Stockholm Syndrome, Newtown and the Liberator Pistol

FP-45 liberator pistol

By Armémuseum – https://digitaltmuseum.se/011024251246/pistol-fp-45, CC BY 4.0, Link

ED: The following post originally ran on December 26, 2012, about two weeks after the Sandy Hook shooting. A famous man once wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. We’re re-running this post today because it’s every bit as relevant as it was almost seven years ago. 

Two days ago, a man whom I’ve known and respected for over a decade launched into a more than slightly incoherent Facebook rant in which he explicitly blamed the NRA and law-abiding civilian shooters for the Newtown killings.

“Those children died,” he wrote, “so you could have your toys without any reasonable restrictions.” I didn’t know how to respond to the post. After all, none of the “reasonable” restrictions now being proposed would have prevented Adam Lanza’s affluent, well-educated mother from purchasing a gun.

I tried pointing that out to my friend, only to have him dismiss me as a “gun nut.” Although he’s normally a reasonable fellow, since Newtown happened he’s clearly decided to let emotion take the wheel, at least for now.

He’s not the only intelligent person I’ve seen swept away towards irrationality in the past two weeks. Again and again, I’ve heard that “reasonable gun control” is now necessary, even inevitable. In my struggles to understand this, I thought back to World War II and the failure of what was perhaps the first-ever government-sponsored zip gun.

The FP-45 “Liberator” was a throwaway, sheet-steel affair, manufactured in bulk by General Motors in the days when they were the Arsenal of Democracy rather than the Recipient Of Government Assistance. The US Army planned to drop approximately a million of the single-shot, .45 ACP-chambered pistols into occupied Europe.

The stated purpose of the weapon was to enable Resistance fighters to kill soldiers and acquire a rifle or SMG. But the real purpose was to spread a little terror through the German ranks. The FP-45’s concealable nature meant that anybody could be carrying one at any time, so in theory the existence of the Liberators would have vastly increased the stress the occupying troops faced.

During the German Occupation, the Allies managed to convey over 200,000 firearms into Europe, but almost all of those were STEN guns delivered to known Resistance contacts. The Liberator, which would have been air-dropped at random, wound up being melted-down en masse instead. That’s right: the United States simply declined to drop a million pistols that it had already built into Nazi-held territory. Why?

In his book “Blitzkrieg,” historian Len Deighton states that the Liberator program was canceled at the request of Charles de Gaulle, who as the self-appointed representative of the “Free French” had an amazing ability to manipulate the Allies towards his interests despite having virtually no followers and despite the fact that France itself didn’t exactly struggle to throw off the yoke of German occupation.

De Gaulle knew that resistance to the Nazis was mostly imaginary, but that resistance to his triumphant return was likely to be quite real, particularly from leftist elements within France. He therefore convinced the United States to cancel any proposed Liberator drops and in doing so significantly reduced the amount of potentially-armed opposition to his postwar ascension.

The astute reader will note that this decision effectively aided the Nazi ability to resist the Normandy invasions. Some minor percentage of the deaths on that day was no doubt due to the fact that the Germans didn’t have a million zip guns pointed at their backs.

The payoff for that sacrifice? When the country was finally liberated, nearly all the hardware was firmly in the hands of de Gaulle’s chosen people and the transition was no doubt smoothed by this happy coincidence. So what if a few Allied soldiers had to die in the cause?

Charles de Gaulle wasn’t just a brilliant politician; he was an effective myth-maker. The Allies sweated blood to put him into power at the end of World War II because he sold them a story that they wanted to believe, even if it wasn’t true: namely, that there had been a massive French Resistance and he, de Gaulle, had directed its many successful operations. The fiction of “Le Resistance” effectively over-wrote the fact of French cooperation. De Gaulle rode the power myth into a nearly absolute power over France.

The people who want to advance “reasonable” gun control in the United States are myth-makers as well, and they should not be confused with the useful idiots who subscribe to their myths. They know that a ten-round magazine limit or a ban on scary-looking pistol grips wouldn’t have prevented the deaths of those children in Connecticut.

They know that nothing short of a nationwide ban on firearms possession, combined with a thorough and merciless seizure of the 300 million weapons in private hands already, could significantly reduce the chances of another Newtown shooting.

They don’t care. In the phrase “gun control,” control should be emphasized. Control is its own reward. Power, as Orwell noted, is its own reward. It needs no other reason, no other justification.

There’s no reason to seek out the golden heart behind the iron fist of gun control. It doesn’t exist. The armed citizen is not fully under control, even if his “assault weapon” never leaves his closet. There must be control.

And thus we have ridiculous suggestions like taxing ammunition. What level of taxation deters someone who only plans to fire a hundred rounds — or one round — in anger? We know that the purpose of that legislation is to control recreational shooters, to marginalize them, to tax them, not the criminals, out of existence. Control is the only purpose, and the people who want that control will seize on any excuse, any tragedy, to have more of it. They are inexorable and inexhaustible.

I wonder if my friends who are in favor of “reasonable” gun control aren’t suffering from a bit of Stockholm Syndrome. Surrounded by the media which bleats the mantra of “reasonable gun control” twenty-four hours a day, sick of being vilified for owning firearms, tired of explaining that no, the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee your right to join the National Guard.

After a while, it’s easier to identify with the abusers, to go along, to give up something in hopes that they’ll be left alone, that the maw which yawns beneath them to swallow their neighbor’s AR-15 will be satisfied at that and will leave their Mini-14, or their Remington 700, or their Browning Citori, at peace.

Naturally, they’re wrong. No sacrifice will appease their desire for power, for control.

The gun control measures stacked up on the graves of Newtown’s children may start off by being “reasonable,” but that pretense of reason will disappear soon enough. How far will the myth-makers of “reasonable gun control” go? Ask any Frenchman who stood under the open sky in 1943 and wished for a salvation that never came.

comments

  1. avatar bontai Joe says:

    What an excellent explaination of what gun control is all about!

    1. avatar SGT Preston says:

      Excellent article here. very timely. Only problem is that it will not wake any of the “gun control” protagonists up. Why? They don’t care about history or facts. They are fixated on their gun control mantra that “guns are evil”. “They kill people” Only problem with their logic is that a gun has never killed anyone in and of itself. It always has required someone to pull the trigger after inserting bullets in the weapon. Even if guns are taxed out of existence, you will still have people who will kill other people. If I remember correctly, on the day of Lanza’s murderous spree, over in China, a disgruntled individual killed more people than Lanza did, using a knife. Are we to regulate knives after that. And then, there’s cars. If someone is set on killing someone else, a car makes a fine weapon. ALWAYS, it is the perpetrator behind the weapon that makes the decision to fire. After all, a firearm is an inanimate object. It is incapable of making a decision of its own. The real problem is that all these cretins need a heart transplant because their “old” heart is diseased by sin.

  2. avatar Sagebrush Rebel says:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    ― C.S. Lewis

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      This quote is a great launching point for Thomas Sowell’s book, “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy” – which expands on Lewis’ point.

      Today, we have a cadre of self-appointed pecksniffs sticking their long, thin snouts into every public orifice, seeking to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

      The best way to deal with these bombastic buffoons would be to start defunding academic disciplines which are useless – eg, take land grant universities back to their original intent, per federal legislation. This would mean wholesale elimination of entire liberal arts departments and going back to nothing but engineering, hard science, agriculture, military sciences and medicine.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        And who gets to decide what’s useless? The pecksniffs, of course. Back to square one. If my liberal arts degrees can be pecksniffed into uselessness, so can your gunsmithing skills.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          I can make weapons.

          You can write poems.

          Guess which wins gunfights?

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Just remove government funding, and government interference and the market will decide which things remain and which go away.

        3. avatar George Washington says:

          Yeah…. NOT

          Your WORTHLESS liberal farts degree is of NO COMPARISON to real work, such as gunsmithing…..
          And it’s plain to see the uselessness of these liberal assfart degrees .. So there’s really no question as to who would decide….
          Yours is a typical rebuttal from a commie queer…

        4. avatar Ing says:

          I actually remember making this comment way back when. Never checked to see if it got any replies, but I guess this is about what I should’ve expected.

          So, to DG:
          Making weapons doesn’t win gunfights; shooting them does. Fortunately, you and I can both do that. Because as I said before, if the pecksniffs can come for me, they can come for you, too, especially considering the deplorable hands-on work you do with those evil guns…and unless you’ve got prior combat experience, the jury’s still out on both of us.

          To “George Washington”:
          Have you ever noticed that the more grandiose the online handle, the more inane the commentary? (I thought not.)

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote—————-This would mean wholesale elimination of entire liberal arts departments and going back to nothing but engineering, hard science, agriculture, military sciences and medicine.————–quote

        Sorry but Higher Education is more than just greed mongering for future wealth in the world of business. Without freedom of expression (which you obviously endorse) we would be back in Hitlers Germany and all saluting with the stiff armed salute and with no 1st Amendment Rights. This has always been the target of the Far Right who hate the 1st Amendment with a passion and hate more than a 1 party rule.

        I might add it was the Liberals who were the first to riot (without guns) during Nixon’s Jack Booted invasion of Cambodia which only prolonged the Vietnam War. We Liberals needed no armed insurrection to change the course that the Imperialist U.S. Government was taking in those days.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          To Fake Vlad Tepes:

          Sorry but Higher Education is more than just wasting money on worthless degrees in Transgendered Womens Studies Underwater Basket Weaving. Without freedom of expression (which you obviously endorse) we would be back in Hitlers Germany and all saluting with the stiff armed salute and with no 1st Amendment Rights. This has always been the target of the Far Left extremists who hate the 1st Amendment with a passion and hate more than a 1 party rule.

          I might add it was the violent criminal leftists who were the first to riot (without guns we just used guns to rob banks and murder police officers remember the SLA and the Weathermen and the Black Panthers?) during Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia which only prolonged the Vietnam War. We murderous revolutionaries needed armed insurrection to accomplish nothing except spilling blood in those days.

          I fixed it for me

        2. avatar Thomas says:

          Vlad your logic is nonexistent. In your first sentence you mention “Higher Education” then, without a shred of irony, you set up a straw-man attack on…The Business School (of ‘Higher Education’).

          Without skipping a beat, in your second sentence, you somehow equate “higher education” with being the sole purveyors of freedom of expression. Followed by, naturally, the tiredest trope of the weakest minds… the Nazis. What is really of note is that schools of higher education have become the biggest violators of freedom of expression in the U.S.. And you again, commit this fallacy without a shred of irony or actual awareness of reality.

          For someone who ‘prides’ himself on how learned, erudite, and scholarly on the annotations of the political functions, your writings and observations, are barely remedial.

        3. avatar Someone says:

          Unarmed riots only win when the government lets them.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        This depends heavily on definition. Math, classically, is considered a “Liberal Art”, as are the sciences. Historically the entire point of “Liberal Arts” was to create well rounded individuals, specifically those capable of operating in a Democracy or Republic, and doing so in a way that was of service/benefit to that society. This design worked very well for thousands of years, so there’s no reason to think that the system or the concept behind it is a bad one.

        The easiest solution at this point is probably one that’s been proposed for nearly a decade: force the universities to co-sign on student loans and keep the loans as something that cannot be wiped out by bankruptcy. Then the institutions have a vested interest in 1) the remedial education that 80% (or more) of high school graduates currently require and 2) those people getting a degree that has a high likelihood of getting the student a decent job.

        Whether the current outcomes of the system are by Progreasive design or a degeneracy based on coincidence doesn’t matter. Making the universities responsible for the overall outcome will drive down cost and drive up quality.

        1. avatar TweetyRex says:

          A degree is not training for a job. It’s the required “union card” to get hired. Why would government contractors who make aircraft hire people with liberal arts degrees? Because no matter what the degree is in, the company with teach you how they want things done. Get the CHEAPEST DEGREE YOU CAN FIND! Get your union card and get hired!

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          It depends entirely on what the degree is and what the company is looking for. Boeing and Lockheed both hire a lot of people who are not aircraft engineers because there’s a lot more that goes into making and selling planes than just designing them.

          The cheapest degree you can get isn’t the best, nor is the most expensive. Sometimes a community college degree is better than one from MIT. Sometimes a State University is better than a private one. Sometimes the reverse is true. It has a lot to do with the University itself and how it does it’s thing. Some just tread on their name. Sometimes that name is deserved, sometimes it’s not.

          For example, the University I’m associated with spends a HUGE amount of effort (and money) getting people jobs via outreach/partnerships with companies, an alumni network that the school runs/supports etc. If you just graduate your chances of getting a job on your own are average. If you use the services that the University provides your chances of getting a job over $80,000/year starting are better than 80%. If you’ve got better than a 3.0 your chances of a starting job at or over $60,000/year are better than 90%.

          That’s not real common but it’s damned effective and it’s a huge part of what the students are buying. They’re also getting it cheaper than many universities with a 4 year tuition cost of about $46,000 as opposed to $100,000+.

        3. avatar Rideout says:

          My daughter holds three degrees in chemistry including a PhD. Along the way she took classes in religion, literature, art appreciation, etc. She got a hard science and a liberal arts education and she is better for it.

        4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to strych9

          Wrong, you do not live in the real world of Capitalvania. College administrators even in relatively small colleges make as much as 4 million dollars a year. This money comes from bankrupting Students with outrageous fees and increasing the amount of years it takes to get a degree. The longer they are in school the more they can rip them off. We were told in 1968 that they could train us for a teaching job in High School in less than 2 years but the degree called for 4 years and some of the courses were questionable to say the least. Not that I did not enjoy all the courses but college in those days was affordable. I was making $2.60 an hour then. I worked my way through college working nights and going to school days and paid off the small government loan ($800) when I graduated with my wedding money. This is totally impossible today because the Capitalvanians have made a mockery in regards to the cost of an education. Its a financial rip off from day one to the end of your studies. I would say a government funded education would put an end to the 4 or more million dollar salaries of the Administrators and ditto for the outrageous college fees. The Government would tell them that this is what we will pay and you are now working for less than half of what you were ripping off students for yesterday. If there ever was a more valid reason for Socialism this is it.

          European colleges do not fund outrageous sums for sports either nor do they build expensive dormitories either. Students live off campus at many universities in Europe. All this keeps the cost of their education way down as compared to ours. They even have a program where college students get room and board for almost nothing by agreeing to live with retired people some who are alone and need care.

          There are many ways to revamp the cost of college in the U.S. but as long as the Capitalvanians are in power a college education will be only affordable to the children of millionaires, all others will be bankrupt for the rest of their lives.

        5. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          I also forgot to mention that the corruption in Colleges has become so obscene that rather than hire skilled professors that have had years of teaching experience the Corrupt Administrators, besides ripping off the Colleges with their personal expenses,also rely on Graduate Students that they use as slave labor. It reminds me of the blind leading the blind as they often do not have the experience to be in the positions that they are required to teach. And to make college life even more of a rip off they sometimes have nothing more than a guy walk in and turn on a computer that gives the daily lesson. Therefore there is no dialog between students and a teacher and no one to answer questions from students that may need help. Its outrageous.

          Even when I was in college we has professors that never showed up for even one class but at the Universities expense spent their time writing books for their own profit. They had a fat salary, did not have to earn it , and sold books that they completed on college time. Others were engaged in Government contract work and once again never did a days teaching.

        6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          During my nine years as a full time undergraduate student I never did get to talk to a professor every time I would ask a question in class or go to see them during their office hours they would either laugh at me or call campus security. There was one Little Girl Studies professor who did not laugh at me or turn me in to the campus cops but she kept a pit bull in her office and every time I went to see her during her office hours she would sick that dog on me. I spent more time running from that beast than I did in class and I have the scars from the bite marks to prove it.

        7. avatar Guesty "We Are All Vlad" McGuesterson says:

          We are now all Vlad, apparently. So many of them here.

          We are all Spartacus.

  3. avatar David says:

    Jack,

    It is probably not the fodder for this thread, but I would like to see more references w/ some of your assertions. I am not saying they are not true just that I would like to know. I agree w/ you in politic just a little iffy on history. The French resistance was real – overblown I could totally see that. If the resistance was blown out of proportion to the point of myth then many of our generals were eye-ball deep in the myth making. It would also be interesting to see some more material on resistance efforts in other countries in Europe not just France.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      @David, compare the Yugoslavian, Polish and Russian resistance with the French resistance. Resistance was far more fierce in the Eastern Front, where the Germans were fighting a war of annihilation, than on the Western Front.

      The French resistance committed random acts of sabotage until D-Day, when sabotage became better coordinated. After WW2, the French government recognized 220,000 resistance fighters, although the number of total resistance personnel was probably higher while the number of fighters was actually lower.

      Meanwhile, the Yugoslavian resistance had 800,000 fighters organized into more than 50 divisions and four armies. They were real armies and they engaged the Nazis in several major battles. None of them received much Allied support before 1944.

      IIRC, France in 1940 had at least five times the population of Yugoslavia, yet Yugoslavia had four times the number of resistance fighters. And man, did they fight.

      There’s plenty of information out there if your google-fu is strong.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The French also had at least 100 thousand volunteers that served with the german army during the war. Over half of france itself wasn’t even occupied by German soldiers until late in the war. The Germans relied on the Vichy government and the french police and military to control Southern France.

        And the real heart breaker of all this is that when American forces landed in French north Africa to begin the liberation of german occupied territory the first resistance the American met was from French Army, Navy and AirForce personnel loyal to the puppet Vichy government. American troops died at the hands of frenchmen they had landed to liberate.

        1. avatar ket says:

          Thank you !

        2. avatar SkorpionFan says:

          After the French decided not not to have their large Navy and Air Force continue the fight against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy from their colonies and the UK, the Vichy French Forces actually fought against the British and other Allies.

          The Attack on Mers-el-Kébir (3 July 1940) also known as the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir, was part of Operation Catapult, a British naval attack on French Navy ships at the naval base at Mers El Kébir on the coast of French Algeria.

          The Battle of Dakar, also known as Operation Menace, was an unsuccessful attempt in September 1940 by the Allies to capture the Vichy French strategic port of Dakar in French West Africa (modern-day Senegal). It was hoped that the success of the operation could overthrow the pro-German Vichy French administration in the colony, and be replaced by a pro-British Free French one under General Charles de Gaulle.

          On September 24, 1940, the Vichy French government issued orders to bomb the British naval base and city of Gibraltar. Six bomber squadrons of the Vichy French Air Force (Armée de l’Air de Vichy) and four squadrons of the Vichy French Navy (Marine nationale de Vichy) were employed in the operation. The 64 bombers flew from bases in Oran, Tafaroui (in Algeria), Meknes, Mediouna, and Port Lyautey (in Morocco). The French action was approved by both the German Armistice Commission and the Italian Armistice Commission.

          Also check out the Battle of Madagascar (May-November 1942). British and several other Allied forces launched an invasion of Madagascar and fought the Vichy French forces and the Imperial Japanese Navy for control of the island.

      2. avatar 16V says:

        Which was exactly the policy for France and was the plan for England – use mostly extant governments, as well as public servants.

        Sort of like when the Germans made it to the Channel Islands. Be polite, wait in line at shops, pay cash. Ruthless reprisals for the non-cooperative occupied, but the goal was to take over, not destroy.

        Unlike everyone else, the Brits did have a plan for an invasion in place, as well as a government trained and organized resistance. It wouldn’t have lasted long, but it was in place.

      3. avatar Goofle is Not a Friend says:

        Ralph says “There’s plenty of information out there if your google-fu is strong.”

        How does anyone take seriously a POG witter who waxes about the resistance, yet willingly supports the enemy?

        Goofle is looking to suppress the POG, and undermine the 2020 election. They already, by all accounts, helped flipped the 2018 election. They collaborate with the government of China, while actively undermining the U.S. government. They are the modern day fifth column.

        You are adapt at pointing to the flaws of people in history, yet blindly have become a collaborator in the present without a hint of irony.

        But since you so coolly used the word “-fu” all is good? Right-fu?

    2. avatar VolandoBajo says:

      The Danish Resistance…as fierce and as successful as any in WW II.

      Repeatedly struck back at the Nazis in spite of any threat or retaliation. Could and would creep into German barracks at night to steal weapons. I heard there was a situation where the Resistance had killed ten German soldiers. The Nazis announced that they would kill 100 Danes in retaliation. The Danish Resistance, when presented with this fact, immediately publicized that they would kill a 1,000 Nazi soldiers, and they did.

      In the end, the Germans decided that they could not stand the escalation.

      The Danes, spiritual heirs to the Vikings, refused to knuckle under to the Nazis regardless of the cost.

      They were not the only fierce European WW II Resistance, but they were among the most fierce and effective.

      DeGaulle was a politician pretending to be a military leader. The analysis of the fate of the Liberator pistol was an accurate presentation of an unpleasant truth.

  4. avatar Larry says:

    We need to stop referring to people as gun cobtrol advocates. They are tradiors, anti-freedom zealots, anti second amendment folks, etc. We need to beat them at their own game.

  5. avatar John Fritz says:

    Jack Baruth!!!!!!!! Yes!

    I knew you’d show up here!

  6. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

    You guys keep saying there’s nothing that would have prevented this. Well, how about simple safe storage laws? How about the simple responsibility of keeping your guns away from your mentally ill kids?

    Wouldn’t that have worked?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      No, you are wrong (but at least you’re consistent). She did have a gun safe for her rifles. How the crazy [email protected] got into it we may never know.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Source please?

        1. avatar Jamie in ND says:

          Show me a source that she didn’t, please.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Widely reported at the time, review news coverage. Sorta like saying “everybody knows that”. Besides, what difference does it make, particularly since we don’t even have a way to tell whether she trusted him with the combination.

      2. avatar C says:

        I’d like to see a source on this. Safe or cabinet? If a safe, maybe he knew the combination,? You’d think an angle-grinder would have woken her up long before he could get in.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can’t “wake” somebody whose throat is slit ear to ear.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Meh. Reporting I saw said he shot her in the head while she slept, five times.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        Source: She had a safe according to Slate/The Hartford Courant. It was found open. No one knows how he got into it.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/03/adam-lanza-search-warrants-newtown-shooter-had-a-gun-safe-and-more-than-1600-rounds-in-his-house.amp

        1. avatar Rocketman says:

          Simple. The mother probably never gave it much of a thought that her own son was going to be the one that ended up killing her, so her mental security was extremely lax.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          She didn’t give him the combination. He just stood behind her as she worked dial. She never knew just how evil her own son was.

    2. avatar Rambeast says:

      Criminals/madmen that live with or even visit family members will eventually gain access to their secure storage. Being that they are family, they will have the highest chance to get access without needing to force open the safe. The problem with your cited scenario, is with adult children with mental issues are almost impossible to get committed without them committing some crime viable to initiate the involuntary treatment process. Guns aren’t the problem, your willful ignorance is.

    3. avatar Mark says:

      So called “safe storage laws” are unenforceable unless professional law enforcement does nothing but door to door compliance checks all day. Further, proper storage differs by situation. My firearms are always locked up except the one to which I want constant, immediate access and when I leave the house, it comes with me but my wife and I are both licensed to carry and we have no children or unsupervised visitors. The only reason I bother to lock them up is to make them significantly more difficult to steal if someone breaks in when I’m not home. I don’t need to be told that I am a criminal if I don’t install trigger locks. You might; I have no way of knowing.

    4. avatar g says:

      Good luck trying to legislate that parents be more responsible for their children. If you thought prisons were overcrowded now…

    5. avatar MD Matt says:

      No, because last I heard, he killed her and took her guns.
      If the person is dead, then the criminal has a virtually limitless amount of time to circumvent safe storage.
      If the killer is willing to do murder to get a gun then whether he got the gun on the black market or over the cooling body of his dead mother is irelivent. Either way he was going to kill people.

    6. If the Brady campaign and the rest of the prohibitionist crowd want to contribute money toward purchasing better gun safes / cabinets, I am all for it.

      It’d probably do more to prevent gun violence / accidents than pointless buyback programs.

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        I think it’s your responsibility to keep your guns safe, out of the hands of very young kids and disturbed family members. But, you’re doing such a piss-poor job of it, the government is going to have to step in and constrain you to do so. Only then will we see improvement.

        1. avatar AJ says:

          In other words, “Police state now! For freedom!”. Careful what you wish for, dude.

        2. avatar ZM 1306 says:

          Mike, you and the gov can tell me what to do with my property and how I should care for my property when Hell freezes over. (I still will not give a damn)

          My guns are around the house and some are loaded. I do not have a way to lock them up any more than locking my house. If people come over I put them away in my room and no one is allowed into my room.

          I have looked into safes, they are expensive worthless metal boxes. All they do is delay, not only a potential criminal but yourself as well. I have plans to make storage for them but it is a project on a list of many.

          Remember obscurity is the best security.

          [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCD82vEDwcc]

          Just remember OpSec…. resist the urge to show it off and make youtube vids…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would like to see you commie vermin try.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Mike, you think it’s all that easy to pass such laws? I wonder because the way you discuss it makes me uneasy, I think my guns and my neighborhood would be safer it YOU were safely locked up. And if you need no reason to so offend my freedoms, I need not concern myself with violating yours, right? What a dumbass.

      2. avatar Jim says:

        “Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you believe that the neighbors have too many kids.”

    7. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Mikeb302000
      Why do Liberals want to tell gun owners what they can and can’t do, or what they must do, in the bedroom???

    8. avatar M1Lou says:

      Holy crap, MikeB23-45092-05823-8528-23digits092358239 is back to spread more propaganda? I’m excited! We need more entertainment since Vlad Tetanus² have become a bit boring.

      1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

        That was from 2012…

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    The wingnuts do not hate guns. If they did, they’d be trying to disarm the police. The wingnuts hate us. Period. So I hate them right back.

    There are also a lot of weak-minded, easily led people out there who are delighted to have their thinking done for them because actual thought would hurt their widdle heads. They’ll hate who and what they’re told to hate and like it. I can’t hate them back, but I do hold them in contempt.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      I don’t hate anyone. We are a polite society and better than the haters. Standing up for what we believe does not have to involve hate.

      1. avatar Rocketman says:

        Well, there are some people that I do hate. For example, people that feel that I should be locked in a cattle car on my way to a work camp and eventually to take a “special shower”.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      One of the reasons why I think these people detest those of us who own guns (among other things) is that we represent a threat to their entire world view.

      I have never been in a debate with a gun banner where the fact (litigated all the way to the SCOTUS) that the police are *not* responsible for protecting individuals does not come as a rude shock. Never. The look on the faces of people who were ignorant of these facts and court cases when I pull out the legal citations and the facts of the cases (Gonzales v. Castle Rock, Warren v. District of Columbia, et al) tells me that I’ve effectively challenged some very fundamental assumptions of these people’s entire existence – that government can (or will) take care of them.

      Sometimes, when I’m feeling especially uncharitable towards these people, I find a way to work Flemming v. Nestor (1960) into the discussion, and point out that Social Security is not a pension, it isn’t “their” money and they have no “personal account,” and Congress can change the benefits schedule to people who think they deserve some payout at any time.

      Gun owners represent a group of people who don’t “buy into” their worldview – and as the big government spending models increasingly come close to failure, people who fend for themselves represent a huge threat to advocates of the “government knows best and will provide” mindset.

      1. avatar Jon says:

        Great post.

      2. avatar Al in OK says:

        And the cases are on wikipedia. Thanks for the info. BTW none of the people that I know in Law enforcement have disagreed with this statement. Police do not stop crimes, they investigate them (something Jesse Ventura has said in the past). I usually go on to say that the presence of uniformed LEO’s usually prevent crime. But that’s about it

      3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        “….we represent a threat to their entire world view…”

        and when someone’s deeply held beliefs are challenged they can get very mad about it, no matter the subject, but especially about self-defense or self responsibility.

      4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote:————————–Gun owners represent a group of people who don’t “buy into” their worldview – and as the big government spending models increasingly come close to failure, people who fend for themselves represent a huge threat to advocates of the “government knows best and will provide” mindset.————-quote

        Wrong. Socialism replaced Communism and is a mixture of Capitalism that funds it and Socialism controls the Capitalvanian Greed Mongers from bankrupting the people as they have done in the U.S.

        Socialism is the dominate form of economic and governmental practices in the Industrialized world. Although the U.S. does have a tokenism of Socialism it has proven to be far from adequate to meet the present day needs of the people and because of a lack of it has let the Capitalvanians totally wreck the lives of the American people by stagnating their wages over the last 50 years, destroying the power of Unions that protected the workingman and enhanced his wealth and prevented the working people from escaping bankruptcy over the expenses of illness.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          To Fake Vlad Tepes

          “Socialism is the dominate form of economic and governmental practices in the Industrialized world”

          Fact: Venezuela and Cuba prove that socialism is the true superior form of government. They kicked out all of the capitalists and now they are so superior they do not even need electricity or running water in their homes and food they have no use for food. Food makes you fat so they are so healthy now they are socialists they do not need doctors or hospitals.

        2. avatar Vlad's Other Dad says:

          People, I’m sorry little Vladdy is off his meds again. His mother and I thought giving him a new coloring book would help, but, alas, we were wrong. The helmet we gave him is also too small and makes his eyes bug out like AOC. Sorry.

      5. avatar Someone says:

        One of my wife’s friends reply to me, when I informed her that the police has no obligation to protect her, was: “But, but it’s written on their cars – To serve and protect!”

  8. avatar Steve says:

    Some states do have gun safety/storage laws (Ct is one of them), as do some make it a crime to not report a firearm that is stolen. The mom either (A) left the guns available for her kid, (B) let the kid know where the key was located or the combo to the safe or (C) allowed access to the safe while under duress from the kid, who then shot her in the face.

    http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-policy-summary/

  9. avatar Casey T says:

    A lot of the people for gun control are ignorant people who have been manipulated by the media. I talked with my father who was obviously has believed the medias lies because he used terminology that was just wrong. It’s really frustrating because we had an argument as it’s because those evil people lied to everyone. I just have no faith in the media now.

  10. avatar mike says:

    After some reflection, I finally realized why it’s imperative not to give even an inch to gun control. Even if just to satisfy the immediate emotions of the country.

    Because, God forbid, when the next mass shooting happens (which we all know it will despite any gun control or bans), that inch will instantly grow to a foot, then a yard, then a mile. Once the dam is compromised by that ONE inch, it’s basically the beginning of the end.

    And this is not being insensitive to the innocent victims past, present or future. It’s just cold, hard, logical fact about how events would play out. Humans (rich or poor, young or old) have the worst decision making process under emotional herd stress.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      You’re right Mike. The only end to “reasonable restrictions” is when all firearms are government owned and issued.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Reminds me of a great line from Men In Black.

      J. says, “People are smart, they can deal with it.”
      K. returns, “A _person_ is smart. _People_ are dumb, panicky animals and you know it.”

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Mike, the truth in your post is obvious when we consider that some are blaming the Midland-Odessa shootings on Mitch McConnell because he did not call the Senate back into session TWO WEEKS AGO!!! Like we were going to pass laws instantly into effect and this fruitcake was going to obey them.

  11. avatar Jon says:

    Pretty cool to see Jack Baruth writing here. Now I get to enjoy his writing on two of my favorite sites.

  12. avatar Rokurota says:

    Gun control is really power control, as is press control, speech control and faith control.

  13. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

    FLAME DELETED The idea that a single shot, wildly inaccurate POS that came packaged with a wooden dowl to remove the cartridge after firing would cause any great fear in a man with a sten gun is laughable, and the idea that any kind of effective uprising against De Gaulle post-war could have been effected with such a device beyond ridiculous. I would have thought that the huge numbers of actual battle weapons held by the Vichy French would have been just a tiny bit more of a concern than a pop gun with an effective range of about 5 feet.

    Yet another example of the depths pro gun folk are now forced to trawl to find some, any, kind of justification for their weapons in the face of 20 dead children.

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      Your lack of tactical thinking is far from adequate. With that single shot throw away gun, you can aquire a better gun. They were designed to be used when you can get in arm’s length and surprise a lone enemy and liberate their firearm for your use. Similar to the “knuckle gun” (which makes a cameo in Inglorious Bastards) except that this version required you to make contact with your target to discharge the weapon.

      “Yet another example of the depths pro gun folk are now forced to trawl to find some, any, kind of justification for their weapons in the face of 20 dead children.”

      I don’t hear you screaming about the thousands of children killed outside the US by Government issued ordinance and small arms. The few killed in our borders are a drop in the bucket compared to our military’s screwups. I guess little white children are more worthy of our sympathies than the little brown children that never make the headlines of the US propaganda machine.

      1. avatar Jay Dunn says:

        Curtis LeMay incinerated thousands of children every day until he ran out of targets for his napalm and white phosphorus attacks. But it was ok because they were Jap children.

        1. avatar jsallison says:

          They fought a dirty, medieval war of conquest dating from the mid-30’s in China convinced of their own superiority and our unwillingness to get dirty. They got what they asked for. Back then we knew how to convince a people that they’d been beaten. Surgically applied violence demonstrably doesn’t get it done as we’ve seen the last 50 some odd years.

        2. avatar VolandoBajo says:

          Curtis LeMay saved American lives by doing the only thing that ended up destroying the will of the enemy to continue waging war against us.

          War is a dirty business, but there is no reason why one side must suffer because it refuses to fight as dirty a war as its enemy is willing to wage.

          When Patton was asked if he thought that it was a good thing to die for one’s country, he said that he thought it was better to give the enemy an opportunity to die for theirs.

          That simple explanation will likely go right over the heads of the kneejerk liberals who can only think “How horrible…” and cannot think through to what the real horror would be.

        3. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          It’s pretty clear you like to pat yourself on the back because you came to the conclusion that war is bad. What a compassionate fellow you are.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I bet more children died in the firebombing of Germany, but you are correct there as well, nobody cared because they were German children. If you don’t want to get fucked, don’t fuck with us. Still true, BTW.

    2. avatar foggy says:

      Hmm, I’m sure that if you were facing someone armed with a single-shot .45 that you’d be pissing your pants.

      These weapons were intended to be used steathily (i.e. sneak up behind someone and shoot them, rather than hit them on the head with a brick). Also, they wouldn’t be taking Sten guns off of their victims unless they were attacking British or US soldiers, more likely MP38s or MP40s.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      FLAME DELETED but it only takes about five seconds to figure out what kind of tactics go along with a gun like this. It’s purpose is explicitly stated in the post.

    4. avatar jwm says:

      Hmmmmm, another English transplant like Piers Morgan. What happened to the Brits? They went from”We shall fight them on the beaches and in the streets” To “Omg, a gun! I think I just wet myself!” In 70 years.

      1. avatar Jon says:

        Sadly, a lot of this is due to the fact they lost so many of their best and bravest and in two world wars.

        1. avatar Klaus says:

          Very accurate and the same can be said for most if not all of Western Europe especially Germany.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m sure all that is accurate, but where the Hell did AMERICA get such a supply of soyboys? Seems like we ought to begin considering free gender reassignment surgeries for anybody who moves to Europe and renounces citizenship.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        A gun! They wet themselves and call the police when they find a single .22LR cartridge on the ground.
        https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8805022.22-bullet-found-in-fossgate-york/

    5. avatar AJ says:

      How many children has your beloved O’bomb-a killed via drone strike? Where is your outrage?

    6. avatar pwrserge says:

      I don’t need a justification. Why? Because I don’t care if it’s 20 children or 20,000 children. The 2nd amendment serves as a fallback that prevents the deaths of millions. The occasional nut job going off the rails is a small price to pay.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Since the 16th century, America has been about freedom, NEVER about safety by any stretch of the imagination. And as such has been the most successful nation in history. If you hate freedom so much, find someone to be your master.

  14. avatar Patrick says:

    A gun safe is a good extra measure for safety, but will only delay access. Safes can be cracked. Children can do it, and especially adolescents can do it. It’s just a matter of time: sometimes less, sometimes more.

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Even you own blog meister has said a gun should be on your person or in a safe.

      1. avatar Jim B says:

        Yeah, I remember the time when people kept guns in an open cabinet, or at most with a glass door, usually in the living room or den. You could mail order guns. They were common items with everyone, or nearly everyone. I remember going to friends and relatives houses and asking to see their guns. Nearly all had guns and they were all in display cabinets.

        Times have sure changed. Why? We didn’t have incidents like Sandy Hook back then. It can’t be the guns since there were more guns and far more available. I can remember the ads as a kid. All you had to do was check the box that that you were over 18 to order just about anything except a fully automatic weapon.

        Yep, times have changed and it sure isn’t the availability of guns that did it.

        Oh, my old gun cabinet is now a book shelf. I have a safe. I was at a charity auction a couple of years ago where there was a beautiful gun cabinet in pecan wood as an auction item. Not a single bid. No one displays guns any longer. Those days are long gone and I doubt they will ever return.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          “No one displays guns anymore.” Are you so blind that you think because you do something EVERYONE is doing it? Good for you that you use a gun safe. I have some bad news for you. Not everyone is.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Let me simple it up for you Mikey… I display my guns because they are pretty. If someone breaks into my heavily secured house, what they do with my guns is no more my problem than what they do with my TV.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          When I was 11 (1957) I had a school classmate who had a submachine gun under his bed. To this day, that gun has not been used in a crime, or we would have heard no end of it.

  15. avatar Anon in CT says:

    Since De Gaulle would have gulled the US and Brits into fighting the commie insurrection for him, maybe things worked out for the best.

  16. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    It is common to hear statements that we need to have discussions about “reasonable” or “sane” gun control laws. If reasonable or sane is the standard, then before any new laws are passed we need to repeal a bunch of existing laws first.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And ALL “common sense” laws.

  17. avatar gringito says:

    “He’s not the only intelligent person I’ve seen swept away towards irrationality in the past two weeks.”
    This was the important phrase for me…because it happend..and it happens again and again!

  18. avatar SKSlover says:

    personaly, i would like a liberator or 3 for my collection. sure, its a sh!ty slapped together singleshot, but its very cool.

  19. avatar Joe says:

    I’ve been Learking here for a while but had to comment now. Jack, I’ve always enjoyed your writing on that other blog, and am glad to see you writing here. I hope to see more from you on TTAG’s in the future.

  20. avatar O.E says:

    Firstly D-Day was an Illegal Occupation.

    Secondly Gun Control was aimed at an Empire State, the German Empire before the idea was hatched to de-junk that Empire of go alongs very keen on seeing an Empire reduced to a no-mans land.

    Thirdly, spreading terrorist tools amongst a body of people who are abiding of a law is no different to the shinanegans of Oirish Americans feeding the I.R.A with money, means and connections to embark on random acts of undisciplined violence towards yet again disarmed civilians reliant upon national security professionals.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      “Firstly D-Day was an Illegal Occupation…”

      why don’t we start with your explanation for that one

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Did they have a “no-knock” warrant?

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Does naval bombardment not count as knocking?

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      …Firstly D-Day was an Illegal Occupation….

      What ever are you talking about?

  21. avatar gphx says:

    If you want an example of a current country with gun control look no further than our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Is there more or less gun violence down there now that the lawful citizens are unarmed?

  22. avatar C.R. Krieger says:

    Ah, a slickly packaged combination of a flawed analogy, a straw man, a slippery slope and – voila! A simple answer reveals itself! It’s the Great Leftist Conspiracy, as always! I’d like to think you’re smarter than this, Jack; but I’m beginning to have my doubts.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yes… and Spygate wasn’t a blatant conspiracy to carry out a coup against a democratically elected president.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I don’t believe it was a conspiracy to carry out a coup, I believe it was SEVERAL conspiracies to carry out a coup. And it offends me that our government seems to have forgotten the natural result of a failed coup, which would involve construction of a concrete wall in the Rose Garden. As a permanent fixture, pockmarks to remain unretouched. As a warning about next time.

  23. avatar Jay Dee says:

    Newtown happened because the state of Connecticut gutted their mental health programs to pay for welfare. After all crazy people don’t vote. Nancy Lanza was desperately seeking a residential program for her son when he went over the edge.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You say that as if the massive de-institutionalization didn’t happen decades ago under Reagan.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In the interest of the truth about something, deinstitutionalization of mental patients was the result of a SCOTUS ruling circa 1970, having nothing to do with Reagan or any other president, and not subject to any laws Congress or any State might pass. So piss on each other’s shoes all you like, but it is not even a partisan argument.

  24. avatar Dreama says:

    Kudos to you! I hadn’t thohugt of that!

  25. avatar http://www./ says:

    You need one of those Bibles engraved on a grain of rice. Then you could tape it to a stick and whack away.By the way, you owe me lunch. I threw mine up when I saw the photo of your new friend.

  26. Oh no! I didn't realize you were in the hospital, too. ((Big Hugs))Yeah, I had a flood two weeks ago. I totally feel your pain. Not the back pain, but still.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    I don’t know about that specific book but most of the accounts I’ve read indicate that the liberator was largely ignored due to logistics, rather than some conspiratorial cabal. Every pound of equipment to be dropped cost lives and money because of the air war. What’s a better choice… three crappy short range pistols, a real gun, or explosives?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Give that the USAAC accuracy standard for bombing was to, mostly, hit the Earth perhaps dropping “direct action” weapons would have been more useful. CERTAINLY could not have killed more young Americans.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Think a minute. Carpet bombing an area with such guns, which would provide no help at all to our enemies, certainly not as much as actual guns or explosives, but which would let the individual soldier realize that millions of the damn things were around, perhaps causing a bit of stress. They probably cost pennies, no reason to package more than 2 or 3 rounds with them, replacing a 500 lb bomb would involve a thousand of them. But you know ever so much more (after 75 years of hindsight) than our elected government did then, why not just take your time machine on back and take over?

  28. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I do not hear the left talking about dramatically increasing sentences for the violators of federal gun laws such as straw man purchasers to 20 years and also charging them with whatever crime the recipient commits to be served consecutively to the 20 years and then see how many wives and girlfriends buy guns for punks. There are other sentences that could be increased and prohibited persons who attempt to purchase should be prosecuted in federal court where there would be no plea bargaining or early release for violators of federal gun laws. Felon in possession should be 20 to 30 years and life if committed a second time. If people want to abuse the right and endanger the enjoyment of a right for the rest of us they should pay a REAL price!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Felon in possession should get you a solid 5 years or more, forget prosecuting someone for selling others a gun. Increasing the number of criminals arbitrarily is not productive.

  29. avatar neiowa says:

    JACK BARUTH – you apparently vanished as a writer 6 years ago, but if lurking, did you suddenly post Sandy ever get his head out of his ass and return to the fold? Or one of the permanently mentally disturbed?

  30. avatar texas66 says:

    So why didn’t anyone shoot back at these mass murderers?
    1. They felt safe. “Something like that would never happen here.”
    2. They were all law abiding citizens. Nobody could legally carry without a permit…
    3. Armed security is only a couple of minutes away.

    Wake up people, we don’t live anywhere near a utopia yet, banning guns only disarms honest people. Criminals and terrorist will still get their guns (or just use a bomb or a truck).

    So far we have only seen the results of crazy idiots, what chance would we have against a trained team of terrorist?

  31. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    John Baruth the Author knows as much about history as Jethro Bodine of the Beverly Hillbillies sitcom of the 60’s. He is a laughable joke as well when it come to gun laws and their effectiveness which I will explore below. But first let me show you how much Baruth does not know about WWII History especially in regards to Charles DeGaulle

    quote———————-Free French” had an amazing ability to manipulate the Allies towards his interests despite having virtually no followers and despite the fact that France itself didn’t exactly struggle to throw off the yoke of German occupation.————quote

    DeGualle escaped with 123,000 French Troops and all had relatives in France. I would hardly call that having no support. The French Government had no choice once it was defeated and was given a rather generous settlement. They were allowed to control half of France called the Southern Zone until operation Torch commenced which changed the political landscape towards the end of the war.

    The Free French did not have any amazing ability to influence the Allies, in fact they were actually ignored and given only a begrudging nod of existence for Allied propaganda purposes. This was a tragic mistake that would haunt American Politics and the future of the America people and their economic well being after WWII. The Vietnam war might never have happened if the U.S. had not panicked after WWII when a vengeful DeGualle started to cozy up to the Russians and vent his hatred towards America for being let out of major WWII decisions and of course being treated as only a second class bit player in the War.

    The U.S. decided to support the French post WWII and financed the re-invasion of Indo-China by the French who had been raping the rice and rubber profits in Vietnam for over 85 years. The decision not to give Vietnam their freedom and use them as a bulwark against Chinese military and economic expansion into the entire region of S.E. Asia was colossal U.S blunder of catastrophic military and economic consequences. Today some 50 plus years later the military Neanderthals of the U.S. Government are finally doing what they should have done over a half century ago and are finally using Vietnam as an ally to thwart Chinese expansion in that area of the world.

    Quote————————-The payoff for that sacrifice? When the country was finally liberated, nearly all the hardware was firmly in the hands of de Gaulle’s chosen people and the transition was no doubt smoothed by this happy coincidence. So what if a few Allied soldiers had to die in the cause?————–quote

    Wrong. The French Communists were very well armed and almost succeeded in assassinating Degaulle. There was for a time shooting between Degaulle’s forces and the French Communists.

    quote——————-De Gaulle knew that resistance to the Nazis was mostly imaginary,———–quote

    Wrong again the intelligence provided to the Allies by the Resistance was invaluable to the invasion on “D” Day and the hit and run tactics before the Allies invaded destroyed the Germans ability to wage war even though sometimes it was only temporary. The amount of equipment and transportation destroyed the day before and on “D” day was invaluable to the Allies.

    quote———————–The gun control measures stacked up on the graves of Newtown’s children may start off by being “reasonable,” but that pretense of reason will disappear soon enough. How far will the myth-makers of “reasonable gun control” go? Ask any Frenchman who stood under the open sky in 1943 and wished for a salvation that never came.—————-quote

    One could say the Author cut his own throat with that statement and that would be the American myth that the citizens could rise up and overthrow an occupying government (their own) if it took away their freedoms.

    The Author conveniently ignores the gun control measures that have worked in the industrialized world which is complete vetting of all firearms purchases, required mental health checks to get a permit to purchase, safe storage laws and either severe restrictions or complete bans on military weapons of mass destruction all of which have been proven to work much better than the freewheeling no restrictions we currently have in the insane asylum the U.S. has now become.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Fact: I learned everything I need to know about World War II and France by playing World of Warcraft and other video games so do not try to impress me with your fancy book learning. I know every true fact about gun control because I get paid by the word so who are you going to believe some hack who writes thoughtful comments about the Second Amendment for free or me a paid professional?

    2. avatar Someone says:

      It’s hard to take your novels seriously when you keep over using hyperbole, Drac. (And outright lies. No one will listen to an obnoxious patological liar.)

      As an example – weapons of mass destruction are chemical, biological and nuclear. Rifles, especially semi automatic ones, don’t fit the description, no matter how much they look like military (select fire) assault rifles. Those aren’t WMDs either.

      Our Constitution protects our right to own and carry military weapons in order to be able to take on a standing army of tyrannical government if necessary.

  32. avatar VaqueroJustice says:

    Perhaps we need a new Liberator, to be distributed to the law abiding in
    high crime/low income areas, especially in slave states ?
    Might give criminals pause to know their targets might shoot back.

    The actual Liberator sucked, and had a really short service life.

    We can do better.

    Some existing or proposed designs could work, as could designs specifically manufactured
    for the purpose. Something dirt cheap, I mean sub Highpoint cheap.

    Single shot 12 gauge ?
    Cheaply made 12 gauge double ( weld two of the above together and call it a day ) ?
    Ducktown derringer ( or a variant thereof ) ?
    Deer Gun ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_gun ) ?
    Crickett pistol, maybe in a somewhat heavier caliber ( https://www.keystonesportingarmsllc.com/product/crickett-synthetic-pistol/ ) ?

    There has got to be a market for some of these, and some should be able to make it to market at a sub $100.00 MSRP.

    So get to it, weapon manufacturers, there is a market niche to be filled !

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      You don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
      We already have “cheap” guns for those that can’t afford to spend over $300 for a long gun. Or can’t spend over $150 for a handgun.

      The Ultimate Hi-Point Yeet Cannon

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Home Depot.

      Many videos on ytube.

      ‘just sayin

  33. avatar enuf says:

    As I recall the Liberator was never very impressive to the generals in charge in any theater of the war. Eisenhower and others allowed only limited numbers of the original plan to be issued. The guns went to maybe a half dozen countries in quantities as high as 100,000. Yet stories of them being used in action of any sort are very rare.

    The Liberator was more of interest for the ten rounds of .45ACP it was packaged with than for the gun itself. More likely the ammo was taken for use in better guns and the Liberator itself tossed.

    Not that’d turn down owning one today.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      “As I recall the Liberator was never very impressive to the generals in charge in any theater of the war.”
      ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN NO GUN.
      De Gaulle the french dictator was afraid of any and all guns in the hands of the french he didn’t like.

      Most of the people, “gun experts” who say the Liberator was a failure have never been in a desperate combat situation. Nor have they lived under the boot of tyranny.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Certainly not arguing the “any gun is better than no gun”, I agree with that completely. The two times in my I have used a gun in self defense, the first time I had a .22LR rifle and the other was a .22WMR revolver. Luckily, no shots fired, the gun in my hand was enough to send the bad guys running.

        However, the problem is there is an enormous amount of info out there on WW2. Finding anything to say the Liberator was used as intended is pretty hard to do.

        We built a great many weapons that were not used. Many firearms, airplanes, tanks and ships and all sorts of military goods. Some of it was simply over-production, some was just wacky ideas or even good ideas made obsolete by us winning the war.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      You can buy a reproduction today and its better than the original because it has a rifled barrel although that might nix the sale to people who want the gun 100 per cent original. Personally I would rather have the repro myself.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If some ballsy bastard was bold enough to use one to shoot a German and take his real gun, I would not be convinced that his chances of surviving long enough to relate the story were very high. So I am not surprised at the lack of such stories.

  34. avatar MouseGun says:

    Whether it be a stranger on the internet or a family member, when they go on an incoherent anti-gun tirade, I have but on reply: fuck off.

    I will continue to be a responsible gun owner, and am willing to debate with those who are willing to hear the other side of the argument, but for those who go on rants that can’t or won’t listen, I’m not going to waste my breathe.

  35. avatar former water walker says:

    Bizarre that most of these 7 year old comments are juxtaposed with a few diatribes from today…some of you are clueless Vlad😄

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Clueless? Of course I am clueless how could I write my drivel I if I were not clueless?

  36. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    If it was no gun or a Liberator, I will take the Liberator. And I will learn to use what I have. The Liberator was a very real threat to any dictator.

    Fast forward to 2019. How about 2 or 3 hundred thousand of those “cheap” Hi Points in the hands of the Venezuela people???

    Or how about 1 million Hi Points in the hands of Hong Kong citizens???

    Somehow I think the soldiers in dictatorships will take that “cheap” Hi Point very seriously.

  37. avatar Voldamort says:

    More history of this interesting firearm:

  38. avatar Aleric says:

    A lot of my Liberal friends have been written off and wiped from my list of friends because of their inability to tolerate anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100%. Most are gun owners but FUDDS who think you only need one weapon or a hunting one at that and no one should be able to defend themselves effectively since they think the police will always save them.

  39. avatar jwm says:

    Wow! What a difference 7 years makes in our little bog. 7 years ago we had top of the line trolls like mikeb302000 and Hmmmmmm. Now we’re stuck with the dregs like vlad and miner49er. I miss those days.

    And 7 years past Sandy Hook and no real advance in gun control and we’re on the verge of a major defeat for both gun control and socialism in this country.

    Feel the Bern? Most of us learned that getting Berned was a bad thing before we were potty trained. And nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to see creepy uncle joe sniffing around the kameltoe.

  40. avatar Chuck says:

    Excellent Essay. With apt analogies.

  41. avatar Alan says:

    If there is a significant difference between Gun Control, as usually offered, and Bloody Minded Foolishness, it escapes me.

  42. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I’m intrigued by the original idea behind these and wonder whether the intended disruptive effect might have worked. It would be cool to own one, too, as a piece of history and as a great conversation piece. Still, there’s no way I would ever fire a .45 ACP pistol made out of not much more than a tuna can and a coat hanger.

  43. avatar GS650G says:

    Baruths articles for TTAC were always entertaining. Especially his first articles on street racing . That he’s a gun owner and a proud one at that makes him a super cool dude.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email