In the gun industry, we eat our own... (Kat Ainsworth for TTAG)
Previous Post
Next Post

Whether through articles or posts on social media the gun industry has an unfortunate tendency to readily and joyously eat its own. Toss a proverbial hot topic into the ring and suddenly it’s lions versus Christians with the lone Christian being represented by some poor guy who was “just saying.”

It’s a topic worth addressing even though it will cause more even kvetching and whining in the comment section (commonly-shared saying among writers: never read the comment section). Addressing this topic at all is likely to be called “whining”, “playing the victim card”, or – my personal favorite – “virtue signaling.”

There’s also the opposite end of the spectrum. There we have those who loudly proclaim we as an industry are being divided by the use of “divisive” speech. This often involves the originator of the discussion having asked a question or somehow challenged the status quo. You don’t dare rock the boat, because that makes you “part of the problem.”

What follows are my two cents. They’re sentiments I like to believe are shared by most of us here at TTAG. If my bluntness about this state of affairs offends you, sorry, but I’m not sorry.

Speak Your Mind

The willingness to speak up should never be discouraged, so long as the speaker isn’t a flaming asshat (yes, I’m looking at you). Voicing varying thoughts and opinions is how progress is made; silencing those voices is how we not only remain in place, but are dragged backwards by our opponents.

Who is it you think makes the changes in the industry? Those who go with the flow or those who are willing to speak up?

In an era of COVID-19, rioting, looting, and looming anti-gun measures, speaking up has become even more important. If you as a gun owner are unwilling to say something, to actively fight for your Second Amendment rights, exactly how do you expect this to end?

Of course, daring to open your mouth, whether in real life or on social media, comes with a whole other set of risks to consider. Social media has long since empowered certain people to behave in a bullying or outright threatening manner without fear of repercussions and it seems it’s only gotten worse lately. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent, though.

A word of advice. Speaking your mind can be done politely. So be polite. Be the adult in the situation. Resorting to name-calling, insults, and condescension is the quickest way to be cast aside as yet another ranting redneck gun owner or a crude commenter. Be constructive. It’s fun.

As for threats, handle any you may get wisely. Don’t behave rashly or say something that could be used against you in the future. Remember, the internet is forever.

How to start a fight on the interweb: say your chosen round is better than others. (Kat Ainsworth for TTAG)

2A Rights Take Priority

As an industry we’re faced with significant threats to our Second Amendment rights. For example: bump stocks. A large portion of the industry was only too happy to throw bump stocks under the bus because, hey, it’s a small concession in light of greater issues, right?

Wrong. It doesn’t matter if you thought bump stocks were useless range toys or if you didn’t care because the same action can be easily replicated with a rubber band. The anti-gun left has proven — time and again — that if they’re granted so much as an inch, they will take not just a mile, but ten. You gave them bump stocks. Now they’ve come for pistol braces, raided Polymer80, and before too much time passes Biden will be making good on his AR and semi-auto ban promises.

Petty squabbles need to be set aside for the defense of Second Amendment rights. If the anti-gun crowd is threatening those rights in some way, we should be capable of banding together to fight back. But we apparently aren’t.

Case in point . . .

The Big, Bad NRA

You might not agree with everything the NRA does, but they remain — still — our most powerful voice for Second Amendment rights. Have I been happy with everything they’ve done? Not even close. However, they are still the biggest dog in the fight.

If, one day, another organization manages to garner their level of influence, great. In my mind it’s an easy question: do you like owning guns? Yes? Cool. Support the NRA, then fight for change from within instead of pouting like a recalcitrant toddler from the outside.

Can’t bring yourself to support the NRA? Want to explore your options? Check out the Second Amendment Foundation. Their focus is wholly legal, but their founder, Alan Gottlieb, has proven he and SAF will do whatever it takes to fight for your rights. SAF is growing in influence and worth contributing to and supporting.

Don’t forget the Firearms Policy Coalition, either. They’re busy in the courts filing lawsuits challenging everything from magazine capacity limits, failures to process concealed carry permits, to “assault weapons” bans and gun rights restoration.

Caliber wars, .380 ACP style (Kat Ainsworth for TTAG)

Love a Good Debate

I have a confession, something you might already have noticed: I love a good debate. By “good debate” I mean a logical discussion based on facts. I don’t mean an argument where we call one another names and slap at one another like sorority girls.


Debate is good for the soul. More importantly, debate is important for progress. Weaver vs. isosceles, low vs. high bore axis, competition vs. self-defense training. God help us, even 9mm vs. .45 and GLOCK vs 1911. It’s all fantastic food for thought. Also, you’ll never know what people think if you don’t bring it up. Even better, you might – gasp – learn something during the discussion.

Debate is a necessary part of progress. What if John Moses Browning never invented – well, anything? What if Daniel LaFever never designed a striker-fired shotgun? What if Elmer Keith failed to work on magnums? Oh…what if Jeff Cooper never developed the Modern Technique?

Debate is Not Divisive

It’s past time we as an industry stopped clutching at our pearls and admit that debates aren’t divisive. Divisive behavior is like what Karl Lueger did to Vienna (by the way, Karl, thanks for influencing Hitler, who took division to new heights). Debating whether competition shooting makes one a competent self-defense shooter…not so much.

Debate is, quite literally, talking an issue or issues over in a formal, civilized manner. What debate isn’t is an insult-tossing free-for-all (a habit so many have developed on social media).

That means bellowing that open carry or using a SERPA holster will get someone kilt in da streets is not conducive to progress. It also means leveling cities because someone insulted 6.5 Creedmoor or said your GLOCK isn’t all that might be a bit of an overreaction. Just saying.

Chill out and learn to discuss things calmly and rationally. Back your claims with facts, not feelings, and for the love of God stop believing everything you read on the intertubes (yes, I realize you’re reading this on the intertubes).

Can you discuss an opposing viewpoint without calling someone names, slapping rude labels on them, or otherwise being a jerk? If the answer is no, you aren’t looking for a debate, you just want a fight. Those methods are the way of the angry, reactive anti-gun left and shouldn’t be your way. Shush and let the grown-ups talk. In short, DBAA.

Oh, And Quit Being a Political Asshole, Too

Something we’ve all watched play out during this presidential election and afterwards is a lot of assholery surrounding both Trump and Biden. Instead of sticking to facts the feces-slinging like monkeys have reached a frenzied pitch and those of us uninterested in slap-fighting were left on the sidelines shaking our heads.

It isn’t only Dems against Repubs, either. There are people in the industry so entrenched in Orange Man Bad they refused to admit the incredible damage a Biden presidency would and will do to our rights as gun owners. They either threw in with Biden or cast their votes for a third party which is…well, it’s throwing your vote away, people. Simple truth.

And now that the election is done and voter fraud has become the hot topic, there are a lot of gun people saying other gun people should sit down and shut up. Gun people claiming other gun people only see fraud because they’re upset they lost, and they need to get over it.

I’m sorry, but do you see any Republicans burning cities, looting stores and murdering people? Have rioters filled the streets or are legal avenues being taken? I don’t care whose side the fraud takes place on. If there is evidence of fraud it should be investigated. Does that meant the outcome will change? No. But if we as a nation lose all faith in our voting system, we have lost more than many people seem to comprehend.

You can yell Orange Man Bad as much as you like. I’m certainly not thrilled with Trump myself. Unfortunately, politics tends not to be a matter of being head-over-heels in love with a candidate but about choosing the lesser of two evils. Again, this’s life. Deal with it.

For those gun owners who feel justified in voting for Anyone But Orange Man and who are now telling other gun owners they must be morons for considering the possibility that fraud took place, I have one question for you (I don’t want the answer now, though…hang on six months to a year and get back to me).

How safe are your Second Amendment rights now? Do you feel good about your right to bear arms?

All the bickering amongst ourselves contributed to what just happened in the election. Unity isn’t a strong suit of the gun world or Republicans in general. We’d much rather be at one another’s throats all day, every day.

Kat Ainsworth for TTAG


Here we come to the crux of the matter. As an industry, we frequently eat our own. Writers who attempt to build themselves up by mocking and tearing down other writers, competitive shooters who degrade and name-call as a matter of reflex, brand founders targeting other brands for imagined or years-old slights; we’re like an industry of junior high schoolers with access to copious amounts of alcohol.

But wait, you say, you don’t work in the industry. You’re a reader, just a commenter. Guess what? Without readers clicking on links and buying guns and gear, we wouldn’t exist. The industry would crumble. Don’t believe me? You all didn’t see the fallout of declining gun sales. It isn’t only the manufacturers who were hurt, it’s the guys heading up R&D and marketing, the ammo companies, and yes, the writers.

I know there are plenty of industry guys reading this right now and grimacing.

I have an idea. It’s pretty radical, but it’s worth a shot. Why don’t we have rational, logical discussions? Why not trade ideas back and forth without informing someone they’re part of the problem? There are quite a few people out there willing to talk to me – and to others – privately who will not make public statements for fear of repercussions. We aren’t bullet proof, after all, and we all have bills to pay.

In my experience, those who say you are rocking the boat and should sit your ass down are the same people who will toss you ass-over-kettle out of that boat without a second thought (whether you sit down or not). The industry needs to grow and expand its base. The industry needs to welcome newcomers. The industry and the NRA need more Adam Krauts. Toeing the party line isn’t the answer.

Disclaimer: Raging assholes and jerks deserve to be slapped down. Dangerous practices – think VODA – should be spoken out against. Safety, ethics, and protecting our Second Amendment rights should be the priorities. Get those priorities in order. Let your polite conversation freak flag fly. Just keep your muzzle aimed in a safe direction, please.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. My biggest complaint with the gun industry is that they expect the end user, us, to foot the bill and do the foot work for protecting their industry.

    Is this the only industry that does this?

      • I’m talking about we are expected to foot the bill and do the work to protect the industry from unconstitutional intrusions.

        • They’re your rights. The industry just supplies you with the means to exercise them.

          The question isn’t if we foot the bill. We do. The question is who’s job is it to protect your rights?

          This is one I’ve never understood. You want to farm out the protection of your rights to others. Does that seem wise? How’d that work with the 1A and Big Tech?

          Gun manufacturers, the big ones with the ability to “protect your rights” also have the ability to crush them. And they give no fucks because they make most of their money off government contracts. Worst case they make guns and ammo work the way NYC cab medallions do. They make bank you get fucked. Making RPG-7’s for export is a big business with government contracts. How many RPG-7’s you got? None. There’s a reason for that.

          It’s not personal. It’s business. People need to understand that and not conflate the two.

          And as I suggested: You need to ask yourself the serious question: Do you really want to farm this out? Seems like we did that with the NRA, eh?

        • strych9,

          You are technically correct. You are also potentially advocating for a losing strategy.

          There is an inconvenient fact which we acknowledge in various ways such as:

          1) Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
          — or —
          2) Speak softly and carry a big stick.
          — or —
          3) It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
          — or —
          4) You can’t fight City Hall.
          — or —
          5) Doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

          All of those notions speak to the reality that it takes substantial/superior force to prevail over or at least keep your enemies at bay. In practical terms, with respect to a winning strategy for defending our inalienable right to keep and bear arms, that means we need a very large and very well resourced organization to prevail over our enemies who are themselves very large and very well resourced.

          With that in mind, we can consider sending support to any organization as “outsourcing” our responsibility. Unfortunately, it is necessary. The really relevant question is, who is best to create such an organization and how should that organization function?

        • No successful business pays *ANY* taxes. All taxes extricated from a business are then charged by the business to the customer, or the business will almost instantly go out of business/bankrupt. Where, exactly, do people imagine the money comes from which businesses pay in taxes? Your customers pay you for goods or services you provide to them. Out of that income, you pay *all* costs of operation, salaries, supplies, raw materials, water and electric bills, everything. Including any taxes you are charged by any and every level of government. Does nobody math anymore? That is pretty obvious.

        • @LarryinTX
          The money people give to those businesses comes from other businesses. Even if its from government, its still from other businesse (and from people who get it from other businesses).

        • @uncommon:

          There’s a world of difference between an organization which by definition relies on dues from members (who are hopefully paying attention to what that organization does) and a company which can sell its wares to your or other governments and be basically unaffected by anything you do.

          Both can go wrong, as the NRA shows. However, there’s at least a chance you can control that. An arms company? Your chance is essentially zero.

          Making billions in arms and ammo sales is going to happen with or without the 2A. Governments are the major purchaser of arms.

          Hiram Maxim understood this and acted accordingly.

        • jwm has an excellent point. If a politician was proposing outlawing 1/4 of the cars in existance, the auto industry would go apeshit with lawsuits and loddyist in overdrive. And honestly, right or wrong, the government takes this alot more seriously than a lawsuit by an individual or the GOA.

          I don’t see a similar level of engagement from gun manufacturers. There are numerous businesses built on just selling AR parts and they will be wiped out overnight if Biden gets mail order parts sales stopped. It’s our right, but if you’re in the business of selling guns, it’s your livelihood.

          And no, except for Glock, Colt, FN, and some specialized vendors, government contracts do not make up the bulk of sales. Ruger has no meaningful government contracts for example.

        • “If a politician was proposing outlawing 1/4 of the cars in existance, the auto industry would go apeshit with lawsuits and loddyist in overdrive.”

          Uh, wut? That’s already happened. In fact, it’s more like 95% of cars. The industry just doesn’t care right now because it’s not immediate.

        • The gun industry makes far more money selling to civilians than to the government. We have talked about this on TTAG for a while now.

          Mossberg does sell its shotguns to the government. But that is not what has kept them in business for over 100 years. Big contracts are always great to have. But Colt made the mistake of focusing on government as its primary source of business.

          If they want to stay in business, they need to come up with a “team” plan.

          They have already done it before. The Clinton AWB forced them to finally come together to fight as one.

  2. Well said Kat. Somehow people on the interwebz seem to forget that there (is likely) a human on the other side of that screen (or hundreds of humans). With such a separation of people, and a very limited mode of sharing information (default text?) human communication breaks down to the point where we often lose context, intent or meaning.
    Who knew that something of zero importance can suddenly become earth shattering after some twatter twidders textual typos – and suddenly the innertubes erupts in a furor!

    I may be stuck in CA, but I like buying what little my local government decides to allow my postal carrier to bring me. I may not like everything I read/hear/shop but I need to support any and everyone who is moving the gun industry forward and securing our 2A rights.

  3. I agree with 95% of this. However, since you are so pathetically WRONG on the other 5%, I am cancelling my subscription, you ranting redneck. You don’t deserve the privilege of free speech.

  4. Adult conversation?

    Lol. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen on a large scale because reasons that hurt feelz.

    When grown-ass men/women turn to children in a Glock vs. 1911 bitchfest it’s a sure sign that we were fucked long ago.

    • strych9,

      The shear magnitude of the problem — people who operate on emotion in clear violation of hard facts — is becoming ever more prominent in my mind.

      Pro-tip: it is utterly and totally impossible to rationally debate an irrational person.

      • There’s this sticker I put on a lot of my shit. It’s an older 30secondsout sticker that says “no one is coming it’s up to us”.

        When people notice it there are, broadly, two sets of reactions. Confusion is the major one. Pounds are far, far more rare.

        Who do you think I hang out with?

  5. The correct answers are:
    – 1911
    – .45
    – .308
    – pump shotgun
    – nacho cheese Doritos
    – Hardies Monster Burger

    Everything else is just heresy! 🙂

      • I, .45, .308. You want to go up against him? You call him Fudd. Did it occur to you he might be a real gunfighter? Think about it. What’s often cover from a .223 is often only concealment from a .308. .45 ACP. Said it before. 9mm aspires to become where .45 starts. Bigger deeper holes. I own several of everything I just mentioned. Call me a Fudd. I’m honored.

        • Of all the people who frequent this comment section, seeing you Gadsden, get amped up about name calling as if you’re pure as the driven snow on this topic is one of the more deliciously ironic things I’ve witnessed in this little corner of the web.

        • I understand Strych9, it is a stone filled road that we who are right have to walk. Besides, sometimes you have to call a moron what he is.

        • One day maybe you’ll just learn to ignore the trolls.

          But whatever. Your reply here shows a marked improvement so excellent work on that, keep it up.

      • Call me ignorant, but I thought FUDD referred to being soft regarding other citizens’ rights to militia-suitable arms, and not to choices of caliber? Or is this more caliber-wars shitposting?

  6. So we need to support each other with bump stocks, braces, and polymer 80 but we also need to support the NRA who is silent on those issues? Miss me with that bullshit.

  7. It’ll never happen because you have gun owners from the Left who want the 2nd Amendment but agree with banning certain guns. Sadly you also have some on the Right who feel the same way. I IGNORE BOTH

  8. I have a question for the group can a Biden administration ban magazines and certain weapon systems that are manufactured domestically outside of Congress? (I.e EO) The reason I ask is I’m getting a number of emails suggesting they can.

    • If the ATF can define a chunk of plastic as a machine gun without Congress, you can bet they can and will try to ban anything they can get away with. First on the block will be pistol braces and binary triggers. High capacity magazines can easily be labelled as machine guns.

      It’s a question of how quickly they can take things without losing their jobs. Some here like to point out that Obama didn’t limit any gun rights. They’re wrong, he did everything he could to restrict imports. But what they fail to understand is that the rollout of the ACA was bungled so badly that also chasing guns may have cost him his 2nd term. After losing both chambers of Congress, I doubt Obama wanted to hurt Hillary’s chances of replacing him. I’d bet money that there would have been some Executive Order action if they knew Trump would squeak by.

    • Ross,

      Second Amendment considerations aside, the Executive Branch of the United States (of which the President is the top-dog) has no legitimate constitutional nor delegated (from Congress) authority to ban ammunition magazines.

      While that looks good on paper, that never stops government actors from doing whatever the Hell they want anyway. And Democrats seem to excel at violating the United States Constitution, state constitutions, and both federal and state laws if it suits their purposes. That being the case, I will not be surprised at all if a Biden and/or Harris
      Administration issues an Executive Order banning certain types of ammunition magazines.

      Aside from flagrantly violating the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions, and laws, our beloved federal government has a sneaky way to ban pretty much anything it wants: federal government justifies any ban as being necessary to “regulate Interstate commerce” — whether or not that is actually true. When federal government uses that justification, they can justify banning anything and everything — including items made in a state that are never even put up for sale, much less sold in state or sold out of state. (Reference the Wickard v. Filburn decision where the United States Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on wheat production even though the farmer who grew the wheat was only growing it for his own personal consumption on his own farm.)

      • It bears mentioning that the government didn’t lose another Commerce Clause case until 1995. (U.S. v. Lopez, a gun case amusingly enough.)

        I’ve said here for several years that if you want to put the government back in its box you have to go after the Commerce Clause as expanded under Wickard. But no one really seems to care about that.

        Myopic describes a lot of people and the gun community isn’t immune to that. In fact, this might be the most myopic group I know of. Never realizing that the 2A is part-and-parcel of a larger package that most gun people don’t recognize, or if they do, don’t give a fuck about.

        • “I’ve said here for several years that if you want to put the government back in its box you have to go after the Commerce Clause as expanded under Wickard. But no one really seems to care about that.”

          Thomas and Kav have made noises they have an interest in clipping the powers of the ‘Administrative State’ via regulations instead of laws…

        • The commerce clause is also the justification for all federal drug laws. Illegal commerce is still commerce…

          They literally use it to justify anything they want, with little rein-in from the courts. Everything is “in or affecting” commerce in a six degrees of separation way.

        • The Constitution gives them the power to regulate/restrict/ban substances that cross state or country borders. It’s an overstep for substances that don’t cross those borders. I

        • You are right about the commerce clause, but that can only be fixed in the courts since neither party is interested in limiting the power of fedgov.

    • Perhaps you could have made your point somewhat more respectfully, and without resorting to name calling? You totally just validated Kat’s point about “eating our own.” Comments like this make us all look bad. Thank you.

      • Nope, couldn’t have. This post is bad-faith garbage written by an entitled hick. If you take it seriously any response will appear to validate it. It’s like religion in that respect, ex falso quodlibet. You must take it seriously and just pretend you care about civility, so you’re garbage too.

        • So this is your response to a call for solidarity in the fight against an enemy that wants to destroy everything we value… Tells us everything we need to know about you, Mr. Drive-by Flamethrower. Ex trollo quodlibet.

          Xairete kai su.

  9. Dear Kat,

    … the NRA … remain[s] … our most powerful voice for Second Amendment rights. … [and] are still the biggest dog in the fight.

    In the spirit of your article, I respectfully disagree with your claim. Considering the last four years or so, I fail to see all this great influence of which you speak. Please provide examples.

    Support the NRA, then fight for change from within instead of pouting like a recalcitrant toddler from the outside.

    I would agree with your statement if it was actually possible to fight for change at the NRA from within. Alas, the structure of the NRA, their current bylaws, and Wayne LaPierre’s recent behavior makes that impossible for all intents and purposes.

    Given that the NRA is not producing any meaningful results in the last few years, they are diverting significant funds to improper (and potentially even illegal) “expenses”, they are unwilling to correct their mismanagement, and there is no way for rank-and-file members to correct their mismanagement, the only sensible path forward is to defund them and shut them down.

    If anyone sees another path forward, I am all ears.

    • You could defund the NRA as a housecleaning strategy.

      Of course that takes either a lot of people being coordinated (with coordinating gun owners being like herding cats) or a few people with a fair chunk of change and the right attitude (which might actually be a longer shot).

      Regardless, it’s always preferable to capture usable infrastructure intact so that you can use it for your own purposes. The Left understands this but most other people seem not to.

  10. First of all, I can’t take this article seriously because Kimbers suck. And NO, I’ve never owned one. #Facts /s

    • Dude, Kat never mentioned Kimber in the article that I can recall, though she did use a pic of one. That said, I carried a full sized Kimber 1911 on hundreds of 12 hour shifts, qualified with it (always 100%) FDLE has the records and used it in an assload of advanced training. Never failed me. I also carried one of their LW 4″ 1911s off duty many a mile. They are very good pistols.

      • “The /S is known as the sarcasm switch. When you are typing a post use it at the end of your post so people know you are actually being sarcastic.
        One good thing about you being wrong is the joy it brings to others. /S”

        I was giving an example of what Kat was talking about. 😉

        • Dude, I know what the s/ means. Perhaps I’m obtuse. I didn’t get the sarcasm. Despite the s/ it read as criticism.

        • People talk smack about things they have no experience with because they read it on the net. Kimber happens to be one of those things. I wholeheartedly agree with the article. Also, my comments aren’t always serious.

        • Dude, don’t get pissed. I generally enjoy your comments. Where’s the fun if there’s not a little back and forth.

  11. Kat, excellent article. I’ve been a member of the NRA forever. Though, I did allow my membership to lapse for a while and I’ve not been happy with things of late, but I agree, the only way to change it is from within by the members. After reading your article I went to the Second Amendment Foundation website and joined. Five years for $50.00 and an additional $50.00 donation. Merry Christmas to me. I challenge all other TTAG readers to do the same. BTW, I like and own them both, but the 1911 is superior to the Glock as a fighting pistol. After all, the Glock plays to the lowest common denominator.

  12. Two hard and fast rules from an old (ok, very old) debater. Rule #1 Know what you’re talking about. If you are going to defend gun-rights, it’s a good idea to read the 2nd Amendment and carefully consider it’s meaning. Gun controllers like to claim that the 2nd is about muskets. It isn’t, it’s about an armed citizenry sharing political power. Gun controllers also like to argue that “weapons-of-war” (usually meaning scary black AR and AK pattern semi-auto rifles) should not be in civilian hands. Whenever I hear this I always ask how the armed citizenry as described in the 2nd can possibly defend itself against governmental tyranny if it doesn’t own those very “weapons of war” gun-controllers. Rule #2. Never, ever get mad. Repeat after me: Never, ever git mad. Getting mad in the middle of a debate means you just lost the debate. I’m surprised at the number of people who completely lose it when confronted by political beliefs they disagree with. If you are prone to getting mad when people disagree with you, it’s entirely possible to train yourself to be more calm in a debate. Spend some time watching Ted Cruz debate and do what he does.

      • The site does have an edit button – you need to click “save my name, email and website in this browser….” before posting. Then you have a 5 minute window to edit.

        Now, as to your comment. Understanding 2A is one thing. Understanding it in the context of the Constitution is another.

        To wit, Article I, which describes what Congress is tasked with (as it pertains to 2A):

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        These items destroy the notion of “2A being only for Militias, and well regulated at that”. Why would the Constitution require an Amendment indicating that the Militia should be able to keep and bear arms, when it is stated in Article 1 that it is Congress’ JOB to arm (and train) the Militia.

        Furthermore, Granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal means authorizing private *ship owners* to attack other ships, aka Piracy. Thus, privateers were expected to own cannon to protect their property (and perform legal piracy, when called upon). So much for “small” arms.

        • I have made this point for years. The real militia clause is in Article I, Section 8. If the Second Amendment was only about a militia then you you wouldn’t need a statement on individual rights. If it were about the States’ right to form a militia it would have been part of the 10th Amendment.

  13. Meh…wag your finger all you want Kat(and everyone else). Support BlackLootersMurder & Anti scum being armed at your peril. They’re are NOT on “our”side…

    • It doesn’t have to be support so much as the recognition and begruding acceptance of a necessary evil.

  14. Good job Kat.

    There have been very few (if any) pieces written on this topic that I could more heartily agree with, and find so little to disagree with.

    Those that find your logic faulty should be shot forthwith.

  15. When people end a statement with “just saying” it’s because they have no idea what they’re talking about and don’t want to have to actually be held responsible for saying dumb things.

  16. “You all didn’t see the fallout of declining gun sales. It isn’t only the manufacturers who were hurt, it’s the guys heading up R&D and marketing, the ammo companies, and yes, the writers.“

    Ok, I have to point this out:

    Did literally no one in the industry have a thing called “Foresight”?

    I wrote about this yesterday on another topic.

    The industry was hurt during 2016-2020 because no one was panic buying. Could they not foresee another panic? Because I sure did. And I gave multiple comments here at TTAG speaking of it over the years. If my redneck ass could see it coming, I sure hope a ton of businessmen who do this for a living could foresee it.

  17. I’ve been saying this for years. A great example is when a company like Ruger or Springfield screw up, we banish them from use forever.
    Well, who does that hurt more? Us or the left? How excited do you think anti gunners get when people boycott firearms manufacturers? I say we forgive and make them show backing, right the wrong.
    Abandoning anyone on your side during a fight is a terrible idea, soon there wont be anyone left to fight with you.

    • Damn right I ban Springfield Bob…their shenanigans are still reverberating in Lincoln’s Land. Madigan just got another term as Speaker. The State Po-leece continue to slow walk CCL & the cursed FOID…as ILL leads the nation in gun sales. Springfield still lies about their self serving betrayal!

      • So I take it that you only buy Beretta since they are the only major gun company to tell the anti-gunners to FOAD.

  18. Thank you Kat for writing this! The reason things are so mixed up is we are no longer thinking alike. And we haven’t been for decades now.

    We use to all agree on what the Bill of Rights meant. Now we don’t.

    The 2A is only really important to people in constitutional carry states. They got the law passed in their state. Others are trying to pass it, or others are working to take rights away.

    Children are the future of the country. And we as a society have chosen to not teach kids about their 2A civil rights in school.

  19. The NRA lost power and prestige through their own mismanagement. The expansion of gun rights at the state level happened in spite of the NRA inactions and was reinforced by many smaller organizations picking up the slack the NRA left legally. The way I see it we are better served by several organizations that mean bus I was and don’t spend millions of dollars on perks for its leaders.

    But you can send the NRA money today if you like.

  20. I confess that I chose the screen moniker “Elmer Fudd” just to give the middle finger to all of the TactiCoolFools who presume that they are “gun experts” because they have successfully assembled an AR-15 from a collection of parts. My children must be experts in guided missile design because they have built rocket ships out of Lego.
    Let me know when you can drill and rifle a barrel. . Many of us old guys have forgotten more about guns than you TactiCoolFools will ever know.

    I confess that my attitude towards TactiCoolFools is less than charitable after contending with my tenants in a house on my rural property who converted a 3,600 square foot horse barn associated with the house into a massive marijuana grow. Marijuana might be legal under Oregon law, but it remains a Federal felony. Acquisition of grow lights and other equipment was financed by selling hundreds of AR-15s that had been assembled from parts and 80% receivers. Many of the gun parts had been stolen from their former employer (T J’s gun shop in Macminiville Oregon).

    No growers licenses? No grow site permits? No problem!

    No FFL? No serial numbers? No background checks? No problem!

    Our efforts to evict escalated to an incident where our tenant fired two rounds from a 12 gauge shotgun at my son. Our tenants’ corrupt attorney put their marijuana bootlegging grandson on the witness stand and misrepresented him as a “gun expert” to support the Elmer Fudd defense. A shotgun is allegedly not a lethal weapon! He couldn’t have been firing slugs through his allegedly antique Remington model 1870 (model does not exist. He keeps a Remington 870 loaded by the front door.) because it has a choke. “The barrel would explode, just like happens to Elmer Fudd when Buggs Bunny sticks a carrot into the muzzle of his shotgun.

    Excuse the Hell out me. Every Elmer Fudd knows that both the Breneke Slug and the Foster Slug were specifically designed to be fired through a shotgun with a full choke barrel.

    Every Elmer Fudd also understands the implications of Journees’ formulae. We understand that depending on the ammunition, the maximum range of a shotgun is about one mile. We also understand that it is really easy to load the wrong ammunition, especially if your
    drug trafficking, TactiCoolFooll grandson is providing you with his hand reloaded ammunition.

    • “No growers licenses? No grow site permits? No problem!”

      Whoa, hold on a second! I thought legalizing weed turned drug dealers into hard working, by the book, tax paying entrepreneurs who helped the community in their spare time. So…they’re still criminals??

  21. Elmer, I was laughing out loud before the end of your first sentence. Those TactiCoolFools (mind if I borrow that?) are exactly as you describe. Prior to the ammo crunch you could see them on any range doing an ammo dump with their basement built AR. At least until it malfunctioned. Lucky if they even hit the backstop.

  22. “Debate is, quite literally, talking an issue or issues over in a formal, civilized manner.”

    You can’t debate with your enemy. The only thing they want to debate is the best way to kill you.

    • Bullshit. This is not about “enemies” in that sense. This is not a war. There no tanks or armies.

      America has two main political factions. Both factions are Loyal Opposition. Because both are loyal to this country. The debate between people who both love their country, the same country, on any issue is not about warfare or killing.

      It is a thing called Democracy. Or, in our more refined form of that very general idea, a Republic. It is as it is supposed to be, messy. Raucous. Loud and sometimes downright nuts. But it is never about making war upon an enemy. Not unless you make it so and only if you are killing people in making it so.

      Some here have lost touch with these concepts, these lessons in American Civics.

        • That moronic fool enuf has to say that, the villainous traitor voted for anchor baby Harris, and by default China.

      • Remind us again which party members of BLM most closely associate?

        Remind us again which party had a candidate indicate that he would use nuclear weapons against US citizens?

        Remind us again which party is screaming to defund the police, remove bail, release felons (because they might get sick?), and then allow those same felons to vote.

        Remind me again which side has thrown temper tantrums when they do not get their way.

        I’ll remind you – it’s the same group that literally rioted when Trump was elected in 2016. So tell us again, which side is “making war”.

  23. “the hour is getting late”
    no more stupid arguments about 9mm vs 40 vs 45
    or carrying chamber loaded or empty or to bump stock or to not bump stock or ar vs ak or 308 vs 6.5 creed
    listen up:
    the only country on the planet right now that has h bombs and bio weapons and concentration camps just did a covid victory lap and has allied themselves against us with the party about to come into power here that is planning on taking our guns way while compiling a list of undesirables and holding in high esteem and giving achievent awards to those who kill babies and elderly people
    and representatives and members of that evil coalition are here among us right now
    we need to get our shit together and fast
    something wicked this way comes

  24. NRA remains a powerful voice?

    Fuck the NRA.

    They’ve been awfully silent with that “powerful voice” when Trump banned bump stocks, they’ve been silent on red flag laws, they’re silent on Polymer 80, they’ve been silent on the Honey Badger, they’re silent on all of the pistol brace nonsense.

    Meanwhile FPC is out there taking names and kicking ass; and posting dank memes.

  25. Nice read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch as I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thank you for lunch!

  26. Thanks for your posting on this blog site. From my very own experience, there are times when softening up a photograph may well provide the digital photographer with a dose of an imaginative flare. Often times however, that soft cloud isn’t just what exactly you had under consideration and can often times spoil an otherwise good photo, especially if you thinking about enlarging that.

Comments are closed.