gun control protest
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

For many years, the Supreme Court took the first 13 words of the Second Amendment seriously. As the Court said in United States v. Miller (1939), the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the effectiveness” of militias. And thus the amendment must be “interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Heller abandoned that approach.

Heller also reached another important policy conclusion. Handguns, according to Scalia, are “overwhelmingly chosen” by gun owners who wish to carry a firearm for self-defense. For this reason, he wrote, handguns enjoy a kind of super-legal status. Lawmakers are not allowed to ban what Scalia described as “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.”

This declaration regarding handguns matters because this easily concealed weapon is responsible for far more deaths than any other weapon in the United States — and it isn’t close. In 2019, for example, a total of 13,927 people were murdered in the US, according to the FBI. Of these murder victims, at least 6,368 — just over 45 percent — were killed by handguns.

Last year, the Supreme Court made it even harder for federal and state lawmakers to combat gun violence. In its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it massively expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, abandons more than a decade of case law governing which gun laws are permitted by the Constitution, and replaces this case law with a new legal framework that, as Justice Stephen Breyer writes in dissent, “imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.”

The immediate impact of Bruen is that handguns — which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders in the United States — could proliferate on many American streets. That’s because Bruen strikes the types of laws that limit who can legally carry handguns in public, holding that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

One silver lining for proponents of gun regulation is that the majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, embraces language that first appeared in Heller, which permits some gun laws such as prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Nevertheless, it placed an emphasis on historical analogies that could endanger many laws that enjoy broad bipartisan support. The future of firearm regulation looks grim for anyone who believes that the government should help protect us from gun violence.

— Narea, Zhou and Millhiser in America’s unique, enduring gun problem, explained

Previous Post
Next Post

104 COMMENTS

    • yes, but that only counts when people on the right are doing the math. otherwise you have to jack up the numbers to fit the narrative.

      • RE: “Nevertheless, it placed an emphasis on historical analogies that could endanger many laws that enjoy broad bipartisan support.”

        1) The Second Amendment is one thing

        2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

        3) Historical Analogies Confirm Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

        • Historical Analogies Confirm Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is racist and a communist based thing.

          There fixed it for ya!

        • None. There is no difference between communism and fascism. Both are tyrannies enforced by murder and camps.

        • History is full of famous politicians who were/are gun-control advocates:
          Joseph Stalin
          Adolf Hitler
          Mao Tse-Tung
          Idi Amin
          Pol Pot
          Fidel Castro
          Barry Obama
          Joseph Biden

    • Don’t forget that there are LEGAL homicides, e.g. deaths resulting from acts of.self defense.

      • “Don’t forget that there are LEGAL homicides…”

        Had a very insightful, superior, clever, scholastic reply wound up, but decided to just agree with you, and go find my jigger of gin.

  1. More obfuscation, hand-wringing, and teeth-gnashing.

    No mention of the criminal use of firearms. No mention of a failed judicial system. No mention of the fifty year ongoing cultural degradation and abandonment of morality. No mention of the declining homicide rate from the 1990s to 2019, despite the the huge increase in the number of firearms sold.

    Lies, cherry-picking, and finger-wagging.

    You’re not getting our guns. We won’t give an inch. You’re just going to need to find another way, like focusing on the fingers that pull the triggers, rather than the triggers themselves.

    As an interesting side note, you know a publication is in trouble when it starts begging its readers for donations. Vox will soon be on the rubbish heap of history.

    • “You’re just going to need to find another way, like focusing on the fingers that pull the triggers, rather than the triggers themselves.”

      It’s racist to assert that.

      (They will claim with a straight face… 🙁 )

    • I can barely believe that someone managed to talk so long without saying anything.

      Correction, that also applies to most p0litical speak anyway.

  2. Fewer than half of the murders, huh?
    Rather than lament your lot maybe go after those things that make up more than half?
    Oh, but you can’t because setting felons free and ignoring criminal behavior have become core tenets of leftism.

    I do love how they constantly waffle between handguns and rifles. I shouldn’t say waffle because everybody knows by know they want both the handguns and rifles.

    • Yes, ban assault rifles! They are killing everyone. News story, on yeah, AWB wasn’t effective and pistols are actually used the most. So ban pistols or make it so no (law abiding) person can carry them.

      What the story leaves out is that under the second amendment (and even before the bill of rights) it was just assumed that yes, of course you could have weapons. That’s why there was debate as to whether we even needed a bill of rights, the rights were obvious, and some worried by codifying them people would try to read into “only these rights” when it should be expansive, anything the government doesn’t specifically control goes to the people.

      Unfortunately as the years progressed the courts allowed more and more government control, and ignored the second amendment. Even under Heller and Bruen, these aren’t perfect decisions. Pistols aren’t super legal compared to rifles, or a knife, all arms should be equally protected.

      Neither Heller or Bruen should have even been needed, if the right to arms was respected. The author sees this as an expansion, when it’s really a return to get back towards the original intentions.

      • “…it should be expansive, anything the government doesn’t specifically control goes to the people.”

        …it should be expansive, anything the government does must have been approved by the people.

        FIFY

        The seat of all civic authority rests with the people, who wrote the founding and governing documents that, in turn, established our form of government. The government has no authority beyond that which is granted by the people.

    • Because a certain p0litical belief holds criminals as ideologically close and law abiding citizens as ideologically apart. it truly is an us and them situation.

    • Even for a fake dacian this is pretty lazy. This has a possibility of being a castle doctrine to begin with and with MO legislature I sincerely doubt any vote to repeal stand your ground is likely but keep spouting off the story the kids aunt gave to the press while the cops didn’t arrest him after seeing video surveillance of the incident. Not saying I know what all happened but any reports at the moment are not objective so dgaf about what the media says.

    • stand your ground and castle is not going to be “revoked” because of this incident. But it is going to give the anti-gun (which includes dacian) something else to whine about.

    • dacian, The DUNDERHEAD, maybe and then again, maybe not! But you Anti-gun Leftist Control Freaks seem to think that one or two incidents makes a trend.
      How about doing something about the mentally ill and the criminals?

    • Wishful thinking. I haven’t seen anything suggesting that this is a stand your ground case, particularly since the old man was inside his house. Only a few states require residents to attempt to flee from their homes before acting in self defense, and I am reasonably certain that Missouri is not one of them. In fact, the charging of the old fart suggests that it is not even a self defense case.

      • He should call Biden as an expert witness, since he was following his advice to shoot through the door.

        • Unfortunately that old guy made a bad decision and it is going to cost him… just can’t shoot every individual that comes to your door, 99% of the time a bad guy is not going to walk up and knock on your door…

    • Not a stand your ground case since the old guy was not being threatened or assaulted… Not castle doctrine if the kid did not forcibly enter the home, just an old racist being stupid… Not even close enough for a cigar, thought YOU was the resident intellectual here… Why is it you seem to FAIL way more than you win? You should have known this one was a loser, the Washington Post trying to stir up some anti-gun crap, don’t think I’d bet my life or my reputation on the validity of anything posted in a Jeff Bezos property…

    • it’s not a castle or stand your ground case as the kid did not threaten the homeowner in any way.
      only the anti-gun media that are pushing that line of bs in the hopes of getting those laws revoked.

  3. I just bought another firearm to spite these tyrants. I suggest you all do the same.

    • Gotta take a break from that for budget reasons……………primers powder and bullets ok for keeping up “ghost ammunition” (give it a year at most for NY).

      • I have everything I need except primers. Pistol primers are returning, but large rifle or magnum large rifle primers are being sold for as much as loaded ammo. In fact, it is almost worth it to buy the cheapest FMJ you can find in your select caliber, then remove the bullet and powder and reload with your own bullets and powder.

        • Large magnum rifle I can find in small numbers but Large rifle has largely been nonexistant for a year. Now Large Pistol Large Magnum pistol and small magnum pistol are coming back enough to grab a brick.

      • Downunder powder is getting hard to find. It’s what happens when a government run propellant powder manufacture is sold to the French company Thales who then decides to restructure the production.

        And Trail-Boss powder is so scarce it sells online for $2000 for a 4kg canister. It makes good artillery propellant.

        I’m now rethinking what guns I will use in competition. Luckily I have a lot of stockpiled ammunition for my old warhorses.

    • Ammo…Lot’s and Lot’s of Ammo. Less than 5000 rounds per caliber is just asking for trouble. Because the next attack will be on ammunition. Since the Fascist Left is loosing the war on firearms, and don’t forget the tannerite.

  4. When are the full autos, SBRs and suppressors coming back to us is the question I’ve got. Vox just said the quiet part out loud far as I’m concerned.

  5. They’ll never reduce homicides by firearm as their initial premise is wrong. There is no such thing as “gun violence”. People commit violent acts, not inanimate objects.

    Of course, they really don’t care about homicides by firearm. Their real motivation is control over others.

  6. The only people making combating crime harder in NY (all of the state but especially NYC) is the commie agitator legislators passing their criminal friendly create chaos to justify more authoritarian government bills they are so hyped about. LOL also what do they define as the militia because our current rulings getting in line with what the founders intended as best as I can see especially if it pisses the government off.

    • It’s hilarious that they act like the government should protect people from violence when they pushed to replace the police with social workers. Filling high crime areas with a heavy police presence helps to prevent violent crime. If they get caught, you have to lock them up for as long as possible. The point isn’t rehabilitation. That’s a lib pipe dream. It’s justice, segregating the civilized from the violent criminals, and sending a message to future thugs.

  7. Even if they want to pick apart the “militias” part, who’s to say we may not need militias again in the future

    • “Even if they want to pick apart the “militias” part, who’s to say we may not need militias again in the future”

      Nothing future about it:
      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
      – George Mason

      • I hear you. But ive seen where they say “we dont even have militias any more” and such…
        Also they’ll try to change what the word militia means if needed.

        • “But ive seen where they say “we dont even have militias any more” and such…”

          When able, push back with Geo. Mason, or other founders on the militia:
          https://sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm

          “The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.”
          ~ Thomas Jefferson

          “The ultimate authority…resides in the people alone…The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
          ~ James Madison

  8. In US v. Miller (1939), without evidence submitted (case was unopposed) to support that a short barrel shotgun was of efficacy to the military, and hence the militia, the court upheld the conviction. Their logic applied the introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment as to specifically protect arms of efficacy to the common defense; i.e. of efficacy to the military. Nowhere in the opinion did they cite this elusive and fancifully created “in common use” test. Heller created this ridiculous test. Clearly machine guns meet the Miller test and yet here we are without them and since they are “not in common use” that artificial hill must be surmounted. Let me make this perfectly clear – There are absolutely no Constitutionally acceptable restrictions upon the exercise of a right. Full Stop. Now if by exercising that right you harm others then punishment is certainly fitting. We don’t ban words, at least not yet. As such arms, which are the tools of the 2nd Amendment such as words are for free speech, must be equally revered. Bruen is better, but not perfect, and still violates our rights. Even Scalia was wrong thinking in that there are absolutely no permissible restrictions upon the exercise of a right. Longstanding traditions of regulating where one can exercise a right and what arms are dangerous and unusual are bunk. Yes, Virginia, one can yell fire in a crowded theatre when none exists. We have not banned the word nor banned carrying it into the theatre. Laws do not prevent; they punish. Those who espouse otherwise are lying or stupid. A persons choice, and that is exactly what it is, a choice, to not commit a particular crime might be weighed upon the potential punishment. You and I might decide not to shoot our neighbor because his dog keeps pooping in our yard and he refuses to prevent it. And that decision may be based upon a whole myriad of reasons, punishment included. But that is not prevention. Because another neighbor may not have the same moral compass as we. So it is purely a choice.

    • “There are absolutely no Constitutionally acceptable restrictions upon the exercise of a right“

      So the first amendment permits slanderous or false claims about other people?

      So I can come to your neighborhood and put up posters claiming you rape little children in your basement, and there’s no consequence whatsoever because it is protected free speech under the first amendment?

      • You don’t have the right to harm others. Libel laws don’t infringe on free speech just like murder and assault laws don’t infringe on the right to bear arms.

      • Clearly you simply don’t understand what I posted. There is a difference between prevention and punishment. So yes, the 1st Amendment “permits”, actually protects is more apropos, your right to slander and make false claims. It does not protect you from being punished for doing it. There is a clear distinction; and yet that simple fact eludes so many people.

      • MINOR Miner49er, you mean like the slanderous erroneous and misleading statements, you Leftist Anti-gun Control Freaks make all the time?

      • MajorLiar,

        Grab your fire extinguishers; MajorLiar is incinerating another straw man.

        PUNISHING people for abusing a right, MajorLiar, is NOT the same thing as pre-emptive restriction of rights (known, in Constitutional law as “prior restraint”, but you’re too stupid to understand that). OF COURSE anyone who misuses a gun should be criminally and/or civilly liable for the CONSEQUENCES of their improper actions. Prior restraint? That dog don’t hunt, constitutionally.

        But, then, you’re the kind of fascist idiot who’s totes OK with “Red Flag” laws, and other OBVIOUS erosions of the Constitution, because it suits your agenda. If you ever encountered logical rigor and intellectual consistency, you would utterly fail to recognize them – as you possess neither.

        If you INSIST on being a lying, fascist propagandist (and apparently, you do) at LEAST do it well. But, then, I guess that is too great a leap for that tiny mind of yours.

      • “So I can come to your neighborhood and put up posters claiming you rape little children in your basement, and there’s no consequence whatsoever because it is protected free speech under the first amendment?”

        Go right on ahead. They will laugh you out of my town.

        You see, my town is in south Florida, where *nobody* has a basement, due to the water table being close to the surface…

      • Nice try.
        actually. what the first amendment does is not prevent you from doing/saying those things.
        note, allowing and not preventing are not the same as it “allowing” suggests “morally and socially acceptable” and “not preventing” suggests giving one liberty and latitude, even if not morally and socially acceptable.

        As OP clearly indicates, in all cases you are not prohibited from speaking, HOWEVER you are responsible for your words and actions.

        of course the same is true of 2A. the right to keep and bear arms does not “allow” one to assault another.

      • EEDJIT!!!! NO ONE has the “right” to ie, slander, condemn, defame, another. Those are crimes, not rights.

        Get a dictionary and learn how to read and understand it. ,

        An excellent guide for you to study regarding what is acceptible speech and what is not would be your Bible. Get a copy and start reading it.

        It ight interest you to know, for starters, that anyone who bears false testimony against another WILL suffer the consequences levied upon the falsely accused if he is condemned, or the penalties that WOULD have befallen the accused had the false testimony been believed.

        think about that for a week or two.

      • Miner buddy…. slander is not a free speech issue anymore than murder is a Right to Keep and Bear Arms issue.

        You cannot be robbed of your speech, but you can face legal consequences if you knowingly lie with intent to harm people.

        If you want an equivalence of guns, you cannot be robbed of your guns, but you can face legal consequences if you run around killing people who aren’t an immediate threat to you.

        But then, never in my life have I met a liberal capable of having an honest conversation about the treatment of the 1st vs the 2nd.

    • Wow Gman, even dacian could not be as wrong as you are.

      Miller did not adopt a theory of the Second Amendment guarantee or ‘common use’, because it did not need one. The purpose of the case was to specifically decide if the Second Amendment permits Congress to tax firearms used by criminals. Miller did acknowledge

      The case involved a criminal prosecution under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The NFA of tyhe time required certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with, what at the time was called, the “Miscellaneous Tax Unit” whic was part of the part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (known today as the IRS). The $200 tax was to be paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

      The defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted on charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. (“Act”).

      The district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed in United States v. Miller, holding a very narrow view so as not to get into the constitutional aspect that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun as a matter of law. “as a matter of law”… in other words the SCOTUS at the time did not take up the constitutional side of it but rather the existing law side of it instead essentially holding that Congress can tax firearms used by criminals.

      But Miller did adopt an individual right theory of the Second Amendment, upon which, basically, the district court dismissed. In Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit concluded Miller assumed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use weapons “of the kind in common use at the time,” including handguns.

      So although Miller its self did not use a ‘common use’ thing it didn’t need too but it was certainly (narrowly) present in the individual right theory of the Second Amendment used and for which SCOTUS of the time declined to fully explore instead choosing to hold ‘as a matter of law’.

      • Wow Gman, even dacian could not be as wrong as you are.

        Wow, now that’s harsh. But you are correct and incorrect. IF SCOTUS had been provided evidence that a short barreled shotgun was of efficacy to the military then the NFA restriction would have been held unconstitutional. Since no one showed up to offer such evidence, they held it did not. Miller IS THE PATH created by SCOTUS to end NFA restrictions upon items clearly provable to be of efficacy to the military and hence the militia and hence the People.
        Constitution. P. 178.
        The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having
        a barrel less than 18 inchds long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

        • Well, didn’t mean it to be harsh.

          SCOTUS had already limited the case to ‘matter of law’ and not the constitutionality of the NFA or the constitutional aspects of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS at the time was grounded more in ‘interest balancing’ meaning, basically, the state would receive more consideration and the case was not about a ‘constitutional violation’ but rather about a ‘matter of law’.

          Remember, he defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were not violating a law for possession which would have been a ‘constitutional’ matter but rather were accused of violating a law for not paying the taxes on it the shotgun. The case was about charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. (“Act”) – and not about possession, but rather being ‘unregistered’ by not paying the tax.

          You are focusing on a constitutional aspect, it would have done no good to to introduce that ‘evidence’ even if it had been introduced as the case wasn’t about a constitutional matter at SCOTUS.

        • Only the pointy heads would somehow construe that a weapon held by the people is not suitable for warfare.

          The history of the founding, and of the Constitution made no distinction between one weapon, or another. Insurgents, and that’s what the Minute Men were, will use any weapon available to win.

          The SC engaged in legislating, regarding NFA. No surprise, all the judges/justices are politicians of one stripe, or another. Never forget, all of government has a vested interest in fashioning infringements on natural, human, civil, and constitutionally-protected rights.

        • Well, didn’t mean it to be harsh.

          Booger, you compared the dude to “dacian”… Not much left after that, maybe Miner, Fetterman, Braindead (the other braindead)? That’s pretty harsh…

        • all of government has a vested interest in fashioning infringements on natural, human, civil, and constitutionally protected rights…

          And they have a really great formula for getting it done… (1) brainwash masses of college students and send them out to teach in our school systems, (2) brainwash children in grades K-12, (3) send those children to liberal colleges and law schools, (4) get them elected to public office and appointed to state and federal courts… After that all they have to do is wait for the rest of the “boomer” generation to die off and it is game over…

  9. Contrary to that sign in the picture, there was not “500,000 murders” with a gun between “1960-2013”.

    It has to do with the term ‘homicide’, it wasn’t until 1990 – 1994 time frame when ‘homicide’ started to be differentiated “in stats” between ‘murder’ and ‘valid legal self/home defense’ shootings (in which the bad guy died). Before 1994 they tended to be lumped together in most stats sources (yes, even the FBI). ‘valid legal self/home defense’ shootings (in which the bad guy died) is a ‘homicide’ that’s justifiable under law and is not murder. Over 75% of that sign claimed “500,000 murders” were really ‘valid legal self/home defense’ shootings (in which the bad guy died) or in other words justifiable homicide and not murder homicide. Or to put it another way, between “1960-2013” ~370,000 (around ~375,000) victims of bad guys lived because they were able to employ DGU.

    yet still today there are sources that lump them together to imply murders that never took place (yes, you too GVA as some of your ‘mass shooting’ claims were actually justifiable homicide self/home defense where a defender had to engage multiple bad guys)

    • quote———–Over 75% of that sign claimed “500,000 murders” were really ‘valid legal self/home defense’ shootings (in which the bad guy died)——quote

      As usual Booger Brain your talking out your ass.

      • dacian the demented dipshit,

        So, what is your countervailing evidence?

        Oh, you don’t have any. Quelle surpise!!

        I would ask you if you ever get tired of being an idiot, but then I realize that you actually think you are smart. You are not. You are the kid the teachers had to supervise when the craft project required paste, because if left unsupervised, you would eat it.

        To put in terns even YOUR pathetic brain MIGHT be able to comprehend:

        YOU. ARE. A. BOOGER-EATING. MORON.

        No one on this blog (except, POSSIBLY, MajorLiar) even thinks you know what day of the week it is. E. S. A. D., moron.

  10. “The immediate impact of Bruen is that handguns…could proliferate on many American streets.” I’m lost and confused. So handguns are just going to magically appear laying around on street corners for people to pick up and kill people, dogs and anything else that’s moving. A nurse anesthetist I know who has a tshirt that reads “We can’t cure stupid but we can anesthetize it.”

    • The people won’t pick them up. The handguns will do the killing themselves. /sarc

      This is why the passive voice is so insidious. Leftists love it because it avoids responsibility for action.

    • Where are these streets where hand guns are free for the taking? I must know, we can’t have hand guns laying around randomly like that. Something something safe storage.

      • Andrew,

        I prefer to think of them like shelter dogs – poor handgun lying there on the street is going to get all dirty and rusty. It’s my Christian duty to give it a good home. Feed it high-quality ammunition, exercise it regularly, clean it frequently, and generally be a responsible gun-parent. Can’t leave those poor guns to the unknowing and uncaring hands of gangbangers (or worse, expire of neglect on the street).

        Think of the Rugers, the Smith & Wessons, the Colts!! Give them the care they deserve!!

  11. Go to the article. Notice how they begin it with their favorite topic: a mass shooting. I looked up that recent shooting. I can’t find one single remotely vague description of the shooter. Police are asking for any leads, but I don’t see where they give any sort of description.

    • The clue to whodunit on that one is the statement that there is “no further threat to the public”…

  12. The simple answer to all this is we ARE the militia! We never really need a justification to be armed especially in Cook county,ILLannoy. We really need to organize that “unorganized” citizen militia🙄

  13. It’s clear the leftists have no idea what responsibility is by this phrase alone, “this easily concealed weapon is responsible”. That’s where I stopped reading, it said it all. We as a country need to recognise and admit that there is a very specific socioeconomic and political problem facing our cities and that LBJ’s Great Society among other policies was designed for this specific outcome. Correcting these decades of bad policy is the only way to reduce the murder rate.

    • Unfortunately, Lurker, this pathetic human tendency predates LBJ by centuries (probably millenia). It is a normal human reaction, when confronted with obvious failure, to blame it on someone/something else. The gods, bad spirits, the devil, whatever.

      But your basic point is entirely correct, and the trend HAS accelerated, drastically. I would personally put the ‘inflection point’ at the Lincoln presidency – draft, suspension of habeas corpus, an abortive attempt at an income tax, but YMMV.

  14. Heller, which permits some gun laws such as prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    So, what makes a gun dangerous? My guns lay around in safes, cabinets, drawers, holsters all day every day (for decades) and they are ALL loaded and in condition one all the time (except when they are being cleaned) and not one of them has ever caused harm to an animal OR a person on their own… Is it the gun itself that’s dangerous or is it the individual handling the gun that MAKES it dangerous?… The only reason some guns are considered “unusual” (SBRs and sawed-off shotguns) because most people don’t want to spring the extra $200 for a permission slip (does not mean they are not out there) OR (in the case of SMGs, MGs and full-auto rifles/pistols) they are cost prohibitive to the average gun owner…

    • MAXX,

      OK, just to be a contrarian, I will point out that there ARE “dangerous weapons”. Ever dealt with ammonium iodide? That shit will blow up if you look at it wrong. We have the incident of the famous Galveston fertilizer ship explosion. And there are a few (really crappy) firearms that have a demonstrated ability to shoot without a trigger pull, in certain circumstances (forgetting, for a moment, that LEAVING said firearm in a condition to do so was probably the original fuckup).

      Overall, though, your point is entirely correct. Even using my example of the ammonium iodide – what idiot would leave ammonium iodide where someone else could encounter it?? Humans don’t have the power (currently) to prevent lightning, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, or forest fires. Everything else is ultimately on us.

      A weapon is only as dangerous as the person wielding it. A dropped weapon that “goes off”? What moron loaded it, and then dropped it? The infamous video of the FBI moron who was showing off (probably drunk) on the dance floor, had his gun fall out of the holster and discharge? Yeah, that agent was insanely stupid – the gun was responsible for exactly none of that incident.

      But the desire to blame someone/something else for our own f***-ups is at least as old as man. The ability to be rational implies and includes the ability to rationalize.

  15. BREAKING NEWS!!! FLASH, JUST IN!!!!
    Politicians with laws never stop bad guys with guns.
    They only control the good guys, which is their true agenda.

    “Of these murder victims, at least 6,368 — just over 45 percent — were killed by handguns.
    Wrong O ole Printing Ink Breath. Victims are killed by Defective Citizens or citizens defending themselves…..or LE. Guns never perform any act. they are merely tools…for good or bad.

    The late Col Jeff Cooper commented in 1958, “Killing is a matter of will, not means. You cannot control the intent by passing laws about the means.”

  16. The fake, ignorant or cognitive dissonant claim that handguns are responsible is getting old.

    Once again for the dunces out there, individuals are responsible. and bolstering that is liberalism, bad policies, anyi-liberty government and bad parenting.

    They can make it about guns as much as they want. But it’s gaslighting. They want you, the peaceable citizen to give up your liberty teeth.

  17. 13,927 dead humans a year just isnt enough. We will never get rid of that species at that rate. Do you think selling the tongues and hides would speed things up. Scrotum tobacco pouches?

    • possum,

      Unfortunately, we don’t have enough hair to make a rug, and out skin isn’t thick enough to make decent leather. Humans, without their brains, are kinda useless. Exhibits A, B, C, and D? MajorLiar, dacian the demented, jsled, and Prince Albert.

      • Humans with their brains are dangerous. They might do something stupid, no make that ” will do something stupid

        • possum,

          “will do something stupid”.

          True dat. It is in the inherent nature of humanity to be flawed and fallible. If that ain’t true for possums, you have my respect. I, personally, f*** up on the daily.

      • I think Prince among kings Albert’s last spanking session with Madam Lash was a bit too vigorous. Or he has been caught in a child pr0n and/or child s3x sting.

    • “Do you think selling the tongues and hides would speed things up. Scrotum tobacco pouches?”

      I don’t want a Scrotum tobacco pouch made from a dirty, smelly Leftist Scum ™… 😉

      • Geoff,

        Objection, Counselor, assuming facts not in evidence.

        What gave you the impression that Leftists even HAVE scrota?? They certainly have nothing to put in them.

  18. “In 2019, for example, a total of 13,927 people were murdered in the US, according to the FBI. Of these murder victims, at least 6,368 — just over 45 percent — were killed by handguns.”

    Followed by…

    “The immediate impact of Bruen is that handguns — which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun murders in the United States.”

    “Just over 45 percent” is an “overwhelming majority”

    Send this mental infant back to primary school.

    • Catch there is “gun murders” vs. all murders. Handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of the subset of murders that are committed using guns.

      As usual with gunn grabbers, people stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned, etc. don’t really count, because they aren’t as dead as if they’d been shot. Or something like that.

  19. As the Court said in United States v. Miller (1939), the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “render possible the effectiveness” of militias. And thus the amendment must be “interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

    …by ensuring they could own weapons useful for military service. That was the thrust of Miller. But Vox knows their audience doesn’t understand the Miller decision, and that they won’t bother reading up on it, either.

  20. The Left defunded the police and keeps putting violent criminals right back on the streets, but are shocked when citizens decide they have to provide their own protection for themselves and family?

  21. The 2A is not a license to murder or commit crimes, anymore than driver’s license is a license to drive drunk, speed, or get away from a bank robbery. Nearly 90 percent of gun crimes are committed by those who are prohibited from possessing guns. Maybe we should lock up this small minority instead.

  22. That “good news” isn’t as good as they think. It’s “dangerous AND unusual”, not “or”

    AR rifles are not unusual. Standard capacity magazines are no unusual. Short-barreled rifles are NOT unusual anymore, since the ATF has helpfully decided that millions of them are now in use via the brace ruling.

      • They know that. That’s why they had to ban braces. It has also been proven, with the amount out there in the wild, that they aren’t any more dangerous to have around than rifles with 16″+ barrels.

  23. Anybody know anything about European American Armory?… Saw a 4 inch, 6 shot .357 magnum for $398, never heard of them but revues were good… Anybody own one?

      • MAXX,

        In my experience, there ARE foreign manufacturers that sometimes produce quality products. CZ would be an example. Most Israeli manufacturers would qualify. Even Taurus (as much as we JUSTIFIABLY crap on their quality), sometimes produce decent products. Many manufacturers have factories, or subcontractors, in foreign countries (as much as we all bag on Turkish weapons, many manufacturers import/outsource to Turkey).

        Personal rule? Unless I’ve personally done some range-testing, or someone I know and trust has, I don’t buy it. “Foreign’ doesn’t automatically mean “poor quality”, but it certainly does mean ‘be cautious’.

        And then there are things like the late-model Remingtons. I have several Remington long guns that I love . . . and I’ve ‘range-tested’ a few that I absolutely hated. “Made in America” doesn’t mean ‘better’, but made somewhere else does mean, ‘be careful’.

        • I have 4 foreign made rifles 2AKs a 90 year old Mosin and a 107 year old Mauser “Gewher 98” I shoot them regularly and they are fine, I was hoping to find someone here with experiences with that .357, at $398 it COULD be a steal… I do have a polished stainless Taurus in .38 spec that has never failed to function and it’s my wife’s preferred piece…

  24. “For many years, the Supreme Court took the first 13 words of the Second Amendment seriously.”

    If the Supreme Court took the first 13 words of the Second Amendment seriously, you’d be able to buy a Ma Duece at Piggly-Wiggly.

  25. Supreme Court made it even harder for federal and state lawmakers to combat gun violence.

    Impossible. For starters, FedGov do not have and never did have any obligation or right or duty to “combat gun violence”. Take out your copy of the US Constitition and READ the first three Articles.. legislative, executive, judicial branches are all clearly defined, each ne assigned its tasks and duties, and restricted to acting ONLY upon those items in THEIR list. Nowhere in any of those articles are any part of FedGov assigned the task to
    combat gun violence”, ir even to :keep the People safe” EXCEPT for the ask assigned the Executive to “repel foreign invaders”, which specific task they have steadfastly refused to perform.

    The Bill of Rights, min that Secnd Article of Ammendment, specifically asserts the right of the people to keep and bear arms because the “security of a free state” rests upon.. THE PEOPLE. and WE need the tools to perform that task.guns happen to work rather well.

  26. Politicians (90+% of them) are in favor of gun control, to the point of confiscation. The ones “agin’ it” are being diplomatic, in the sense of “diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ while looking for a big club”. Don’t trust them, because they are all enamored of power, and arms in the hands of the hoi polloi are a limitation on their exercise of it and a threat to their control.
    Watch them like a hawk.

Comments are closed.