Previous Post
Next Post

“I will put it into my syllabus that the class is not open to students carrying guns. I may wind up in court. I’m willing to accept that possibility.” – UT-Austin professor Steven Weinberg in Nobel Laureate Won’t Allow Guns in Class [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If a person in his class is carrying concealed, he’d never know anyway. What’s he going to do, run his students through a metal detector every day?

    • Maybe he’ll buy some Chuck Heston ‘stepping stones’ and force everyone to stand on it before entering (like Romans with Christians)

    • From quantum mechanics, until we measure whether the gun is in the pocket, it is neither in the pocket or not in the pocket, but rather in a superposition of those two states.

      • Doesn’t quantum mechanics dictate that no matter how precisely we attempt to measure whether the gun is concealed, we cannot determine a definitive, fixed state?

    • Once your grade is posted, advise the idiot that you and several others carried every day, his attempts to rule as a tyrant over the rights of adults was juvenile and unprofessional. Or send him a note to that effect halfway through the class. Anonymously, of course. Might include the term “idiotic”, somewhere.

      • Or just ignore him and carry on. The lecture halls of UT are not his property, and he has very limited authority.

  2. Hey Nobel EXPLETIVE DELETED, UT is a public school and the people get to decide if students can carry in their school, not you.

    • It’s the higher education paradox – the better educated some of these people become, the stupider they wind up in the end.

      • Don’t conflate education and intelligence, they have nothing to do with each other. Education is simply about completing a series of tasks until you earn a badge/diploma. Ben Carson is a good example. He may be a highly educated, highly skilled neurosurgeon but he’s clearly not an intelligent person.

        • BS, MS, PHD. Bullshit, Moreshit, Pile it higher and deeper. Got that from my daughter who has a phd in chemistry.

  3. ‘Nobel laureate’ just doesn’t carry the prestige it used to since they gave one to O’Bama just for being O’Bama and one to Al Gore for making a fantasy-docu-drama.

      • The brand is still tarnished. If a gun company made pretty decent rifles and the shittiest handguns on the market their reputation would still suck. They’ve diminished the brand by handing out political back rubs. Especially considering Gore’s ‘science’ documentary. Science has been, probably always has been politicized. The Nobel committee has planted their flag on the side of politics.

        • Maybe to idiots that can’t tell the awards apart. Anyone that knows their stuff knows that if someone has a Nobel prize for one of the sciences you should listen to them on that topic. Instead of taking any nomination, the science committees require nominations from other experts in the field. They also require the discovery to be peer tested, and stand the test of time. Which means that it typically takes over 20 years from discovery until award.

          I may disagree with Steven Weinberg on carrying guns, but the moment he starts talking physics I would shut up and listen.

        • “Anyone that knows their stuff knows that if someone has a Nobel prize for one of the sciences you should listen to them on that topic. Instead of taking any nomination, the science committees require nominations from other experts in the field. They also require the discovery to be peer tested, and stand the test of time. Which means that it typically takes over 20 years from discovery until award.”

          Sadly, like other things, this is becoming less true even in the sciences.

          Look at the fields and works the Physics and Chemistry Nobels were given for in, say, the 50’s, 60’s and maybe even into the 80’s. They were BIG discoveries that had far-reaching consequences.

          Contrast that to at least some in the last decade or two: the work is respectable and peer reviewed (yes, you are right about that part), but…they are becoming more and more “specialized” and less general to Physics and Chemistry as achievements for the whole of the subject.

          A Physics Nobel is by no means as “worthless” as a Peace Nobel; don’t get me wrong. But, it just is NOT the same as it was when, for example, awarded in 1922 or 1933 to pick two notable examples of individuals whose work and accomplishments remain central to the entire body of Physics AND Chemistry.

        • That happens to many fields, after a certain point all the big discoveries are made, they start getting into the nitty gritty.

          But there is still a lot to discover in Physics and Chemistry, even a little over a decade ago when I was in college taking Engineering level physics and chemistry there were quite a few concepts that they couldn’t tell me how things would interact, but they couldn’t tell me why they interacted that way.

          One Professor commonly joked that if we could answer why we would be eligible for a Nobel prize.

    • Whoa-whoa-whoa there! The Norwegians give out the BS “peace” Nobel. The Swedes give out the real ones. Do not confuse the two.

  4. Here we go . . . will UT insist that its employees obey the law or not?

    And if it won’t do so, will the Legislature step up and remind these folks that they are not above the law, and there will be consequences for those who think they are? Perhaps an investigative hearing that delivers a message similar to this:

    I’d love to see, say, Sen. Huffines convene a hearing and drop a subpoena on Weinberg, Cañizares-Esguerra, etc., and see if they are really willing to put UT’s budget in jeopardy.

    • During the first civil rights struggle(gun owners are fighting the second civil rights struggle as we speak) when educators and pols in the south refused to allow blacks into their schools the feds sent in Marshals and regular US troops.

      Prof needs to be led from his office in cuffs for criminal civil rights violations.

    • It’s been near 50 years since I was in college, but at that time it was pretty unusual to see a PhD in class anyway, the actual teaching was done by his assistant, an unpaid graduate student working for a grade. So what this doofus says is meaningless BS anyway. Unless maybe he wants to pay his own money for a metal detector and armed guard, plus lockers to store your gun while in his class. Would you like to bet he is that interested in the subject? Because I bet not.

  5. And they say Albert Einstein would forget to put on his pants….

    Just because your brain is way above average in specific areas of knowledge doesn’t mean you have any common sense. In the case of this professor, obviously true!

  6. My first and so far only child is just 3 months old, but I’m already agonizing over sending her to college or discouraging her from it. Granted I made it through just fine without being brainwashed, and I plan on raising her and any future crumb-snatchers to be critical thinkers, but do I really want to subject her/them to the kind of bullshit that’s de rigueur in institutes of “higher” learning these days? I only graduated college 9 years ago, but it seems to have changed drastically for the worse. And do I really want to contribute even one cent to the cesspits of amorality and corruption? My tax dollars are already being used in part to fill the bank accounts of administrators with 300k+ salaries, I don’t know that I want to contribute more directly anytime in the future.

    • If she wants a professional skill college is difficult to avoid. Raise her up right, and teach her to spot propaganda and slant. My parents made a game out of training me to look for spin, and it served me pretty well. If you spout back what the teacher wants to hear and kick the dust off your shoes when you’re done with the class you can avoid the brainwashing. Above all teach her critical thinking and the importance of liberty. Those are the key antidotes and preventatives to liberal/progressive stupidity.

      • I second that. I went to college and actually got more conservative, as I saw first hand the spin, double talk, brainwashing, revisionist history, and outright lies. It got kinda fun too once I began to call out the BS when I heard it, and made quite a few friends when I did.

        • The military was good enough for me and it will be good enough for my two kids.

          Look at it as a mathematical equation. Enter college, go into huge debt, and learn a skill that will, with few exceptions, be useless in the real world…or join the military, get paid, get disciplined, learn what honor, sacrifice, and loyalty really mean, learn a real skill that will put dinner on the table, and be ready to beat all the soft special snowflake college kids out of jobs for the rest of your life.

          Easy choice.

        • Yeah, I had fun arguing with liberal (no progs yet as named at least, back then) fellow students and profs, especially with my fundie Muslim history professor who claimed Arabs in Spain (pre-Reconquista) invented and named everything on the Iberian peninsula. What made that even better was I had backup from two other ROTC cadets, always in woodland BDUs, since we had lab up at Cornell right after class and had to leave straight from there without stopping to change. Definitely added an extra edge to the discussion.

          And I will certainly encourage all my kids to try the military, whether they go the officer route through ROTC or enlist and do something else after.

      • Engineering school.

        There’s a lot less time to propagandize you over social justice when they’re struggling to get across stress tensors or non-linear circuits or electromagnetic field theory or physical chemistry…

        And the skills are indeed very useful.

    • You need to postpone any such decision, it’s 18 years and absolutely anything could happen between now and then. Today, I would be much more concerned what your child will be learning in grade school!

  7. The sad reality of big name science professors at a big public university with lots of research money, this clown could give two shits about his students. I would wager his TA’s teach the class, grade the homework, and run lab exercises more than 90% of the time. He shows up periodically to lecture when it fits his schedule and then it’s back to whatever else is more interesting to him.

    • That and it would be entirely possible that a lot of his “discoveries” are actually the PhD thesis work of his grad students. That’s the secret they never tell you. Sure his name is first on all the papers but check and see who else “contributed”. If they ever is a scandal like the media – reporters claiming others work as their own – then we’d see who really “discovered” what.

  8. someone should ask the “esteemed” physics professor what is the mathematical probability of perceived safety over actual lawful self defense from a murdering madman / jihadist.

  9. “I will put it into my syllabus that the class is not open to students who are not white. I may wind up in court. I’m willing to accept that possibility.” – UT-Austin professor Steven Weinberg in Nobel Laureate Won’t Allow Minorities

    So why would this type of descrimination be unacceptable and the descrimination a lawful gun owners, lauded?

    Aren’t all types of descrimination bad?

    • “Aren’t all types of descrimination bad?”

      No. Discrimination itself in the most general sense of the word is not ‘bad.’

      It’s another word that has been corrupted on the alter of Progressivism.

      Discrimination simply means being choosy. All of us exercise ‘discrimination’ every single day, multiple times per day. Choose one gas station over another? That’s discrimination. Choose to do business with one contractor vice another? Discrimination. You are choosing who to do business with based on whatever criteria you have set as important to your decision.

      One must examine why this word is used as a “general” when describing specific types of socially unacceptable discrimination: it’s exactly to push the notion of “equality” in the Marxist sense of the word.

      They don’t call it “racial discrimination” anymore…just “discrimination.” That’s to continue dilution of the language in a very subtle way. That’s how one leads to conclusions like “all discrimination bad” and manipulation of what discriminations “they” can get away with vs the ones the rest of us cannot.

      To wit: discrimination against black folks or homosexuals: bad. discrimination against gun owners: fine and dandy.

      Without the qualifier of “Racial discrimination” and “sexual orientation discrimination,” the ‘system’ has been created for the Progressives to set the definitions of which are ok and which are not.

      • It’s another word that has been corrupted on the alter of Progressivism.

        Fortuitous typo of the day award, here! They do indeed alter the language on the altar of Progressivism.

    • If I refused to allow any *unarmed* students into my class, would he think that was my choice? If my classroom were next to his?

  10. Then he’ll end up in court where criminals like him belong. Guess he’s not smart enough to understand rule of law. He’s a statist yet can’t even state right. It’s not YOUR classroom, it’s the states classroom. Hopefully he ends up in jail to make an example of losers like himself.

      • And what law would he be prosecuted for breaking?

        There may not be a law prohibiting students from carrying a gun but that doesn’t mean there is a law prohibiting professors from putting stupid things in their syllabus. That’s not how laws work.

        Now, he could perhaps end up in civil court if he kicks a student out and gets sued. That would be fun.

        • You are correct and I was not clear. I did not mean prosecuted for what he writes. I meant if he found himself in a position to back up his big talk. Your last paragraph works for me.

  11. He is lowering his liability. Physics classes have labs with chemicals and experiments. Imagine if an ND happened. By making the statement, there are 2 possibilities:
    1) it goes unchallenged and he gets to have a legal protection if a student has an ND
    2) lawmakers threaten the university and the university changes its mind but the professor can have a “see I told you so” moment if there are NDs and he is still not liable

    • Then if that is the real issue, then he should discuss it. I can almost guarantee that he isn’t making this decision based off of experiments but for emotional, irrational reasons.

    • Excluding carry in the lab, specifically, based on safety is horse of different color.

      But, as anyone who has taken biology, chemistry, anatomy, etc. knows, the lab is only a portion of the overall class.

      Excluding it all together in the syllabus (meaning classroom and labs) doesn’t come off as safety, it comes off as bias.

    • “Physics classes have labs with chemicals and experiments. “

      Most undergraduate physics labs don’t have chemicals. They have weights and strings and stop watches.

      And anyway, what is it about an ND that would be somehow worse in a lab than anywhere else? If ND’s are not a disqualifying issue in, say, the cafeteria, they should not be in a physics (or chem) lab. By the way, I’ve taught both, so…I’m basing that on real world experience; I can’t see how an ND is more likely, OR more dangerous in lab vs anywhere else on campus. (*)

      If this is basis (and I suspect it’s not…I think you just pulled something out of thin air to sound “thoughtful”), it’s about has empty headed as one can imagine. I’d respect him more just for saying “I think guns are icky and I don’t want to be around them” than to make up some nonsense like this.

      (*) Incidentally, I’ve had a job where I carried a firearm in a chemistry lab every single day. It was NOT an issue. The gun did not jump out of my holster and just start shooting, and never had an ND there.

      “Lab Safety” is a red herring argument, and thus illogical.

      • I could imagine a lab where it might make sense (it would suck for a truly nasty genetically modified something or other to escape containment through a bullet hole–suck badly enough I could understand wanting to reduce the risk to zero–so check the gun at the door to the clean room)…but certainly not an undergrad chemistry or physics lab. Our physics lab at least had a Millikan oil drop apparatus, and some radioactive sources (I got to measure the half life of some isotope of radon–hmm also not something I’d want a hole in, but it’d be more manageable than something that reproduces).

        The point being: such hazards are minimal. If, somehow, they really aren’t minimal, they can be managed, without (“oh, gee, sorry about the ‘unintended’ consequence, bwahahaha!”) making it necessary for a student to be defenseless the rest of the time. If it truly is that sensitive a lab…let the student put his gun in a locker right outside the door. If you aren’t willing to put lockers in… well, it’s probably not really that sensitive and you’re full of shit.

      • Right. In a lab like this (which STEM students would recognize as a chemistry lab, not a physics lab), you’re surrounded by dozens of nifty bomb ingredients… but heaven forbid you should carry.

    • Hmmm… if they are doing physics experiments where fumes could permeate the CC student’s clothing & holster, then work it’s way into the primer of the chambered round, and cause a chemical reaction that causes the primer to ignite thus resulting in a negligent discharge, I would be more worried about what said fumes are doing to the lungs, eyes, & skin of all of the students. Or maybe the ND is caused by some liquid compound being spilled & working its way through everything to the primer… Also seems like that should be more worrisome than guns. Of course, my scenario sounds more like a chemistry lab hazard than a physics lab hazard, but I still can’t imagine what one would be doing in a lab of any sort that would create an environment for an ND to be likely.

      Well, actually some kind of lab for firearms experiments might be at risk for an ND, and there are some serious physics involved in the science of firearms. Hey! Maybe one of us should work up a physics syllabus based on guns and offer to replace Dr Nobel-laureate-I-know-better-than-you!

      • I don’t think it’s so much that the ND is more likely in the lab, but rather: Should one happen, the consequences would be worse. A bullet hitting the wrong thing could cause a big kaboom, killing hundreds! That sort of thing

        That’s still a tough argument to make in most, if not all, such contexts.

  12. Head on over to concealed nation. Scumbag robber robs store and takes employee hostage. Cop ends it with head shot. End of discussion. Scumbag robber 0, good guys with guns 1000.

  13. Interesting that any “educator” (college/university is just extended high school these days) would believe and announce that putting something in a syllabus is equivalent of law….on any subject.

  14. Students should sign up to be the test case and collect $$. Plus – I would argue I am owed an A. UT should throw him under the bus and not offer or pay for his legal defense

  15. People claim that having a gun in a classroom infringes the first amendment because they are afraid a student will shoot them if they say something that makes said student angry… And they call “gun nuts” paranoid.

    • Please, my wife and I both had issues in college because we weren’t “Liberals”, and at times, our grades reflected as such.

      My wife still has issues in her professional career, which requires continuing education credits to maintain cerifications, because she is Conservative (Classical Liberal, in actuality, but modem Liberals don’t know the difference) in very Liberal field.

      College/academia is a de facto anti-free speech zone, period.

      • “Please, my wife and I both had issues in college because we weren’t “Liberals”, and at times, our grades reflected as such.

        College/academia is a de facto anti-free speech zone, period.


        I have very clear memories of an upper division Sociology course I was taking as an elective. I got SHOUTED down by other students simply for asking questions or daring to make a point about an issue they had not considered.

        It was quite fun most of the time. Interestingly, now, nearly 30 years later, I still think back on the things THEY said and think, “I can see their point.” Not that I agree with it all, but I see their POV. I wonder if any of them can say the same?

        • They’d have to hear it first. It’s probably rare anyone tries to make the point to them…and on such occasions, the shouting down commences.

          And you have my condolences on being in a sociology class.

          My one upper division “social humanist elective” was with an anti-communist professor, and it was titled “Soviet Foreign Policy” so it was quite entertaining. (The man was born in Eastern Poland between the wars, and fought both the Communists and the Nazis, in that order, as the war developed. Yeah, most people don’t realize the Soviets also invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, though I imagine you do.)

        • Sociology, that was the specific course that came to mind…

          My Sociology Prof was not fond of my views and perspectives on basically everything. I barely made a B in the course, despite being a 4.0 student up to that point.

  16. This professor exposes the recurring problem with the anti-gun zealots. It’s a choice between two possibilities. 1) They sincerely believe that their position is correct; that the presence of guns in civilian hands will lead to violence and chaos, and the absence of guns will foster peace and harmony. 2) They sincerely know that their position is legally, intellectually, and ethically incorrect; that the presence of guns in civilian hands will lead to peace and harmony, and prevent the violence and chaos that only a fascist tyranny – managed by them – can inflict.

    Given these two choices, we should definitely err on the side of caution. The ignorant can thank us later.

  17. What can the dear professor do if someone where to legally carry a handgun into class?
    Not a damn thing.
    He can’t physically force them out of class.
    He can’t call campus security because they would be violating the law.
    Want me to leave class?
    Make me.

    • Can a professor simply just give failing grades to anyone suspected or proven to have a firearm in class? Can a student be removed from class because discovery of a concealed gun is considered disruptive, or causing panic?

  18. I don’t understand these crazy poliyician want to keep our 2nd ammendant rights from us by yet the want all
    of the federal funds they can get for their states.Any knows that can’t have and laws or rules that over ride the
    federal laws or the Constitution of the united states of america.It’s time for them to be remembered that we put them in their and we can dam weel remove them from thier high offices.Henry White.

  19. His class-his rules(sort of). Yeah the whole Nobel thing is a mite pathetic nowadaze…SEE: Bury Soetoro, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy freakin’ Carter.

    • “His class-his rules(sort of).”

      Unless he has plans to move his classroom from a state school to a private school, then his rules mean d*ck, as far carry is concerned, at least.

    • The Nobel prize was started and funded by the guy who invented dynamite (to be used for peaceful purposes only, and has been so controlled/regulated since…right?). It is apparently OK for people to get money from a foundation started by a guy how invented a big blaster, but somehow people with little blasters are scorned.

  20. He can put that he’s the “President of France” in his syllabus for all we care — it doesn’t really change anything.

    Carry anyway.

  21. My predictions:

    1. Notwithstanding this throwdown by the faculty, UT will go forward with the proposed rules that forbid professors from banning guns in “their” classrooms.
    2. Weinberg and a few other professors will then purport to test the law by doing so anyway.
    3. The Legislature will call UT onto the carpet over this, and you may see some folks turn it into a political football to burnish their pro-gun credentials. (This should be encouraged.)
    4. Fearing a reduction in its budget, UT administration will “reluctantly” tell Weinberg et al. to toe the line (and/or else issue a statement advising students that they are not required to obey such directives from professors).
    5. Weinberg (who is 81 and only teaches one undergraduate class each semester) will then retire in a huff (heck, he may be planning to anyway), and will become the standard bearer for the anti-campus carry folks about how it cost UT some of its faculty.

    The counter-message that needs to be put out is simple: no one is above the law, including prima donna professors. (I’d be curious to see how Weinberg’s wife — a UT Law School professor who got her position as part of Weinberg’s deal to come to UT years ago — would respond to the question, “are UT faculty required to obey the law?”)

  22. I just got back from a UIL debate event in TX where I overheard a coach/teacher instructing his team that the 2A says “militia” and that this word means that unless you’re a member of the National Guard, you have no right to bear arms. Kids swallowed it whole. One of them will probably be your representative one day.

    • Maybe because they know better but are arguing the anti position. I had to argue for the wrong side once back in school. I won, but it left a real bad taste in my mouth. Do sent mean I agreed with any of the BS I had to spout for a grade.

      • You are describing the true art of debate. The best debater is the one who can, as you did, argue successfully the opponents normal position. Of course, there is the problem of assuring that one of the debaters does not “throw” the debate because he/she refuses to give the opposite position a vigorous support.

        And no, I do not believe for a second the “militia” proposition was being argued by an ardent supporter of the second amendment.

        Given that most “young people” to day cannot hold a thought for more than 15 seconds, the National Guard slogan fits within their intellectual framework.

        • Seems like in the “art” of debate, being caught in a lie should be an automatic “F”, and proving a lie inside the argument of your opponent an automatic “A”.

        • Lie/Truth are not the point.

          You and I could take opposite positions on our choice of ice cream, debate the attributes/characteristics, and neither resorts to a lie to support the choice. I like popcorn flavor ice cream, you like butter nut. We switch our defense of each taste, each trying to persuade a judge that our points are more compelling. Truth in such an event would not be called into question, untruth would not be necessary.

          Difference between debate and argument (and whatever it is that goes on during so-called televised debates among political candidates).

        • Sam, I was not referring to discussions which do not involve anything other than preference. In a debate of 2A, though, anyone who says the word “militia” means that there is no individual right to KBA is a liar, and that can be proven in any one of a variety of ways. Many other debates regularly include assertions from one side or the other, or both, which allude to absolutes, like politicians who stand on a stage arguing about whether the sky is blue or green, one of them, at least, is LYING, but the people attending have no way to determine which. Spouting “facts” which directly contradict each other is different from arguing for or against a preference.

        • The public discourse on 2A is not a debate at all. It is a screaming match between two street gangs. Both sides have determined to not acknowledge the other as having legitimate concerns or propositions. In such a situation there is no room for considered debate. Indeed, SC Justice O.W. Holmes, a Civil War veteran, declared sometime after (as a jurist) that when two parties are unalterable opposed to a proposition, “I see no alternative but armed conflict”. As it stands, one side demands complete surrender, and the other tries to compromise, to no avail. One or the other must prevail, because the tension cannot endure status quo. One side has the youth, the media, the legislatures, the courts and the military. The other side has noise. The “debate” is running nearly 50-50, not a promising statistic.

      • Nope, that wasn’t the case (though yes, that happens all the time). In this case, it was during our casual conversation time around coffee and doughnuts, and no one was talking strategy. It was his politics.

        On the debate-opposite-your-beliefs-is-a-skill side, last month I judged a debate in which a student argued that socialism was the enemy of individual freedom and should be avoided at all costs. The whole time I was fighting my inner laughter at the Sanders 2016 sticker the back of her laptop screen facing the judges. She was a good debater, though. The teacher yesterday? Not so much.

  23. An arrogant bastard is Steven Weinberg. “Messages will not be read unless the subject line gives the subject of the message in plain text.”
    So my subject line was “If they’re bright enough to take your class, you’ll never know they’re carrying.”
    [email protected]

  24. I don’t care if Poindexter here had scored four touchdowns in a single game for Polk High. My rights are my rights and Texas law is Texas law. He’s so willing to deny rights and go to court? Fine. Let him personally defend a suit for civil rights violation.

    • Sounds like he almost wants to be a legal system or university system martyr. Make it so. Fire him. Take away his benefits. Test his convictions. After all, he would prefer the students martyr themselves to the will of those that would commit evil acts against them.

  25. The dear professor went out of his way, having been born in Brooklyn, educated at Cornell and Princeton, and tenured at Princeton, to move to Texas. Maybe he should have requested a “So You Want to Live in Texas” brochure?

    I can only imagine he came to Texas after his lab and theoretical efforts at Princeton had wound down, in 1982. I would imagine he’s tired of the theory bit after 33 years of that capstone effort. UTA offers good pay to academic stars, but at age 82 he won’t be producing much new research.

    I suggest he buy good electronic ear pro, a low-recoil pistol, and just try to fit in. Time for you, RF, Nick, to invite the good professor out for some experiments in classical mechanics and ideal gas calculations. After all, he doesn’t feel safe on the UTA campus anymore. He’s the child of Jewish exiles from Europe. Remind him that “Never Again” is not meant to be empty words.

  26. Seeing as how this guy may have been a part of the US Nuclear weapons program, to say what he is doing is farcical at least!

  27. I sent Professor (Doctor?) Weinberg an email. He requires that the subject line be clear, in regular English and the like. My subject line: “If they’re bright enough for your class, you’ll never know if they’re carrying.”
    To my surprise, he replied “True. SW.”
    So, a short precise email to reporters, etc. who denigrate the Second Amendment might be effective after all. As a journalist I took organic letters to the editor seriously (even though most came from people under 15, over 65 or in prison…the unemployed). Today I try not to read the comments because they are composed mainly of the f-bomb and its participle.
    So be nice and precise with those emails.
    If you live in the same area, invite them to go shooting. (It’s OUR fault that few have ever held or purchased a gun.) Get your local dealer to explain the 4473 and “internet sales.” Be open about Armslist (legal intrastate if both parties are permitted to own guns in Free States) and the likes of gunbroker (not much any different than special ordering a gun from a big distributor or the factory).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here