as Cilium is a bulk-forming fiber laxative

      His words are as ten-thousand bran muffins!

  10. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check.
    Are we throwing in the stolen guns for Chiraq gang bangers?

    • I think that was 140% of guns purchased without a background check. If you are going to lie, why not go for the whole enchilada?

  11. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”

    Disagree. Should call it what it is – control. Laws forbidding barrel shrouds, cosmetic features, or magazine capacity have nothing to do with “safety.” If the government was concerned about gun safety they would put something in public schools to teach children how not to shoot themselves in the face, or other people, should they find a gun. Show people how to be safe – don’t tell them what they can and can’t have.

    • Laws forbidding barrel shrouds, cosmetic features, or magazine capacity have nothing to do with “safety.”

      Well, actually they do if we are talking about the safety of state agents trying to enforce every whim of the ruling class against an unwilling peasant class.

  12. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners.
    Most of the murders are by intimate drug business customers, dealers, and partners.
    The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. Prohibiting the subjects of those restraining orders from possessing a gun reduces these murders. Oh heck, a lot of states confiscate guns without any due process at all in these cases.

  13. Yet another example of when these anti-rights activists present a truth, it is only to service more of their OBVIOUS lies.

  14. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works.
    Which the author failed to do.

    • It’s not because he failed to do so, it’s because the evidence is not there…

      The reason antis constantly have to adjust terminology, change tactics, use smoke and mirrors, and revert to sweeping generalizations and insults about gun owners is because of one undeniable truth… the data and evidence aren’t there.

      Cherry picked data, doctored stats, emotion and insults are all they have.

      • Nailed it. Kind of amazing that he came right out and said “Let’s banish the term ‘gun control’ .” Not, “What we really are after is controlling crime”, not “what we really want is to decrease homicides and suicides”, just nakedly stating, “This sounds bad, we need to say something different that doesn’t sound so bad”. And again, for someone who purports to be fact-based and objective–referencing The Trace as a reliable source is kind of a giveaway.

        • Much like they’ve tried to dump the title of liberal for progressive, because who would be against progress right?

    • Yes, because it was ideological differences that drove all those gun battles between the Crips and Bloods.

  15. Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.

    Credibility now reduced to zero. Author has focused on the tool and not on the cause. Why not focus on all accidents? All suicides? All murders? Nope. They are just going to focus on those performed with a “gun.” Let’s vilify guns some more then let’s talk about regulations – ridiculous. People can kill themselves without a gun. Accidents account for about 500 deaths a year which is on par with lightening strikes. It would be just as beneficial to talk about lightening strike safety. And murders are murders and I guarantee you the decision to perform such was not the “gun.”

    • Credibility reduced even further (as in from, “I don’t believe that” to “now I know you’re lying.”) : The vast majority of Americans are actually not “outraged” about the toll of guns; the same left-leaning polls that the media love to cite consistently show that “gun control” is waaaaaay down from the top on the list of their concerns.

    • “Credibility now reduced to zero”

      No more than how they keep rehashing the results of 20+ year old NRA member poll out of context.

    • Reminds me of the last part of a Persian proverb: “He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child–teach him. He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool–shun him”. Kristof thought he was aiming his column at firearms “children”. His constituency, however, is made up mostly of fools.

    • One guy told us how the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the Constitution. Derp.

  16. So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.

    Virtually all deaths from cars come from accidents. Virtually all deaths from guns are intentional. Therefore, any evidence based steps you take to make guns “safer” are not going to work. Honestly, it sounds like a facade to lie to the faces of the American people and limit their access to firearms.

    I guarantee Barry’s “I don’t think people should be able to own guns” cares about gun safety. I think he cares about gun control.

  17. Words per inch or whatever measure Democrats use for article payment. More words than facts = more pay. Selling removal of your rights for coin.

  18. The trajectory arch of gun control in this country has changed in the last 25 years and the Lib gun grabbers don’t know what to do. The growth of concealed carriers of every sex, race and economic level and the interest in shooting in general have made the difference politically. Instead of reflexively banning firearms after a “mass shooting” or terrorist attack American citizens have done just the opposite and made sure their politicians were aware of their desires.

    Mr. Obama’s second priority after “Universal Healthcare” was gun control (civilian confiscation), that he had zero traction on this issue despite a fawning media and a willing democratic party is testimony how little faith Americans have in their government to protect them or their rights.

    • He keeps claiming he does not understand the resistance to his ever-so sensible lies, if he had two brain cells to rub together, he would look to FIND OUT why that resistance exists.

  19. If the Libs actually get educated about firearms, they’ll stop pushing for stupid gun control policies.

    Ignorance is bliss.

  20. Liberals only feel. They don’t use reason when and if they think about civil rights for gun owners. They are the enemy just as George Wallace was an enemy.

    • Wonder how a liberal “feels” when they’re being assaulted by a criminal? Wonder if they’re “offended”. What I’ve learned about democrats is they always rely on others to protect them.

      • If the attacker has a weapon of any kind, the liberal probably assumes it must be a conservative/Republican, and speaks sternly to him once he’s gone, then redoubles his efforts to disarm himself.

  21. I like the *idea* behind the quote, but it’s also kind of hilarious… Given that as a part of complaining about liberal gun ignorance he said that magazines that hold seven rounds dont exist.

    My glock 43 was all like “WHAT!”

    • He didn’t say they don’t exist. He said for most modern guns they don’t presently exist. And he’s right.

      • Again, “most”, not all. In fact, I seem to recall the original language was to be “less than 7 rounds”, but the NY solons were persuaded to make it 7 or less by an in-state manufacturer of 1911s.

  22. I just went to the page and the comments section is closed. I wonder if some pro-freedom comments started contaminating their New York sensibilities.

  23. Stupid is as stupid does. Antis still think only white guys with small dicks have guns. Guess they would go into a dead faint if they knew how many women and minorities have guns for recreation and self defense.

  24. The article ( if one takes the time to actually read it) is one long gun control/its all the fault of the of the inanimate objects rant. An attempt to appear reasonable, but an abject failure.

  25. Gun-grabbing ain’t the only problem with liberal /progressive POS (D)s.

    Figure that out or don’t. I’ll keep reminding.

  26. Beware the statistics quoted by the left, they are designed by those who collect them to obscure rather than illuminate. Those who quote them are forty seven times more likely to just make up additional facts to support an unsustainable position, since they abhor losing an argument almost as much as looking foolish!

    • Not just statistics, but polls, as well. After the past few years, I have decided to *never* pay attention to a poll, again, unless whoever/whatever is presenting it includes the QUESTION! Currently, I am pretty convinced it goes kinda like this; “Would you agree or disagree with this statement?: Small children should be protected from danger!” Surprise, 97% agree. Promptly published as “97% of Americans support Obama’s gun control proposals!” We need to know the question, otherwise any relation of poll results is a lie.

  27. Never – not for ONE NANOSECOND – should we ascribe the antigunners’ actions to ignorance.
    They play stupid, but that’s part of their incrementalist approach. What seems inane and ill-informed to us is deliberate and malicious.

    • I agree as to the leadership. As to the rank and file–no, I think they are really that uninformed. Erika Soto-Lamb knows she is lying through her teeth when she says it is easier to buy guns online than to buy shoes online. The “news” outlets that repeat her lies know or at least should know, but in either case don’t care. The “moms” who like her Facebook page and sign her online petitions do not know she is lying, they believe her.

  28. As with any bigotry, the more you learn about the subject the more difficult it is to keep a pure philosophy.

  29. Ya’ know I saw this BS yesterday on Yahoo and glanced over it as giving the story of my life just to rebut obvious drivel is insane…suffice to say “whatever”. WE have the guns -THEY don’t…

  30. > And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”

    They tried this like 2 years ago, anyone remember? The same complete ignorance will torpedo them. Also “gun safety” isn’t as easy to pass banning/confiscation laws

  31. It’s rather funny how he starts off saying they need to recognize some hard truths for their side… then goes right back in to ignoring them:

    “Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million).”, where he says he also includes suicides. Suicides, which have NOTHING to do with firearm prevalence.

      • Yeah! Good point! If we sent our soldiers off to war without any of those nasty guns, the balance wouldn’t be close. There would be tens of millions more deaths due to wars.

  32. Liberal ignorance on guns hurts the gun control movement? Without Liberal ignorance on guns, there wouldn’t be a gun control movement.

  33. So the impact of “gun control” on violence (and the control of guns, in the US taken as a whole) is … not real clear. Yet, the article is about how to get gun control legislation, through less stupid messaging.

    It’s almost as if getting legislation is the point, vs. “control”, or reduction in violence.

    Here’s a hint, trying-to-sound-reasonable-guy: Realize that each of the ill-conceived things that didn’t do a lot of good for the official objective … are not seen as ill-conceived. If nobody trusts you or your motives, it’s because you earned it. If you want to advance any kind of reductions in violence or any other ill, start with that. Nobody believes for a minute that that’s what you (or, say Bloomie) are really about. Because you earned it.

    You wanna move something forward, rather than “How to get gun control, by not stepping on our own feet (and thus stirring up those people so much.”, how about “Given these facts and realities, what makes sense to do?”

    I’m thus far failing to find the relevant clip from the movie Excalibur: “You betrayed the Duke. You stole his wife. You took his castle. Now, no one trusts you.”

  34. Or barrel shrouds, or pistol grips that “make it easier to shoot from the hip”, or bayonet lugs, or flash suppressor, compensators, or muzzle brakes, or evil collapsible stocks, or shoulder things that go up, or ghost guns, or the ability to spray bullets, or assault-clips.

    And they wonder why the NRA grows in numbers when they shout, “terrorists!”

  35. About “universal background checks.” You should examine Washington Initiative I-594. I passed over a year ago. The answer is “zero” (0). No arrests, no charges, no claims of “this stopped a death.” In fact, there’s been silence. What happened?
    My take is that the initiative was so badly written as to be unenforceable. It was also based on ignorance. Yes, it was a slick campaign.
    How bad is the initiative? Consider this definition “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.” Now go to Walmart. They sell small flare guns. Marine supply stores also sell them. These flare guns meet the definition of “a weapon or device…” Go to Home Depot or Lowes. They sell a nail gun that uses gunpowder blanks to drive nails into hard surfaces. Worse these same gunpowder blanks are used in a mole trap. Again see the definition.

  36. Does anybody wanna fisk that article? Maybe each take one thing in turn?

    At any rate, this is the first one for me: “One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists.”

    It’s not a puzzle, because “most voters” don’t want any particular gun regulation as proposed; lately “most” don’t want more gun regulation in general, and quite a few think the regulation regime in place is proximate cause for many of the ills attributed to guns. They’re not for bad regulation. The pro-regulation people have failed to make their – as in your – case, and Congress is responding to the consequences – demonstrated for decades – of bucking what the people who elect them prefer.

    It’s a “puzzle” because you need to get out of Manhattan and the NYT break room, to maybe hear what “most voters” want and think. It’s called reporting. Look into it.

    /How This Misconception Happens
    Your “most” is crap. “Sure, that would be nice.” is pretty much a given for any “regulation” presented vaguely as making less violence, less accidental death (of which there’s not much – ed), making the world safe for democracy, whatever. Who’s not for that?

    For any particular regulation, or even the freedom for an agency to regulate at will, “most voters” are a bit less enthusiastic of any specific. “How’s that gonna work?” is one question they have. “You sure it’s gonna get us what it’s supposed to?” is another. “Most voters” have a skepticism of the effectiveness of govt action, especially regulation, as you’d know if you got out of the NYT break room.

    /Demonstration of Cluelessness Destroys Credibility
    Quite a few voters also know that “most voters want gun regulation” is a non sequitur, as there is quite a bit of “gun regulation” out there already. You’re speaking as if there isn’t any. So, good on them for distrusting any case made so deceptively.

    It turns out most of the advocates for more gun regulation talk as if there isn’t any, and misrepresent what is and isn’t when they touch on the issue. So, no credibility. For every “inconvenient gun truth” in your article gun control advocates have vigorously advocated the opposite, as justification for more vague, unbounded regulation, burdensome on people not like them.

    Along with lying about the proposed regulations and social justifications, advocates do not cover themselves in glory in their understanding of the things they would regulate. Talking about the folding thing that goes up does not cover anyone in credibility, any more than screeching for “assault weapon” bans without acknowledging the nonsense of the category, how seldom they are used in crimes, and the nil effect of the prior ban.

    It seems like regulation for regulation’s sake, dinging people who aren’t like you. Eventually they catch on and vote their interest, vs. what you think they should be. You might want to work on that.

    /Congress is Representing People Who Aren’t You: There Are Some of Those
    Congress “resists” because most of the time piling on the gun regulation train is a losing proposition for the congresscriters. Ask Bill Clinton how many seats it cost the Dems (if you can get a straight answer.)

    Congress further “resists” because along with the Bloomie-funded front operations, and direct contributions on the pro-gun agenda, there’s an advocacy effort representing the other POV. The NRA would be nowhere in influence if the people they represent didn’t vote as they do on this isssue. And the NRA is the least of it, nowadays. So, contra your notion that congress “resists”, congress is representing the people that elect them.

    Pragmatically, you should get out more.

    /Social Engineering
    Take a look at your own comments below your article. This vitriol and nonsense happens to everyone who fails to jump on the “Off with their heads guns!” agenda with sufficient enthusiasm.

    So, aside from denying that guns have a legitimate use at all, ever, why would anyone so dismissed and excoriated agree with anyone coming from their abusers. Really, if “they” think so little of “us”, why would “we” give them the authority to squeeze their own toothpaste, let alone regulate anything to do with us.

    The resistance to gun regulation is a thing entirely of the ant-gunner’s making.

    Calm down and propose something sensible, based on the facts. You may get a hearing even after all the prior BS. The problem is, working that way it might turn out that the available answer isn’t the regulation you are looking for.

    The problem with being an honest broker is you have to follow where the facts lead. The problem with being a dishonest broker, is nobody believes you, even when you are truthful.

    Any questions?

  37. The whole article bemoans the “ignorance” about guns that the antis have, but then says; “for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.”
    Since the author chooses to complain about the gun ignorence of OTHERS, I think he needs to be reminded that NO magazines take bullets, they take cartridges. Bullets go into a case in front of powder, which together with a primer, makes a cartridge.
    Ignorence of the subject he wishes to regulate removes any credibility he might ever have had, just as it did when Feinstein said that a barrel shroud is the “thing that goes up”.
    Somehow, confusing a stock for a barrel doesn’t make me very confident of someones ability to write a law regarding that particual subject that they have just shown a 2 year-olds amount of knowledge about…

  38. Their ignorance is absolutely hurting them and more and more people are starting to see it. I see it every day on Facebook, antigunners spouting incorrect figures and total ignorance of the law only to be smacked down in spectacular fashion by tons of commenters. One friend posted just the other day “I can’t believe straw purchasing isn’t illegal.” Most likely he heard that on some liberal radio or news program (tune in to one some time while they’re talking about firearms if you want a laugh) and was just repeating it. The very first comment was that they have been, for some time now, illegal as is just about everything else he complains about. That’s where their arguments tend to stop and the antigunners resort to ridiculous theories and statement which isn’t winning them any favors.

  39. PLEASE … Liberal ignorance is NOT limited to the subject matter of gun control and the 2nd Amendment.
    Liberals are pretty much ignorant on every stance they take.

  40. Although Americans understand what most of the issues are that face the country, they don’t have a clear understanding of what the costs are. That is, in terms of money out of their pockets and how it affects choices that they make on a daily basis. Obviously the candidates don’t do a good job of explaining the costs and don’t dare talk about Americans loosing their freedom of choices. This concern prompted me to write a book on the subject. It is called “Choices.” It describes the issues, talks about the monetary costs and how they affect choices that Americans make on a daily basis. It also describes how many of those choices are either becoming limited or are being taken away. Being number two in the world in ignorance is a shameful commentary. Hopefully, my new book will alleviate some of it.

Comments are closed.