Previous Post
Next Post

Open Carry (courtesy

“Just because you’re a law-abiding citizen today doesn’t mean you’re going to be one tomorrow.” Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center in Washington, quoted in Gun debate: Is price of an armed America a more dangerous America? [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


      • No. Not at all. She feels like she needs to be protected from you. Oh, and politicians. Who will protect the poor politicians.

        • “Oh, and politicians. Who will protect the poor politicians.”

          Um, it is more along the lines of who is going to protect us from the politicians. Using Ms. Kristen Rand’s logic, just because our government isn’t killing millions of people today doesn’t mean they won’t be doing it tomorrow.

        • “Just because you’re a law-making politician today doesn’t mean you’re going to obey those laws tomorrow.”

          And, scary as it may be, even politicians have the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection. Personally I think it would keep them more honest if they had to do for themselves like the rest of us rather than depend on a security detail. Just sayin’.

        • The thing that they’re terrified of is that when everybody is armed, then politicians and government in general become superfluous. Who needs cops when you can fend off the thugs yourself? The only “government” you really need is a map room and a bureau of weights and measures. When will people figure out that it’s criminally insane to give the Registrar of Deeds the power and authority to confiscate your gun or throw your neighbor’s kid into an iron cage for smoking dried flowers?

    • Taken at face value, she’s right- people like her intend to keep changing laws until all previously-law-abiding gun owners are criminalized.

      • I read it that exact way the first time. I honestly thought that’s what she meant because I could see her saying that.

    • Its the “men are not rapists, until they are” argument. But we are not talking about registration or micro-stamping there (ouch!)

      Perhaps we should put a monitoring bracelet on Kristen Rand. Because, you know, she’s not a sex offender today. But tomorrow????

      • You beat me to it. I tend to believe that people are generally good and well meaning, and the bad ones are the exceptions. Those slots for the exceptions are filled with murderers, (real)rapists, and politicians(most of them anyway).

      • Micro-stamping? How 20th century.

        “DNA is the only source of positive identification.

        The U.S. military has been using DNA sampling and registry for the past five years on over 1.4 million GIs. The buccal swab method used by the military is fast, easy and accurate. In my mind, the logical, reasonable and responsible next step for medical professionals is to offer this protection to parents of newborns and infants, as well.

        The need exists. The technology is readily available. And since 1983, the Academy and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have advised against the use of infant finger and foot prints as means of positive identification.”

        They not only want to register your guns via micro stamping, they want a complete DNA registry of your children.

    • Kristen Rand might be a child molester. She should be watched closely and maybe preemptively forbidden to have contact with children. If one child can be protected I’m sure she would agree that it is the proper thing to do.

    • Yes. And based on her statement (“Just because you’re a law-abiding citizen today doesn’t mean you’re going to be one tomorrow.”), I would like to see Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Center in Washington, put into preventive detention immediately. She is obviously planning on violating my civil rights under the Second Amendment.

      • She’s already in preventive detention if she works in DC. It’s a fantasy land. You can’t spit in the street without being photographed and ticketed, probably by mail. Just Congress’ Little Plantation on the Potomac.

    • It’s very close, but I don’t recall this particularly egregious quote being in the first version:

      Until recently, Professor Reynolds writes, “gun ownership was treated as a suspect (or perhaps ‘deviant’ is a better word) act .

      When exactly in American history has the typical reaction to someone being revealed as a gun owner been, “Ew…you deviant!”

      • I thought the Monitor was being lazy, I remembered the first pic in the article from the one yesterday, figured they recycled. Then I read it and remembered the whole “555 concealed carry shootouts” discussion. Not bad to “re-quote” an article with so much derp, I was mostly just confused. Happens a lot 🙁

        And as far as the point in history we became deviants… best guess would be the period starting with October 22, 1968. It’s been fairly downhill from there.

        • And as far as the point in history we became deviants… best guess would be the period starting with October 22, 1968

          1968 Gun Control Act. You could make an argument for the National Firearms Act of 1934, but that didn’t have nearly as much impact on the average gun owner as did the 1968 GCA.

          I actually have been accused of being morally deficient (as such) simply by the act of owning firearms. Specifically, on the far left message board Democratic Underground before I was banned there for being a “gun nut”. Tolerance of differing opinions is a rare thing on Leftist political forums (although to be fair, I’ve also been banned on the far right Free Republic forum for being too “Libertarian”).

        • When you’ve been rejected by both the Democrats and the Republicans, you know you’re doing it right.

      • That quote is just astounding. Indeed, when has it been considered deviant behavior to own guns in the US? I’d say that’s a recent advent by a vanishingly small minority of egregiously misinformed and mutually supportive anti-liberty extremists confined entirely to certain metropolitan areas. Considering the demographic who consider firearms ownership ‘deviant’ behavior live in the areas with the highest violent crime rates and thus most need firearms for protection it’s even more astounding that such a cohort could ever form.

        On the topic of deviant behavior, could denying the tools of defense to those at risk of attack be considered deviant? What about actively attempting to deny natural and civil rights, would that be deviant? I’m certain that both are evil, always have been, always will be.

    • Same article, I believe, but different quotes by sources referenced in the article.

      Actually, I found the article itself rather well written. It starts with the mainstream press’ basic case – as can be guessed from the title of the story. It looks at the current state of many of the laws than then provides an honest presentation of the arguments for and against CCW. He ends by looking at “Where we’re going.”

      Two things really stood out to me in the story. First, the arguments for carrying, tended to be based on facts. The arguments against carrying tended to be based either on emotion or speculation. There’s the old saying that emotions pass but facts endure. That leads to the second stand-out item.

      He doesn’t say it straight out, but it’s clear that the conclusion is that, no, the price of an armed America is NOT a more dangerous America. I’m not sure if Patrick Jonsson simply wrote a fair story or if he subtly used the anti’s emotions against themselves.

  1. Just because your government isn’t a tyrannical one today, doesn’t mean it won’t be one tomorrow.

    • A lot of statists don’t see the state as being tyrannical as long as we get to vote every so often. I know that seems hard to believe, but Kalashnikov talked about how he didn’t have any hatred for Stalin for his parents’ deaths. I think I read that in “the gun.” Pretty good read although the author makes some sweeping assumptions about the AK that I didn’t agree with. Anyway, I think those people who worship the state must have widespread Stockholm syndrome that says, our wise overlords know best, and this is just the way it has to be. It’s not tyranny.

  2. Just because you’re not confiscating our guns today, doesn’t mean you won’t be confiscating them tomorrow.

    • That’s why we need tighter restrictions on firearms ownership, to save the children…..from gun grabbers.

    • The hardcore leftists I know are actually pretty violent people at least in their rhetoric. Some of them really do seem to harbor serious aggression towards “the 1%” or gun owners. It’s pretty much, “drag them out of there home and throw them in a cage” type stuff. Of course none of the, “men” in that camp would ever do it themselves. They want someone else WITH A GUN to do it.

      • I dunno, I myself harbor some dissatisfaction towards that 1% you mention … And I’m still here because of my concern for the “shall not be infringed” portion of the 2nd amendment.

        I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about the legitimate concerns over a tiny portion of the population controlling a vast amount of our resources. If it’s because you think you’re in that “one percent”, I will guarantee that’s your ego and mainstream conservative propaganda talking, because if you were you wouldn’t be bother commenting on this (or reading this site) because the normal rules don’t apply to our (not even that recently) minted class of new royalty. Right now, that minuscule upper tier is still squeezing everyone else for everything they can – because when we live in a closed system (which we do, no meaninful population / industry / accessible resource base off of this one rock, er, planet), because using resources to acquire more resources is the basic tenant of capitalism, and for those 1% it makes perfect sense to gain as much as possible, even at the cost of others, due to the scarcity effect on resources in our shared, but closed, economic system.

        Perhaps you’re paying someone to do it for you, but otherwise this blog would be so far below the point of diminished returns for time/effort spent vs. political/social/economic gains that I’m willing to make the above statement on your personal wealth. I mean, unless you’re retired and just kick it in one of your personal vacation lodges instead of doing anything cool with your unimaginably vast fortune. It’d be much more effective and efficient to throw a party for the scions of upper crust society and distribute your opinions and ideas for others’ consumption that way.

        No offense to RF or Matt or anyone else running/working on the blog, but the audience and exposure here isn’t something comparable to the (for all intents and purposes individually owned, i.e. Turner for CNN and Murdoch for Fox) big MSM giants that generally march to a proscribed tune, be it “left” or “right”. Maybe someday, and maybe even someday soon, but not today.

        Realistically speaking, the only people responsible for the near-collapse of the big financial houses (and by extension, traditional world economy) in 2008 were the people in charge of those finance houses; and they got what essentially amounted to a “get out of jail free” card and an excellent compensation package in return for their machinations. Go look up the verifiable (not unsubstantiated) stuff on the LIBOR scandal for more recent examples of quite literally unimaginably enormous interest rate fraud against anyone borrowing money from banks for something in the last 5 years – which last time I checked, amounts to essentially everyone who wasn’t disqualified, and affects even those who didn’t or couldn’t participate in the borrowing market due to pricing changes in the open market because of increased cost for financing to provide products and services on that open market.

        Real life is the only thing more complicated than politics, and trusting one group of people and their black-and-white opinions in a very shades of gray world is not a rational thing to do, especially when ultimately the people who run both parties here belong to that same tiny upper echelon of society. Their aims are the same at the most basic level: gain resources using resources already controlled; consolidate – methodologies, ideologies, and attendant mileage may vary, but for the most part only slightly.

        It’s not a coincidence that today’s centrist and statist (for electability, of course) politicians on both sides of the aisle are comfortable or indeed strive for aggressive “gun control” – because they’re nearly uniformly backed by the upper echelons of socio-political society – as that same group of people has the most to lose and the resources to make a good showing at not losing anything at all.

        Historically, the overwhelming percentage of wealth (and therefore power) of virtually any society has been concentrated in a select few. Those select few fear an armed and righteous populace because history also shows that popular revolts in the face of widespread poverty, inequality, and abuse of power from the top are relatively frequent in the more recent historical period, due to increased education (mostly widespread literacy) and efficient communication (first the printing press, now the internet) enabling US the unwashed masses, to see we’re getting the very, very short end of the stick. Examples include (barely in my opinion) the American Revolutionary War, the first French Revolution, the successful populist overthrow of the Tsar in Imperial Russia (quickly hijacked by a few seriously pathologically insane and murderous “communists” like Stalin), the Iranian Revolution, and more recently the Arab Spring.

        Therefore, those already in charge have a substantial interest in ensuring the populace at large remains as efficiently divided, malinformed (i.e. Biebers’ jail adventures and Christies’ bridge scandal), and equally importantly, unequally armed so as to reduce the probability of a conflict for “redress of our common grievances”.

        Tl;dr? (Too long, didn’t read?)

        Don’t believe everything you hear that’s widely disseminated for consumption by the general populace on any substantial subject of the day. There’s a great chance someone with buku bucks has a vested interest in the content of that message, be it from denying the science behind significant concerns over global warming, to denying the science behind the social costs inherent in the inefficacy, inequality, and inefficiency of “gun control”.

        And also read more books, it’s better than spending your time consuming MSM so you can parrot it out later.

        • Not tl;dr. I actually read the whole thing. I’m not going to debate your opinion, there’s not really that much in there I disagree with. I do kind of take issue with:

          “the only people responsible for the near-collapse of the big financial houses”

          And really, the part of that I take issue with is “only.”

          The lenders themselves provided lousy products and sold them to low income, low information people in order to make a quick buck. But I put at least SOME of the onus on the customers of those bad products. At least a partial cause of that “near-collapse” was the fact that a good percentage of their customers were too damn dumb to realize they couldn’t afford a $300K house working part time at McDonalds.

        • @piersonb

          Fair enough (and I agree that for the most part consumers are responsible for educating and protecting themselves against poor products, financial or otherwise), but I’d argue that much the portion of the general populace you describe was led to believe that they could afford that house, if only by the very availability of the financial products in question.

          Even if conventional wisdom is obviously wrong in hindsight, there’s gonna be a number of people that were following it. That’s the only way it gets to be conventional. And these days conventional wisdom sometimes seems to be limited to what was written by someone else and comes out of a screen identically for most of the population.

          Snake oil salesmen used to get beat up and otherwise moved from town to town frequently for a few reasons, not simply because they sold fake or ineffective products. It’s because they were taking direct, unethical advantage of any section of a populace that would bear the traffic.

          Right now pretty much everyone’s bearing that traffic, simply due to inherent nature of the situation.

        • Do not disagree.

          There is a (BIG) part of me that would have liked to see the financial system crumble (God, that’s gonna get flamed…). It would have crippled our economy, people would have lost their jobs, their homes, and a lot would have most likely starved. Ultimately, though, we would have come out of it in much stronger shape than we will by artificially propping it up and letting it drag on. We’re still going to crash, eventually, but the longer we drag it out the worse it will be and the longer it will last.

          I’m a capitalist. Personally believe that pure capitalism has proven itself to be the single most effective economic system in history. From that standpoint I HATE “too big to fail.” Nothing is too big to fail. Your business loses money, you close the freaking doors. At least that’s the way the system is supposed to work.

        • @ RF and @ Matt in FL, general readers, etc.:

          I hope you see this and read it – I’m not trying to plug myself or anything – but in at least this (Mythical) Young Liberal Gun Owners’ opinion, as a self-described and continually studying student of history, the right to self-defense includes against both that which goes bump in the night and those who would rule unjustly; be it by poorly run government in general or by those few, with the most, who use their resources to ensure the viability of their own interests at the cost of everyone else, irregardless of the type of governmental system, as evidenced throughout history.

          A quick aside:
          Yes, I hold many “liberal” beliefs. And no, I’m not a communist (mostly from an efficiency standpoint, assuming the ideal definition is used rather than the Soviet/Moaist definitions). I’ll even clarify that I think capitalism is the most effective way so far invented to ensure continued innovation and an overall rise in standards of living for all (including the lowest) classes of society, as is our duty as civilized human beings. It is crucial to remember, however, that no single socioeconomic system is either perfect or ideal.

          I opine that the (distilled, not necessarily my) ideas present should be one of the AND our crux arguments against those who would strip us of our natural right to self-defense.

        • You, sir, are a liberal that I can (and would be happy to) have rational debates with. Would that there were more like you….

        • Appreciate it, and much obliged.

          Much of my rationale behind getting semi-serious about comments here on TTAG is to convince the OFWG’s (it’s a convenient label for the purposes of this thought… No offense intended – this time 😛 ) that not everyone who can be readily identifiable as “liberal” is against them. That kind of knee-jerk emotional polarization in our society harms everyone, as evidenced by the minimum of functionality currently displayed by our government. Civil, rational discourse is essential in any civilized society.

          Ironically, I have essentially the same problems with my liberal friends when they find out either that I own guns and enjoy shooting them (must be a psychopath, right?) or otherwise my views on gun control, even when I agree with them on pretty much everything else.

  3. “Better a thousand innocent men are locked up than one guilty man roam free.” -Dwight Schrute

    Really though, these people don’t understand our own system of innocent until proven guilty. It really is disturbing.

    • You give them too much credit. They understand it and throw it right out the window. Innocent until proven guilty is too much of a pain in the ass, they want it changed. In fact as they see it it already is, Guilty until proven innocent.

      • I think that they are more of a guilty until deemed innocent kind of crowd. Proven innocent would require them to acknowledge and respect emperical data and facts which they do not. Those who are ideologically pure can be deemed innocent of any “crime” because their motives are “good” and “right”. Those who are ideogically out of step can never be innocent because even if you what they are accused of is A. not a crime, B. didn’t actually happen, or C. did not involve them said accused must be guilty of something so we mine as well punish them regardless.

  4. Well, technically she is right. But you could say that about anything.

    Just because you haven’t driven drunk and ran over an old lady today doesn’t mean that you won’t tomorrow.

    Just because you haven’t fed your child bleach today doesn’t mean you won’t tomorrow.


    • Well said. This constant barrage is meant to root deep in our conscious and cause unintended angst towards firearms. They’re generating an automatic emotional response by trying to condition the public. Advertisers and marketers do the same. We often buy products and have opinions based upon familiarity. Maybe we remember a commercial or read something a while back in a magazine. We don’t remember exactly what it was, but familiarity leads to choices. They’re trying to condition us to dislike firearms and consider them too dangerous for our own good.

    • GOSH! Don’t you know anything? Driving drunk, running over old ladies, and feeding kids bleach aren’t illegal! You didn’t use scary guns to do any of those things. That makes them fine! ~ Kristen Rand

  5. I’m not sure if that’s Gestapo-y, KGB-y, or just plain old fashion creep-y. At any rate, the argument is rarely presented so plainly.

  6. And just because they have certain “talking points” today doesn’t mean they will tomorrow. They used to say it was not an individual right it is a right for the national guard- haven’t heard that one much anymore. They used to say that handguns should be outlawed because they are only good for killing other people- I haven’t heard that much after Heller v DC. Next one I see going away is the ar15 and the high capacity magazine are not in common usage- in the federal judge ruling in CT case, even though he ruled in favor of anti gunners, he offered enough opinion to the contrary to make the appeals process much easier. He stated that ” even though assault weapons and high capacity magazine are in common use it is a public safety concern”.
    I understand the frustration of feeling like we are not making progress with these morons but the fact is we are systematically taking away every argument they have. Appearently it is working because a White House spokesman has been reduced to calling “freedom” a buzz word.

    • You have touched on the main issue in contention, the tension between public safety and guaranteed individual rights. The CT judge assumed that a sufficient “public safety” rationale may trump an individual right. And if we assume that there may be some cases where it does, where do you draw the line? How much proof is required before rights can be vanquished? That is what the courts are struggling with under the “intermediate scrutiny” test for possession of firearms outside the home. On the east coast, at least two circuits have ruled that merely mouthing the conclusion, “interest of public safety to ban,” is sufficient, without any supporting evidence; they punt saying that it is the right of the Legislature to weigh that evidence, and the courts should respect that fact finding. Only the Seventh was willing to say, “not so fast, buddy, where’s the PROOF.”

    • And if I hadn’t watched that just last night, even being the movie nut I am, I would have missed that.

      Well played sir.

        • It’s not in my rotation nearly as much as it should be, and I married a loving wife who HATES watching movies, let alone RE-watching movies 🙁

          In my younger day I was known to walk out of a theater, buy another ticket, and walk right back in…of course the tickets were $4 then…still.

        • My woman loves westerns and Tombstone is her favorite, we watch it regularly, also she loves the Die Hard movies, she’s a gem.

        • She looks damn good in a hat and boots, spent high school at a Friesian breeding stable saddle breaking horses, can outride me, loves date night at the rodeo…..and HATES westerns. Somehow I did get her addicted to Doctor Who….win some, lose some.

        • Horse riding was the one thing I never took to growing up, everyone in my family rode them, but I couldn’t, and still can’t, stand the things- wretched beasts as far as I’m concerned.

  7. Just because I have not been the victim of a violent crime today, doesn’t mean that I won’t be the victim of one tomorrow.

  8. Good lookin’ guns, but I can’t say that I’ve ever felt the need to sling an AR with a 30 round mag over my back at the local fast food joint. Its definitely nice that he is dressed up, and isn’t wearing a whole crap ton of tactical gear.

    I’ve seen CA open carry in a suit without a badge showing. While technically a violation, most people just assume a guy with a suit and gun is a police detective. I always thought a suit and a gun was a stylish way to go about your day.

    • With the right tailor, an OWB is damn easy to conceal under a suit jacket or blazer. With a bad tailor, you can end up looking like you have a tumor….

  9. Generally I try not to post two “main” comments in the same thread, but something about this just occurred to me…..isn’t this an outright admission that background checks can’t prevent crime?

    I’m sane today. I pass a background check today. I buy a gun today. Tomorrow I snap and go on a spree.

    Time to write a couple of e-mails…

    • isn’t this an outright admission that background checks can’t prevent crime?

      As our opponents so frequently say, background checks are a “common sense first step”. Their ultimate goal is civilian disarmament.

    • That’s step two and they would like to convince everyone gun owners can and will snap at any given time for no good reason at all. First they have to establish their system then show it doesn’t work to add to the system. The ultimate goal is a complete ban on firearm ownership but they have to go through the process first.

  10. Just because i’m gun enthusiast today doesn’t mean i’m going to be the next Adam Lanza tomorrow. There, fixed it for you Kristen.

  11. Okay then…all males must be locked up because they MAY commit rape and, after all, they are armed for the crime.

        • “RockOnHellChild says:
          What if it’s like a tuna fish can, that still OK?”

          I had an Army buddy who joked like that. He always said he suffered from Tuna Can syndrome 1.5″ long 3″ wide built to please.

          Then he went in to a joke: I approached a Hooker in Bremerhaven once and made the deal and money was passed. When they got their clothes off and she turned and looked, she said who the he77 you gona please with that? Then T.J. said with a big smile ME!

        • I had no idea it was a clinical syndrome, you learn something new everyday.

          I have a buddy named T.J., we call him turkey jizz, feel free to use it.

      • They’ll let you keep THAT part, its the two things dangling down below that got to go. Without them, no man is a rapist.

  12. So just because Shannon Watts won’t hook a brother up with a little lovin’ today, I should keep hope alive for tomorrow? Just checking.

    • Tell you what Dirk, because I care I’ll drive you down in the neighborhood by Michigan and Trumbull and find you a nice, clean lady friend. It’s probably safer….

        • And here’s hoping Ausmus can do something with it….

          I’m glad they moved to a “better” neighborhood. Michigan and Trumbull was kind of a cesspool, but my first trip to Comerica I walked past a couple of fine upstanding citizens cutting up a car…so, yeah….

    • Personally I think you would be better off baiting a crocodile with your manhood Dirk, but hey thats just me. Randy

  13. “Just because you’re a law-abiding government today doesn’t mean you’re going to be one tomorrow.”


  14. Just because you only load your magazine with 7 bullets today doesn’t mean you won’t put in 15 tomorrow. Blah, blah, blah. If we’re going ban objects, either outright or by limiting their use in public, on the notion that those objects could be misused you’re going to have to take a hard look at cars, baseball bats, tax returns, etc. – it’s beyond a slippery slope, it’s skiing down an avalanche.

  15. she’s right you now. Just cause the gov thinks I’m a sheep today doesn’t mean I won’t be a wolf or at least a coyote towards them tomorrow.

  16. … especially when guns are outlawed. Being an “outlaw” will be a badge of honor at that point.

  17. To Politicians and Administrators like Kristen Rand, all of us, citizens, are just people who aren’t criminals yet. They fear that they must be protected from us at all costs, and they will do everything they can to shackle as many people as they can to protect themselves. That is how perverted our system has become. Our government is actively looking for protection from citizens, the same people from whom it supposedly derives its power and validity, obviously politicians no longer see it that way.

    • “When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
      — Jefferson

      “But the government won’t like it…”
      — me

  18. I think Ms. Rand would have an aneurysm if she ever realized
    that people like us keep firearms because of people like her.

  19. Any chance that one of those dudes gets to be a participant in the creepy cracker knock out game? I’m betting no!

  20. This is exactly their mentality. They would have us all wearing rubber suits and driving white Priuses in the name of ‘safety’. It’s a scary evolution (or de-evolution, more appropriately) of thought. Like something out of a bad sci fi movie… Now it’s pre-crime we’re being judged on.

    Do they apply their own twisted paradigm of ‘because you’re a law abiding citizen now, doesn’t mean you will be tomorrow’ to everything else – or just guns? (because they’re obviously hoplophobic). Are they going to remove all access to gasoline (because you could certainly cause a lot of damage/death with a can of gas) – or how putting governors on all cars so that can’t go a hair over 55? or how about making alcohol illegal again? Hell, that causes more death and sickness than anything guns could ever dream of doing. At what point do they see the folly in their twisted, nanny-state, totalitarian police-state mentality?

    There’s a thing called Freedom. It’s really great. But intrinsically, it comes with a certain level of risk that cannot be eliminated — without eliminating Freedom itself. It’s called Life. These people have been pampered and sheltered and protected by their mommies so much that they want all risks around them neutralized, so they FEEL safe. But that’s all it is. An illusion. That makes them feel nice and warm and fuzzy and they sip their lattes with their pinkies in the air and talk about their child’s soccer game, thinking their safe little futures are guaranteed. But there are no guarantees in life. Only that some day you will die. And in the meantime, I for one, want to live Free… not like some little pampered sheep in a rubber room, sharing some mass delusion that somehow everything is safe, when just outside the room is reality.

    • Nice imagery; especially the sheep in the rubber room; but in their rubber room; they would be wearing straight jackets to keep themselves from hurting themselves or others.

  21. Well, let’s just say for a moment that the sentiment is correct. Let’s say that the millions of gun-owners in this country really are just a day away from unleashing all their firepower on other people. If so, to paraphrase Morgan Freeman “….and your plan is to piss off these people?”

  22. Same goes for cops. Boom. Disarm them! Spree killers in waiting with assault pistols and assault shotguns and assault rifles with high capacity magazines and lethal pistol grips and lethal muzzle brakes and lethal vertical forward grips and the deadly, dreaded thing that goes up! Some did need to be reminded firing on vehicles with unknown occupants posing no imminent threat when imminence wasn’t imminent is not congruent with departmental policy. Bad cop, no donut! Take some remedial training and get your Glock-brand assault Glock back. Or join SWAT and take the high-speed, low-drag Johnny Operator no-knock oath: Kick the door, shoot the dog, kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out. NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO KILL, but most of us want to live! That is why I am armed. Not for the guy that cut me off, not for the drunk guy looking to fight, but for the guy who will take my life to take my wallet or enter my house with who knows what intent. I have a family. I have lights, locks, and alarms, and when those fail I have a few more options. 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, or buckshot. Yes, the cops were called, but I bet Billy Badass can climb my stairs quicker than a deputy can find my address. That guy I shot? No record? Huh. Guess he was a law-abiding citizen until tonight. Maybe she is right. All the more reason.

  23. We are law abiding today and will likely always be. Besides, the future is not known. I tell you one thing I can see. Who ever wrote this is very much for violating the law to meet their goals.

    • Nah, she is right, you are only law-abiding until they can figure out something to charge you with, or write a new law that they can charge you with.
      Which is why the 2A makes no mention of the words “law-abiding”.

  24. True… but either the statement is meaningless or the only solution is the disarmament of everyone, everywhere. Police and military included in that. So… good luck?

  25. The real question is — Why does dude have his VFG so far back?

    Gees, at that point you might as well just go with a magwell grip…

  26. It’s hard to win against a cult. They have pledged to give their lives rather than defend themselves or their kids. We just need to let them & hope its not their kids that gets killed. Its hard to imagine that a persons only protection would be a sail phone & the hope that the cops would be there on time. Certainly there is no IQ requirement to be a US citizen, Randy

  27. Kristen Rand- Just because you are not having sex with children today, doesn’t mean at some point you wont be attracted to children in the future..

  28. You could use that circular reasoning for anything you don’t like, but that’s just a weak argument from weak minded person.

  29. What does it matter if we are criminals tomorrow? Pre-crime will take care of all of that. Our protectors are always pointing out that it is the evil guns that kill everyone. Except for my defective arsenal. Not a single one of my weapons has even loaded itself. None have even come close to shooting anyone. Not even kittens or unicorns. Although I do suspect my shotgun has been downloading porn when I’m at work.

  30. Also, what’s up with all these foot long foregrips that keep coming out?

    What’s the added advantage of having a foregrip that hangs down lower than the pistol grip and magazine?

    It’s more likely to catch on things than to be useful.

  31. she should know that it is better to keep your mouth shut and leave people wondering if you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt

  32. This is the quote that bothered me most in the whole article. So what does she say we should do about that? The article doesn’t say but being from VPC I can guess. Since anyone may be a murderer tomorrow perhaps we should just execute everyone beforehand. No more human race and problem solved.

  33. “Just because you don’t drive drunk today doesn’t mean you’re not going to do it tomorrow”

  34. She’s 100% right. Can Kristen Rand please be arrested for the crime of potential criminal mischief.

  35. “Just because you’re a law-abiding citizen today doesn’t mean you’re going to be one tomorrow.”

    If this crazy bitch gets her way, we’ll all be criminals tomorrow.

  36. That is why since 1994 I was done “compromising” and engaging in so-called “reasonable” legislation or laws. It is “shall not infringe” and any group that doesn’t understand that doesn’t not deserve my money or support. Ergo…the NRA, or any other group that is willing to compromise with the anti gun folks, Dems or RINOs.

  37. She’s the legislative director and she is outright stating that she will try to get the laws changed to make current citizens into criminals. Just like they did in New York and Connecticut.

  38. Paging Tom Cruise: Please report to the Pre-Crime division office, you have a message from VPC.

  39. Less than two decades ago, fewer than a million Americans carried concealed weapons, and they were mostly ex-police, ex-military, or owners of cash businesses.

    Less than two decades ago, Ohio didn’t have a licensing system. Practically everyone I knew carried concealed. Generations of family before me carried as well. There was no reliable way to count how many Ohioans were carrying concealed before the licensing law. What orifice are they pulling this 1 million number out of?!?!?

    Until recently, Professor Reynolds writes, “gun ownership was treated as a suspect (or perhaps ‘deviant’ is a better word) act – one to be engaged in, if at all, at the actor’s peril. But with gun ownership now recognized as an important constitutional right belonging to all Americans, that deviant characterization cannot be correct.”

    “Until recently”… For the majority of our country’s history, gun ownership was commonplace. The good professor is looking at a relatively narrow slice of American history in an attempt to paint acceptance of gun ownership as something new. What history and society did the professor think the language of the Second Amendment came out of? That was a statement of a gun owning, free people and not the words of a nation where gun ownership was considered deviant. Also, that last line should have read, “But with gun ownership AGAIN recognized as an important constitutional right belonging to all Americans…”

    What’s with this equating a licensed privilege to an actual right? Open carry is mentioned a couple of times in the article but the main thrust is licensed concealed carry. We correct others when they confuse other terms and other concepts regarding firearms but we tend to let this glaring mistake pass unchallenged. Government is likely to do whatever it wants to restrict or prohibit activities under a license that it controls and issues. The actual right that the government is prohibited from infringing upon is the unlicensed keeping and bearing of arms, hence, shall not be infringed. This article holds licensed carry out as equivalent to the right to keep and bear arms. That is flat out false.

    Lastly, even if armed crime went up… even if violence by people using a firearm went up… even if suicides involving firearms went up… it does not invalidate the very strong language of the Second Amendment prohibiting government infringement. It requires an amendment to overcome the 2A. Anything short of that is unconstitutional. This isn’t a popularity contest of the masses. The RKBA being without infringement is necessary to the security of a free state!

    • As always, excellent point and well said John. As a fellow Ohioan I reinforce what you said about pre-license concealed carry being common place in Ohio.

      I was an early adopter of the license but carried frequently before that and without exaggeration most of the people I knew well enough to know this about them also concealed carried at least occasionally. I remember in the late 80’s and all through the 90’s that firearms were common place and the sight of one had no emotional attachment for anyone I knew. Even as young as 12 my friends and I would bicycle though our town to the nearby woods with .22 rifles slung to shoot without supervision and even if we stopped into the local greasy spoon for burgers and rested our rifles in the corner no one seemed to react.

      I’m certain that now a single adult with a rifle at the burger joint would draw the police and unwanted questions. If anything I’d have to say that at least in my area firearms ownership, or at least the bearing of arms is viewed in a dimmer light than it once was.

      I never recall having anyone at all ask me if I had a permit for my rifles and shotguns as a child, teen or young adult but now I’ve on several occasions had adults and teens ask about permits. They seem shocked when I tell them no permit is required to possess most firearms in Ohio.

      The path we’re on culturally worries me to no end but there are bright spots; I see more first time gun owners, especially women at the LGS(s) and ranges and CCW seems as common as pocket knives. I think we can still turn it around, but when the MSM gives credence to falsehood spouting hoplophobes from the urban enclaves of statist progressivism and ignorance it’s quite a fight.

  40. “Just because you are law abiding and safe person today does not mean I won’t need a firearm to defend myself from you tomorrow”.

Comments are closed.