Previous Post
Next Post

Over at, David Cordrea advises readers to counter gun control advocates with a simple question: “What ‘gun law’ would have prevented the Las Vegas massacre?” You may be surprised to know that some gun control advocates asked themselves the same question. And answered it correctly: there isn’t a law that would have stopped spree killer Stephen Paddock. You be less surprised to discover . . .

that fact does nothing to deter the antis from the civilian disarmament agenda. Here’s Rolling Stone scribe Jesse Berney (above) “wrestling” with the truth about the Mandalay Bay slaughter, in an editorial headlined Evil Doesn’t Kill People – Guns Kill People:

The problem here isn’t evil. It’s not the devil. It’s us: human beings. We have motivations and justifications and rationalizations and reasons for everything we do. We don’t know why Stephen Paddock murdered those people. Maybe we never will. And maybe the sensible laws we could pass, like universal background checks and a ban on all assault weapons, wouldn’t have stopped someone so wealthy and motivated to commit horror. But it could stop someone else. It would save lives.

So gun control could stop someone poor and poorly motivated? And that’s good enough reason to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? I don’t think so. But a lot of people do.

Blaming evil is an excuse to do nothing in the face of tens of thousands of gun deaths a year. Only a fraction of those deaths are the result of mass shootings like in Las Vegas. We can and should work to reduce all gun deaths, from suicides to accidents to crime-related deaths to massacres like Sunday’s. That means passing laws that keeps guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. The only other option is to do nothing.

So close! And yet so far.

Like all gun control advocates, who are by their very nature statists, Mr. Berney sees gun control as a panacea. If we pass the right laws, we can reduce suicides! Accidents! Crime-related deaths! Massacres!

Yeah, no. Gun control doesn’t work.

But there are things we can do to tackle these firearms-related injuries and deaths, reaching out more effectively to people contemplating suicide.  Educating school children and teens on firearms safety. Eliminating the revolving door justice system in big cities.

As for massacres, I’m not so sure there’s a lot we can do, save arming ourselves and making sure we have the best law enforcement tax money can buy.

But I am sure that doing nothing on gun control is the correct course of action in the wake of the Las Vegas killing, or any other firearms-related tragedy. Take it from the son of a Holocaust survivor, the “cure” would be far worse than the problem.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I like how it’s totally cool for the anti’s to play make believe when we have plenty of statistical data showing they’re full of shit the second anyone proposes a DGU may ever be possible it’s balls to the wall deriding the Rambo fantasies and the simple silliness of such a notion.

    • Yep. But this is how it works. A democrat several states away, flips out and kills a bunch of people, and then another democrat in congress votes to regulate my guns.

      And even now we have republicans in congress totally ok with banning bumpfire stocks, which are ridiculously simple. So disappointed. Do they have no principles? Once again, “we the people” are something in the view of congressmen, as something to be “managed.” And the criminal acts of the extreme few are addressed by managing me and my firearms.

      • Too right you are, and the Liberal’s timing is impeccable. But if the few crazies don’t get their “assault weapons” then they will resort to trucks, and kitchen knives. So the eco-terrorists can have their dream come true when the progressive communists start to regulate emissions by banning vehicles except by permit based on need and people are kept fat and dumb because all sharp objects must be regulated only restaurants will be able to cook for the commune. China had outlawed guns and when people in a region were mad because the collective distribution of wealth was unfair their police went in and seized the stake knives and butcher knives.

  2. You cannot go from conceding that no law would have stopped this tragedy in one breath and calling any law enacted thereafter a “sensible” thing.
    Never mind that the UBCs they worship are anything but sensible from a civil liberties perspective.
    Then, he culminates with the illogic of: “let’s institute sweeping, draconian restrictions on constitutional rights which we know are not likely to prevent any thing, but let’s do it anyway… on the off chance that they might do something good”

    • He’s not admitting that gun control would not work in any situation. He’s admitting that he is ghoulishly exploiting a horrible tragedy to further his political agenda.

  3. I’ve heard it a hundred times and I’m sure I’ll hear it a hundred more: “Well, even if it doesn’t work we have to do … something.”

    To which I respond, “Why?” – why do something ineffective?, to what end?

    “But, but, but, we have to do … something.”

    No thought, no understanding, no reason. Just, something.

    It drives me nuts, and not just about gun laws. I don’t understand why there are so many people who can’t or won’t accept that there is not a policy that will make bad things go away – sorry, welcome to life on earth.

    I usually ask, and have asked several times these last couple of days, “What can a person do with a firearm that harms another person that is not already illegal?” Never have I gotten a reasoned, defensible answer (other than self defense). If what the jackass did is already illegal, what would another law for him to break have accomplished?

    And yet, the cries of “Mommy, make it stop”, will continue. People are, apparently, stupid, and weak, and foolish.

    • They are Sheep who now openly deny the Sheepdog and hide behind the very freedoms the wolf hunter’s give them. They still deny that the falsehood that led the world into two world wars will never happen. That is the fallacy of Utopia. Unless you lobotomize every thing with a conscience mind you will have violence in one fashion or another. Liberal’s love to feel safe, but do not realize what it takes to achieve security. But another threat is looming the Progressive Social idiots who mask fairness as an ad-hoc argument to further their “peaceful” resistance in the support of flagrant communism. Disarm the people and Libby can take over. The USSR may have collapsed but the international already set up shop in the 50’s and 60’s. It exists today under various domestic Democratic party think tanks, and has already infiltrated senate, the last POTUS and various local governmental and health organizations. Sounds looney (I know) but what better way then to make the people think that communism no longer exists. What better way to sell the same Bull than to repackage and rebrand the same crap to people.

    • The liberals’ claimed approach to making firearms less dangerous by gradually eliminating the right to own, carry and use them in an appropriate manner, is not about what they say needs to be addressed. It is about eliminating the right for citizens’ to own, carry, and use something that could prevent the dictator class, who thinks the masses should follow their demands (as in: just wait until I’m king) from succeeding.

      The followers of the would-be dictators do not see this as the end game; they have been conditioned not to think for themselves. They have accepted the concept of being taken care of by those claimed to be much more capable of making the best choices for them to follow in their lives. The few decisions the followers have made for themselves have not turned out well in many cases; so having overseers, who supposedly are so much wiser than they themselves are, offers an escape from having to learn to make better decisions that lead to better outcomes for themselves.

      When considered in this light, it becomes obvious why the would be dictators do what otherwise seems ridiculous.

  4. No one says ban trucks when a terrorist runs over people. The mass murderer could have had a “mass casualty event” with a simple semi. The lefttard wants you disarmed. Period…

    • He wouldn’t even need a semi. A normal-sized truck would have also worked. The field the concert goers were on were only separated from Las Vegas Blvd. by a chain link fence gate. Does anyone think a truck couldn’t easily bust through that gate and start running over people? That is what I’ve been saying to folks…even if he had no access to guns, this evil man would have found a way to murder people because he was hell bent on doing so.

      • There’s also “Molotov Cocktails”. If he had thrown a couple dozen of those, they could now be clamoring to ban glass bottles and gasoline…
        There’s also cyanide, chlorine gas, and dozens of other toxic chemicals that can be purchased easily and cheaply over the counter….
        Or he could have dove one of his planes into the crowd’s center mass straight down at 300+ MPH. I’ll bet that would’ve done some serious damage. The impact and fireball alone would’ve probly killed thousands, plus who knows how many wounded.
        A couple decades ago when I lived in Billings, MT a guy flew a Cessna 310(twin engine 6 seat airplane) into a warehouse in Lockwood(a suburb), straight down at full power. It destroyed the entire block and days later they found the engines. 20 feet down under the concrete slab. Nobody hurt(except the pilot, who they never even found a piece of) because it was on a Sunday. Nobody in the industrial area.

      • “Blaming evil is an excuse to do nothing”

        Hmm, why does it seem like the evil people are always trying to throw the attention off of themselves .. and blame it all on the very things employed to cage and resists them? — “Dangerous” Firearms, .. “Outdated” Laws and “Social Constructs” .. vast etc

        This truism is ancient in the debate — > did the firearms leap up by themselves and shoot into a crowd of 22,000 innocents? Did they drag two dozen of themselves up to two different rooms for five days ahead of time? (Did they issue a stand-down order for the normal policy of constantly servicing the room, whether the guest desires it or not? Did they “not see anything” on 1,000 cameras across 5 days?) Umm, No.

        The same reason they’ll never be able to get all the guns .. is the same reason that no one needs to: there are 360+ Million guns in the US, and some 12 Trillion rounds of ammunition. If ‘Guns’ were the Problem, or even ‘Gun Owners’, Everyone would be Dead Already.

        Nope. Every once in a while (egged on these days by the balkanizings of psychotic demagogues and hoplophobes in the Media) a person of Malum .. of Evil … acts out their diseased thoughts upon those they’ve calibrated as being easy victims, as being Soft targets. Their victims have two main common characteristics, they’ve done exactly Nothing to the monster attacking them, and they are, for whatever wrongheaded condition or policy, – Disarmed.

        (Note that when even the Threat of armed opposition came near the monster’s door, Blam, he suicided himself.)

        No, blaming evil isn’t “an excuse to do nothing”, . it’s pointing the blame Precisely where it belongs: away from inanimate objects and onto the evil thoughts and (being unstopped, or these days even Goaded) subsequent evil actions of any who wish to cause harm, who wish to Do Evil.

        And that’s why they bitch when we blame it. They Don’t Want their evil solved, – they want the means of fighting it gathered and destroyed.

  5. Once, just once, I want one of these faux-luminaries to tell us plebs and troglodytes what they plan to do about the millions of “assault weapons” already in circulation once if pass their desired ban.

    Do they plan to confiscate them? If so, methinks they have NO IDEA how much that would cost. Could you imagine the man hours it would take to hit up EVERY FFL to pour through 4473s…and that’s just to locate them. Taking them would be at a minimum herculean, at best impossible and at worst Orwellian.

    If they don’t plan on confiscation…then they’ve accomplished nothing.

    • plus i lost the GPS coordinates i wrote down when i had that tragic boating accident, so i’m not even sure they could find mine!

    • Their goal is not what they say it is.

      If it arrogates more power to the government (which they plan to control, naturally) and takes individual choice away from the recalcitrant plebes (whom they plan to control, naturally), then they have accomplished what they truly wanted.

    • “Could you imagine the man hours it would take to hit up EVERY FFL to pour through 4473s …”

      There’s no need, legal firearm ownership is in various federal databases. And that’s not speculation, that’s a fact.

    • Thank you, a most enjoyable read. The obvious paid trolls in the comments were less than enjoyable.

  6. Anti-gunners will always call for gun control to stop bad people from doing bad things, hell they would suggest banning guns to control global warming if they thought they wouldn’t be mocked clear into next month. The point is, their answer for anything is more gun control and anything they get they will come back for more as soon as they get anything. Nothing they ask for can ever be viewed as reasonable. The only rational response is to never give in, never give up, never surrender.

    • Their answer to EVERYTHING is more central control. That’s one of the reasons why they’re so fired up about global warming — it’s an unlimited, globalized excuse for more control by centralized elites.

  7. “Blaming evil is an excuse to do nothing in the face of tens of thousands of gun deaths a year.”

    There are all sorts of deaths due to things that rarely save someone’s life, as privately-held firearms do every day of the year. Bathtubs- probably fairly rarely save someone’s life. Swimming pools. Heroin. Drunk driving probably saves a fraction of a percent of a percent of the lives it takes in any given year (really screwed up situation with someone suffering a life-threatening medical event with the only other guy around having had one too many with no cellphone is imaginable, but I doubt it’s ever actually happened)

    Why not focus on those rather than making the rest of us more vulnerable?

  8. “The problem here IS evil. It IS the devil. AND IT’S YOU.” You stupid mf.

    The Federalist No. 51

    It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. –


      “I fear she may be fired for dropping so much truth.”

      She drops an even *bigger* truth bomb on Twitter :

      “Gun policy is the issue I’ve had to revise my position on the most and the one I feel that I was actively mislead on.”

      The author used to work for Nate Silver, of five-thirty-eight infamy (on election night, he gave Hillary a 95 percent chance of winning).

      “…actively mislead on.”

      She’s absolutely right.

      She’s admits she’s still anti-gun, and that she isn’t interested in owning any, but she calls out the Leftists for lying to her.

      That’s a *win*… 🙂

    • “But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.”

  9. “We can and should work to reduce all gun deaths, from suicides to accidents to crime-related deaths to massacres like Sunday’s. That means passing laws that keeps guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.”

    “People who shouldn’t have them”—at some indeterminate point in the future. So this will be the responsibility of the Department of Pre-Crime. Got it.

  10. You know, with that fuck-tarts assets, he didn’t need a dozen bump-fire ARs. Hell, he could have bought dozens of lever action carbine rifles and caused just as much tragedy, possibly even more. Spray and pray has never been effective. However, I blame the MS Media along with social media. We have always had nut cases among us as well as firearms. What’s different is instant gore, Live PD and easy access to the frailties and faults of humanity. Humans are blood thirsty and the media is cashing in. These tragedies didn’t happen that much before, but now the media GLORIFIES it.

    • I’ve seen reports that the guy owned an airplane or two. Landing it in the crowd with a full load of fuel would have been easy- an airport is right next to the venue- and probably would have resulted in more deaths. Approach from behind the audience, everyone’s looking at the stage, the sound of the concert covers the engine noise, big flaming mess.

      Overall, firearms were probably one of the least effective means of killing people that this guy could have pulled off.

      • I am a licensed pilot and yes that would be very easy to do. A small craft with full tanks of fuel crashing into an open air crowd would kill way more than what he did. I hate to say this because there are so many nut cases out there and I hate to give ideas. Heck, they could even load the plane with extra fuel in the back along with ieds and really cause chaos.
        Someone would say there should be a law!! Well there is! It’s already against the FARs to fly over an open air gathering, like a huge crowd watching a sports game, or whatever venue is going on. Surely the fact that it’s against the law would stop them right??

        • I’ll make it even simpler, Lets just make it against the law to kill anybody! That ought to do it, right!

  11. one time a car load of extremely drunken young girls were travelling on a busy road at a high rate of speed when a hornet flew into their auto. they all calmly leaned away from the insect until it found it’s way back out.
    this was in direct contrast to the same group sober, where the driver’s hands immediately came off of the wheel as the entire group shrieked and desperately flailed at the insect, rising out of their seats with no regard to oncoming traffic.
    so drunk driving is only safer in a car full of girls if a stinging insect threatens.

  12. The great irony here is that these same people, after every Islamic terror event, will try and convince us that ‘this is the new normal, and we’d better get used to it’. The mayor of London actually said that. Hell, Obama actually implied it in a speech. Well, they need to ‘get used to it’. Freedom is messy.

  13. Rolling Stone should stick to what they know best – making up fake college rape stories.

  14. Humans beings have reasons for everything they do? I’d like to present the entirety of human history evidence that we do not.

  15. The antis will never go for the approach the Constitution gives us for this: the Article I Section 8 authority to discipline the militia. In the time, that meant to establish a system of disciplined training and behavior and implement it. To do that would require establishment of actual militias registered with their state governors, electing their own officers, gathering for training, etc — which would be anathema to the disarmament agenda. But establish those militias, and all members (anyone with arms) could be required to securely store arms not in use and a number of other things they want. And to be constitutional, there would have to be a law that would treat everyone the same, meaning everyone could be required to be in a militia, or the Selective Service system could be used to choose a minimum number of people who would be required to fill out the militias. There could also be a law that anyone with a fully-automatic weapon or a “simulated” one would have to be in a militia.

    In that case the elected officers could keep track of what their members are up to, and know if someone suddenly acquired a heap of new guns and/or ammo and gear, and hopefully know their members well enough to catch a person before he or she goes over the precipice to become a mass shooter.

    But it won’t happen because the antis would never, ever go for a law that might require them to so much as touch a gun.

  16. Actually there’s a law that could have been passed that would have had a very very high likelihood of having stopped this: 100% liability for entities that are supposed to be “gun free” for any damage caused to their patrons or those of neighboring venues by someone initiating violence by means of a gun. With that in place, the hotel would have been diligent in being sure that their premises were in fact free of guns.

  17. Sure did take Jesse Barney quite a number of years to figure out human animals do what human animals want to do. Even the punishment of eternal “fire and damnation” has never served as a deterrent.

  18. Rolling Stone: Gun Control Wouldn’t Have Stopped Las Vegas Slaughter But . . .We Hate Guns, So Let’s Ban Them Anyway…

    • No, it doesn’t.

      ‘Solution’ 1 is based on the premise of “prediction” and I’m going to guess that 49% of the ‘predictors’ on Wall Street lose money every day.

      ‘Solution 2’ is based on “style over substance”, and that’s just not substantive.

    • Said article offers up the same old, tired, and defunct “solutions” that have been tried before and failed. Even gets into the, “You can’t defeat a modern military with your little rifle” canard. It adds nothing that we haven’t already thoroughly dissected and fisked.

  19. I’ve got a solution. Let’s move all the good people out of Chicago, Wall it off from the rest of the world, with the wall under heavy guard. Make it a no-fly zone… seal it off from the lake, and make it an ultra-maximum security prison. Anyone convicted of murder, rape, etc. earns a life sentence there…. Oh… too much like Escape from New York or Escape from L.A. for you (alternative sites BTW)?

  20. What % of drug addled babyboomers must expire before Rolling Stone goes away? Has had no relevance for years but medicare drags on and on.

  21. Just as our forefathers that fled Europe from the Monarchy…For Religious beliefs, and Freedom…So, now I say…It maybe time for Us to move on to another New World Colony….Only, where is it, and how do I get there to start a new !

  22. Here’s an idea for the gun-grabbers:

    If you’re going to ask us to accept an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, it’s perfectly fair and reasonable to ask YOU to show how that infringement is actually going to reduce violent crime.

  23. Rolling Stone is up for sale, quietly. Perhaps someone who can actually install reviewers who know a hit album when they hear one….will buy it. RS has missed (panned) more than half of the greatest rock albums of the last forty-five years.

  24. I read recently that the shooter had also collected materials for making bombs. If you look at the number of fatalities associated with bombings over the years, you will come to the same conclusion I did: Thank God that satanically-inspired wretch decided to use guns instead of just building bombs. He might have killed twenty times as many with a carefully placed explosion.

  25. m͙y͙ m͙o͙t͙h͙e͙r͙s͙ n͙e͙i͙g͙h͙b͙o͙u͙r͙ i͙s͙ w͙o͙r͙k͙i͙n͙g͙ p͙a͙r͙t͙ t͙i͙m͙e͙ a͙n͙d͙ a͙v͙e͙r͙a͙g͙i͙n͙g͙ $9000 a͙ m͙o͙n͙t͙h͙. i͙’m͙ a͙ s͙i͙n͙g͙l͙e͙ m͙u͙m͙ a͙n͙d͙ j͙u͙s͙t͙ g͙o͙t͙ m͙y͙ f͙i͙r͙s͙t͙ p͙a͙y͙c͙h͙e͙c͙k͙ f͙o͙r͙ $6546! i͙ s͙t͙i͙l͙l͙ c͙a͙n͙’t͙ b͙e͙l͙i͙e͙v͙e͙ i͙t͙. i͙ t͙r͙i͙e͙d͙ i͙t͙ o͙u͙t͙ c͙a͙u͙s͙e͙ i͙ g͙o͙t͙ r͙e͙a͙l͙l͙y͙ d͙e͙s͙p͙e͙r͙a͙t͙e͙ a͙n͙d͙ n͙o͙w͙ i͙ c͙o͙u͙l͙d͙n͙’t͙ b͙e͙ h͙a͙p͙p͙i͙e͙r͙. h͙e͙r͙e͙s͙ w͙

  26. Compare deaths from people shooting other people, since guns cannot shoot by themselves with the number of deaths from auto accidents: Automotive deaths in 2016 were 32,999 and injuring 2,239,000.

    That’s triple the number of deaths compared with shooting deaths. Car’s are by far a bigger problem. Consider there is no constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle.

  27. Is it 100% certain that bumpstock equipped weapons were responsible for the rate of fire witnessed in the Vegas attack? Granted I have zero experience with the devices but I have a lot with the auto m16a1 and the m249. The rate of fire seemed more in-line with those weapons than something modified with a bump stock.

  28. “None of these laws would have helped, but let’s do them anyway.”

    It’s almost like the point isn’t saving lives.

  29. Maybe, just maybe… herding 22,000 people behind a chain link barricade to protect the profit margin of the event promoter isn’t such a good thing…
    You can’t herd people into an indoor venue and lock the doors…

    Maybe the same should go for outdoor venues. Really, the guy was some 1,200 yards and thousand feet up, fired for only 9 to 10 minutes and scored 500+ hits with a 10% fatality because he was spraying bullets at a mass that could not escape. He didn’t even hit the fuel tanks at the end of the venue or anyone on stage because because he wasn’t aiming at anything… H@ll with a bump stock you are not aiming you are just mag dumping.

    So maybe any outdoor venue is what we should be regulating not the weapon used this time? Maybe protecting the attendees by giving free access / egress for this and future events should be priority over the promoter’s profit margin.

  30. Well, the goddamn Rolling Stone clearly encourages bogus rape reporting and thus diminishes reporting of real rapes. This is clearly apparent as we’ve seen by the article published about the fictional rape at the University of Virginia that resulted in the Rolling Stone being successfully sued by the falsely accused party.
    When TTAG wants to use something as an example please don’t use the ass wipe Rolling Stone paper.

  31. The Las Vegas shooting has re-energized the Gun Control zealots to immediately pounce on this tragedy for political purposes. Their agenda will fuel the notion that draconian gun controls and/or the total banishment of all guns will be the panacea to prevent this tragedy from happening again. Their ultimate goal is the elimination of the Second Amendment.

    However, the good intentions of addressing the epidemic of gun violence in USA should be applauded and embraced. We all want some answers and solutions put in place that are going to work. The stripping of the Constitutional Amendment is not the answer. The implementation of reasonable and logical regulations is a must and enforcement of current law is a start!

    I am a gun owner who fully supports the proper regulation, registration. And more than most, I even propose, a full certification process before anyone can even own a gun. I am disgusted with the current political pandering that preaches an uneducated and misguided gun control agenda. The past Administration relentlessly demonized law abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners. Supported by social and mainstream media, Celebs. Late Night TV, Sitcoms and Democrats prey upon the emotionally distraught to paint gun ownership as evil.

    Sadly, it is the freedoms we Americans embellish that provides the “corrupt people”, mentally disturbed and criminals the leeway to misuse and abuse this benefit in order to impart grief and misery on the general public. Subsequently, the reaction of those in power is to demand “total” control, inclusive of punishment’ to those who have not done anything wrong. The real sadness in all of these proposed “feel good” controls; and the pat on the back, we have “taken action” regulations for the sake of the victims: is that it blames and prosecutes the wrong people. Those truly responsible seem never to be blamed or sanctioned for their actions.

    Gun Control- what should really happen?

    Considering the recent events and current harsh political climate, I would hope President Trump would reach out to all sides and create a panel for review all current firearms regulations.

    The Panel should be made up of reasonably minded representatives with various perspectives including Sportsman and Hunting Organizations, Anti-Gun Advocates, NRA, Ballistic Experts, Law Enforcement, etc. Guidelines should be established with specific goals and objectives to be accomplished. The Panel should convene under the overriding Principle that the Second Amendment of the Constitution which provides Americans the right to own guns (except as noted below) is re-acknowledged and confirmed. This is required to put an end to the bitter, divisive argument on constitutional aspect of gun ownership. The Panel would then be able to focus on regulatory improvements.

    The laws and regulations controlling firearms today were written in the 1930’s and added to in late 60’s. The premise for these regulations may have been valid then, but with advancements is weaponry, ammunition and related accessories, adding social ills, these antiquated regulations need to be revamped.

    The irrational nature of these decades old federal laws and many ludicrous state regulations are too numerous to detail. But let’s take two examples. The innocent/unintentional acts by law abiding gun owners can cause them to be charged with a life damaging “felony”. Under existing rules, a family moving their household goods across country (including unloaded firearms) can be arrested in certain states while just passing through to their new home location. In New York, there is a targeted campaign to arrest gun owners flying transit through state airports, even though the guns are unloaded in checked baggage and the traveler has abided by all TSA regulations and has obtained approvals in writing from TSA. Current proliferation in places like Chicago is due to anyone can sell/transfer a personal gun to someone and can bypass proper checks and balances.

    Sadly, the Las Vegas shooting will seriously impair the chances of upcoming firearm legislation from successful implementation. For example, the proposed Sportsman Bill (aka Hearing Protection Act) and National Concealed Carry will, for sure, be hammered by uneducated biases and massive misinformation. Most likely, these bills will be shelved.

    However, without being sidetracked, there are so many areas that need to be improved now. I would recommend these simple items be put in place with or without a Panel convening:

    – the type of firearms for public ownership need to be restricted to only those used for recreation/competitive purposes, legalized hunting (already well regulated by state), and those appropriate for concealed carry and home defense protection

    -firearms designated for law enforcement and military are excluded from public ownership

    -firearm accessories and modifications that convert weapons to LE/military performance should not be allowed

    – all gun purchases and “transfers” require owners to have a extensive background check

    – those with a past criminal record, felons, no fly list, non-citizens, history of mental illness, etc., are not allowed to purchase/own or participate via a transfer

    – guns will only be allowed to be purchased through FFL licensed retailers and dealers

    – transfer or sale of guns between individuals must be handled at or through a licensed FFL outlet for proper “notarization”

    – once approved for ownership, each individual must go through a testing/certification process which includes gun safety, responsible ownership, operation, etc., before the gun is actually received by the individual (note below)

    -gun purchases should be limited to one firearm at a time per person until all background checks and certifications are completed in accordance with regulations.

    – the application of the above will only apply to new gun acquisitions and not be retroactive to existing gun owners, except for resale and transfer.

    Note: a testing process is required for a drivers’ license, cars do not kill, the drivers do. Same with guns. Also, commit a crime like DUI, or for health reasons, the license to drive and license to own a gun is taken away. Commit a crime or designated mentally ill, the right to own a gun is taken away.

    A side note:
    I have lived in societies all over the world where guns ownership is unheard of. But America is not based upon that concept, and with millions of guns already across this country, such a concept will never be achieved. However, let’s be honest, our American freedoms have morphed. Our society has morphed. Morosely while not being paranoid, the fact is ‘you never know’ when or where you are safe. My wife and my family come first….and I bet even the most devote anti-gun person would feel the same about your loved ones!

    • No, FUDD – absolutely not. These so-called “common sense” idea of yours are anything but sensible, and will NEVER come to pass in this country! There are plenty of veterans who have taken an oath (do you even know what that oath says or means, Elmer?) and will never allow those kinds of restrictions on a right that – say it with me – SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Many of us would rather die fighting than cede this nation to the LiberalLeft, and you can bet your ass on that.

      “-firearms designated for law enforcement and military are excluded from public ownership”

      “-firearm accessories and modifications that convert weapons to LE/military performance should not be allowed”

      Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaaaaaa! Never!

      The most glaring disconnect in your entire screed is your total and complete failure to understand what the Second Amendment means, and the reason it was included in the Bill of Rights (not the Bill of Needs) to begin with. You need to study up on American history until you grok the purpose of the 2A, Elmer, because you’re only making a fool of yourself posting this crap here. It will gain no traction here, or on any website populated by POTG.

        • Why does law enforcement need those kind of weapons?

          Because they habitually gun down unarmed black men?

          If so, why should not the Crips also be allowed to have those weapons?

          And you want to ban people on the no-fly list from having firearms?

          what other rights should we take away from those on the no-fl;y list?


          Practicing medicine, law, or education?


          Maybe we should make people on the no-fly list wear a distinctive badge on their left sleeve when out in public, so it would be easier for us to violate their rights.

        • If you really have lived all over the world, especially in places where gun ownership is virtually unheard of, then do realize that literally NONE of those proposals even work anywhere in the world and have never been shown to work, right?

          Each and every single one of those LEFTIST pipe dreams have been thoroughly scrutinized, dissects, debunked, and fisked here — and many more than once.

          Safety can only follow liberty. All of those demonstrably asinine and knowingly ineffective laws you listed above can only diminish liberty, which in turn will only diminish the safety of you and your family. So, no, you’re actually only thinking of yourself first and foremost, specifically whatever assuages your own conscience and to Hell with everyone else.

          Like it or not, you’re being about as selfish as one can be on this issue.

          Just because you’re (supposedly) a veteran doesn’t mean that you can’t be a leftist, either. I know this is hard to fathom for some, but, somehow the two are not mutually exclusive.

          Oh, and gun-grabbers couldn’t give two shits about you or your loved ones. In fact, a great many of them openly, loudly, and proudly hope that you’re stood up against a wall and shot simple for disagreeing with them. On anything. At all. Ever. Oh, and no, our civil rights have not “morphed,” either, unless you’re talking about how the left has tried to morph them into something they’re not and never were.

        • “Shallnot, I am a veteran and not Left.”

          Well, that may be true, but you want the same restrictions on guns as the left does. Which makes you an enemy of our Constitution and the American people.

          You claim to be a veteran; if so, then you took the same oath I did. But you will not defend the Constitution against all enemies, because you are one of those enemies.

          You have no idea what the purpose of the Second Amendment is, so the oath you took was meaningless. Get a clue.

Comments are closed.