Time After Time, Time Magazine Still Gets It Wrong

Smith & Wesson revolver blanks

Dan Z for TTAG

By Larry Keane

If a publication’s name is Time, one would think the editors might actually know its timelines. This is especially true when they become a platform for unverified, unchecked and outright misinformation about firearms regulation.

Time.com recently provided a video platform on their website to Igor Volsky, a vocal gun control advocate who is drumming up attention for his new gun control book. In his nearly three-minute video, he chides gun rights groups for being too successful at, well, explaining the truth in simple terms. He offers to his fellow gun control advocates that they should adopt the same tactic.

Except he fails right out of the gate. And Time let him do it.

Patriotic = Abandoned Liberty?

Volsky claims that “Being a patriotic American means raising the standard for how firearms are produced and purchased. The firearms industry must be regulated. And people who choose to own a firearm should prove to their neighbors and their communities that they could own one responsibly.”

That’s a whole lot to unpack. Setting aside his obvious gut-punch to the patriotism of more than 300,000 people in the firearms industry and 100 million gun owners who choose to self-identify, Volsky is just flat out wrong to state as a matter-of-fact that the firearms industry must be regulated. In fact, there’s an entire federal agency that does this, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. If that’s too much, Volsky can just remember three letters – ATF.

Some estimates put as many as 20,000 laws and regulations on the books regarding the firearms industry. Critics argue there are just 300 relevant ones, which begs the question, why have non-relevant laws? There are enough that the ATF published the 33rd Edition of State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms. For Volsky’s benefit, here’s a quick list of just the major federal regulations governing the firearms industry.

Just the Big Ones

  • 1791 Dec. 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights is ratified, including the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
  • 1934 National Firearms Act, enacted as a tax on manufacturing selling and transporting firearms, but it also ushered in regulations on short-barreled shotguns, suppressors and automatic firearms. It was passed as a measure to curb gang crime.
  • 1938 Federal Firearms Act required firearms manufacturers, importers and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license, and retailers to maintain sales records. It also prohibited sales to convicted felons.
  • 1939 U.S. Supreme Court rules on United States v Miller, Congress can regulated short-barreled shotguns, stating the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to keep one as it has no relationship to the maintenance or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
  • 1968 Gun Control Act repealed and replaced the 1938 FFA, imposed “stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry,” requires serial numbers on all manufactured and imported firearms, expanded the definition of “machine gun” and added language to “destructive devices.” This Act added the “no sporting purpose” ban to firearms imports, enacted age restrictions for handguns to adults over 21 and prohibits the sale of firearms to felons and mentally ill.
  • 1986 Law Enforcement Officers’ Protection Act banned the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of armor-piercing ammunition.
  • 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, redefines “silencer” to include the parts comprising a suppressor, prohibits a national firearms registry, limits ATF inspections to once annually (with exceptions for infractions) and redefines “engaged in the business” for firearms. The Hughes Amendment, as part of this law, prohibits the civilian ownership or transfer of automatic firearms made after May 19, 1986.
  • 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for James A. Brady, the White House press secretary wounded in the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan, amended the 1968 GCA, requiring a background check be conducted by federally licensed firearms dealers and establishes the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was launched in 1998.
  • 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, included the Assault Weapons Ban and standard capacity magazine restrictions that were in place for 10 years and showed no effect on crime reduction. Multiple attempts have been made to reenact this provision.
  • 1998 Undetectable Firearms Act, a ban on the manufacture, possession and transfer of firearms not detectable by a walk-through metal detector and with less than 3.7 oz (105 g) of metal content. This law has been reauthorized three times since its enactment.
  • 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, strongly supported by NSSF, President George W. Bush signed this law “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.”
  • 2007 NICS Improvement Act, supported by NSSF, included a requirement of federal departments to submit disqualifying mental health records to the FBI’s NICS database and provided resources for states to do the same.
  • 2008 U.S. Supreme Court rules on District of Columbia v. Hellerrecognizing the Second Amendment protects an “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia” and struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and home storage requirements.
  • 2018 Fix NICS Act, following the tragic murders in Texas, in which it was discovered the Department of Defense failed to submit disqualifying background records on a prohibited individual. This law required federal agencies to comply and provided incentives to states to submit all their disqualifying records to the FBI.

 

Larry Keane is Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association. 

comments

  1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Our government is the one that needs regulating. Join in with the Convention of States movement to reign in an out of control government. We are becoming a large banana republic complete with socialism. The government that our founding fathers warned us about.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Join in with the Convention of States movement to reign in an out of control government.”

      Hell fucking *no*.

      Calling a Convention of the States risks getting the process hijacked and we ending up *far* worse than we are now…

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        This is my feeling, too. In fact it keeps me up some nights. No thanks.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is my feeling, too. In fact it keeps me up some nights. No thanks.”

          Then, I seriously recommend you read Article V of the constitution. The only way we could have a runaway COS is if both Congress, and the state legislatures (or Dimwitocrat party) can control everything (3/4 of the legislatures or 3/4s of state conventions considering the proposed amendments). Such a condition would indicate Congress itself would have the horsepower to publish amendments and get them ratified.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam’s right on this. Also, once the topics of the Convention are agreed upon they cannot be changed unless 3/4ths agree to change them.

          If that were to happen you’d be having a Convention that you were sure to lose before you started which means that 1) Sam’s right, Congress already had the votes and 2) you were fucked from the jump anyway and all initiating the process did was accelerate how fast you got to the wrong result so you wouldn’t have called the convention in the first place.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        Then, Geoff, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

        sorry if you dont like hearing it, more sorry still if this offends ya. But our constitution is no longer more than fish wrapper. A convention of the states is a risk, you bet, but a risk of what?

        name the amendment that isn’t being subverted?

        Government is, in and of itself, completely out of control. The people are not being represented in any way whatsoever. I’d say even the Poor and minorities that the left proports to to represent are being completely ill served by these clowns.

        We need a complete reboot of the system.

        Nothing less will suffice. We’re on the fast track to guerrilla warfare style revolution if we dont the deep state and start over.

        200+ years is a damn good run. We should be pretty pleased we lasted this long.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We need a complete reboot of the system. ”

          A COS will be entertaining, but would require a whole new constitution to be ratified that eliminates the current political and judicial system, because that is where the erosion begins and sustains. If a whole new constitution (a handful of amendments is useless) is not produced, and the current systems vacated (forcefully?), you have what you have today. Declaring, “This time we really mean it” does not add validity, credibility, gravitas, legal weight to any amendment that survives the ratification process.

          I know there are a lot of smart people encouraging a COS, but after the convention and ratification, then what? How would those amendments (including a whole new constitution) remove the actors who are currently trashing the constitution that exists? I went to the COS website, and asked that question. The answer was that with a stronger constitution (“We really mean it”), people would recall and vote out all the politicians who pervert the constitution, and impeach all the judges, at all levels, and install people who would uphold the new amendments (or new constitution). I then asked where all those people were today, because they haven’t managed to reverse the slide we are in, because they are in a terrible minority, and no set of amendments will convert a minority of constitutionalists into into a majority. The conversation ended with a “Thank you for contacting us.”

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          (Cloudflare kept blocking my post, regardless of IP or provider I used, when I included any more of your comment. That’s weird.)

          “Declaring, “This time we really mean it” does not add validity, credibility, gravitas, legal weight to any amendment that survives the ratification process.”

          Those are my thoughts on the matter as well. Indeed, “We really mean it this time!” was the phrase that went through my brain.

          I will add that if a people are not willing to defend the exercise of their rights, with force of arms if necessary, no constitution will protect them. It’s like a restraining order with no teeth; just useless writing.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s like a restraining order with no teeth; just useless writing.”

          Great turn of a phrase to describe the status today. Keeper.

    2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Not becoming. We already are a Banana republic. 1st class. Just look at the Libitards/socialists running for office in 2020. Now being led by the super senoir brigade. Doesnt get any more entertaining.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yes, we are already there.

    3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Absolutely not! The convention of states concept is absolute lunacy, since you can’t control what the delegates might do. Even if you managed to do so, Congress already completely ignores the 10th Amendment and has infringed on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, so what makes you think they would obey anything new you might add?

      1. avatar Endlesspath says:

        Methinks most people do not understand how a constitutional convention works. Nothing presented by convention is automatically adopted. Like all amendments, the document(s) presented by the constitutional convention must be approved by a supermajority of the states.
        You can get some facts on the Constitution Convention effort looking up a com site conventionofstates.
        The Constitutional convention is supported by a wide variety of conservatives, including Hannity and Mark Levin, let alone the conservatively revered Scotus Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Right arm!

      3. avatar Kyle says:

        because we will put teeth to the laws regarding violation.

        Violate the constitution as a political officer, go to prison, Loose most of your income, forever. Right now, violation of the constitution carries no real penalty. Court strikes down the unconstitutional act, but there is no penalty to the person who proposed the violation. That would have to be codified into any future constitution. Otherwise, yes, we’d be right back here at the earliest possible convenience to the left.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Violate the constitution as a political officer, go to prison,…”

          Where is the enforcement mechanism? The first and most important challenge COS supporters face is the current (which will not be replaced) federal court system. Look at what the federal courts have done regarding law and the constitution. Are you thinking these same people will change their stances because new amendments declare, “This time we really mean it)? You must know that the current federal justices will declare an amendment they don’t like unconstitutional, in part or whole. Next move would be, what?

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Cloudflare doesn’t like my comment.
          I tried to say:

          “because we will put teeth to the laws regarding violation.”
          We already have teeth in our laws. The problem isn’t with the courts, but with prosecutors and investigators. Without charges, the courts can’t do anything.

          I used a lot more words, at least some of which Cloudflare didn’t like.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Big Bill,

          I was having a similar problem with Cloudflare and posting here around 1am; twice with the same reply. I tried different providers (and, of course different IPs) but it did nothing so I figured it was the content itself. I dropped some of the quote and it magically allowed me to post. I contacted TTAG with the number provided by the block page. I haven’t heard back yet. Did you follow through by emailing [email protected] with the reporting number?

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          John, yes I did.
          And, as you can see, I altered my comment some, and it let me post.

    4. avatar Endlesspath says:

      The 2nd Amendment is in fact already on the way down, by incrementally shifting the lines related to states rights and public safety hysteria. Give it 10 years and we will no doubt led by the hand by none other than the GOP and the NRA to an Australian/NZ style program for public safety.
      Scotus nominee Kavanaugh himself stated that he supported Supreme Court precedent on banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” (think 1986 Firearm owners protection act).
      States rights’ are a strange and slippery slope: on one hand, it is constitutional for individual states to establish gun control laws (think left coast Mexicalifornia), yet at the same type individual state constitutional amendments on marriage definition is struck down.
      For me, looking at the unchanging swamp consisting of career politicians from the leftist DNC and the establishment R.I.N.O.’s the constitutional convention is the only way to deal with the corrupted and decaying U.S. Constitution.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        It’s actually a little stranger than you say.
        Look at pot laws: Federally, pot is illegal. Full stop. Locally, pot is legal, and the feds do nothing about it. So why have laws if the laws aren’t enforced?
        The answer: money.
        Look at asset forfeiture laws. Agencies make a lot of money off asset forfeiture. Let people think they can violate the law legally, then take their assets.

    5. avatar J says:

      ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Those states that are already attempting accomplish this don’t have our best interests in mind. They have been successful in damaging the 14th amendment with their “red flag” laws in several states. They want to ELIMINATE the second amendment and they want to ELIMINATE the electoral college along with other parts of the Constitution. This is being led by the likes of Bloomingbird, Sorryazz and other that only want to have us under their absolute control. Don’t be fooled by their phony mantra.

    6. avatar J says:

      ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Those states that are already attempting accomplish this don’t have our best interests in mind. They want to ELIMINATE the second amendment and they want to ELIMINATE the electoral college along with other parts of the Constitution. This is being led by the likes of Bloomingbird, Sorryazz and other that only want to have us under their absolute control. Don’t be fooled by their phony mantra.

    7. avatar tinhats says:

      Just remember that the last convention was called to revise the Article of Confederation. They opted to toss it out completely and came up with the Constitution. I kinda like the Constitution and don’t trust a convention not to rewrite with a lot of nonsense at its core.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Very, very different circumstances. The first “constitutional convention” was made up of political leaders and affiliates of the founders. The delegates were not Tom, Dick and Harry from this or that special interest group. When the current constitution was written, the people who wrote it made sure a subsequent convention could not do what the first convention did. At the time, there were only 13 States, now there are 57. Read Article 5, and see if you can find a legal, prescribed way for a COS to repeat what happened the first time around. The amendments proposed are subject to a method of ratification chosen by the sitting Congress. COS proposals do not go directly to the states.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          I would like to see how you, Sam, interpret “…on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”
          I read that as saying that the convention would accept any proposals made, not that the convention is limited to only considering any proposals stated in the calling of the convention.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I read that as saying that the convention would accept any proposals made, not that the convention is limited to only considering any proposals stated in the calling of the convention.”

          The COS would set the rules, and decide which proposals to accept and send to Congress. The COS has no authority to send proposals directly to the states. The Congress then decides (depending on who is in power) whether the states ratify though actions of the existing state legislatures, or ratification conventions established by the states. Note that Congress has not specified time by which proposed amendments must be published to the states, there is no established timeline mandating state legislatures, or ratification conventions, must act, nor is there a time frame mandated for expiration of amendments not ratified. Congress has great potential for mischief.

          Then the amendments will be challenged in courts as to proper definition of the protections and limits of the ratified amendments (using the existing judicial and legislative systems), the federal court systems will declare supremacy over what is/is not constitutional, the theory of “compelling government interest” will be raised to resist unwanted limits on the central government (an amendment that touches on how the courts evaluate laws – rational, intermediate, strict – vs. the newly amended constitution will be declared unconstitutional), and the merry goes ’round.

          Without the overwhelming numbers of strict constitutionalist members of government at all levels, the amendments flowing from a COS will suffer the fate of the original constitution. A COS has no police power to enforce new mandates. If all the delegates to a COS are strict constitutionalists, they will have no power to force the rest of the body politic to defend and enforce new amendments. If the strict constitutionalist delegates to a COS do not have sufficient majorities in the states to ratify new amendments, nothing happens. If the strict constitutionalists of a COS can actually shepherd the amendments (once released by Congress) through ratification by the states, then the political power already exists to have Congress propose amendments into the waiting ratifiers. If somehow a COS is controlled by what is a minority political theory today, there is no hope of ratification by the states the minority political theorists do not control…and there are not enough “conservative” state legislatures to get even one COS proposed amendment ratified.

          People raise fears that leftists will take over a COS, and get wildly radical amendments ratified (somehow), and destroy the current constitution. Such radicals fact the same state legislature ratification problem…not enough control to ram ratifications through.

          In truth, the current constitution and political system depends entirely on the willingness of politicians and voters to abide by “rules” they don’t like, until the disappointed elements gain sufficient political power to change the “rules”. A “gentleman’s agreement”, if you like. That condition has not existed since at least the 1960s. Do you see that changing?

          Do not conclude I oppose a Convention of States. It would be a most interesting, entertaining, instructive and historic. I am about not letting imagination and expectations run wild.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          Sam, you provided a very thorough response.
          None of it, though, is in Article V.
          It’s conjecture, written mainly be lawyers and “constitutional experts,” who think that’s how it would go. Problem is, it’s all conjecture. Until a COS is actually convened, and someone in charge writes the procedure, and someone else in charge approves them, there are no such procedures.
          You did point out, that once called, a COS is not bound to consider only certain proposals, nor even who would be the actual people who would make up the COS. Which means the outcome would depend hugely on who goes in.
          Just as the makeup of the SCOTUS depends on who’s in charge when an opening comes up, I can only think the makeup of any COS would depend on the same thing.
          For that reason, I am against a COS.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The procedures of the COS would be determined by the delegates (first to be decided is if all processes and internal procedures are subject to majority, or supermajority vote). Article V is quite clear about how proposed amendments form a COS will be dealt with once propagated from the COS…Congress controls the method for ratification (so, if courts determine that COS can actually send proposed amendments directly to the states, the method of ratification is not delegated to the states (safety valve one).

          Congress is mandated to call a COS upon conditions clearly set by Article V, which established no means/procedure for states to from “application” to Congress to call a COS (safety valve one). Likewise, there is no mandate review and approve the applications. (safety valve two). Nor is there a timeliness requirement between recognition of application for a COS. (safety valve three). Once a COS is called by Congress, the states must have existing, or create, processes for identifying delegates to a COS (safety valve four). Then, Congress established the method of ratification (safety valve five).

          Depending on the political power existing, Congress can choose the ratification method deemed most desirable by the party in charge of Congress (safety valve seven). The wording of Article V in common usage would indicate that all states will use a single method chosen by Congress, but it could be argued that Congress could pick-and-choose based on the politics of each state. (possible safety valve eight)

          If the states are positioned such that proposed amendments from a COS face state governments that can muster 3/4s votes to ratify COS amendments, Congress is likely to already have sufficient votes to pass such proposed amendments; negating the need for a COS.

          The idea of a COS is currently predicated on the idea that the delegates are all determined to control the central government; facts not in evidence. The second predicate is the COS would reflect the intent of the state legislatures (or ratification conventions) to control the central government. (for some strange reason, the leftist elements have not targeted a COS as a means to easily expand control over the populace.)

          But regardless of the political weather, a COS cannot escape Congress in the ratification process, and Congress is not mandated to determine the method of ratification within any time frame at all. In essance, there is ample opportunity for delay, and delay means enthusiasm wanes (see proposed ERA amendment).

          The current advocates for a COS are operating from the assumption that a new set of amendments will somehow not face the current political and judicial culture, and will automagicaly result in enforceable controls over the culture. Yet, I have seen virtually nothing about how COS amendments can actually accomplish anything the established political powers refuse to honor.

          So, while likely a folly, calling a COS would be worth the price of admission, just for the entertainment. Being realistic, however, there is very little danger a COS would be mounted.

    8. avatar RGP says:

      Hell no! A Convention of States would bring out every single tree hugging welfare leeching socialistic vegan seaweed eating pot smoking kale latte drinking Obama loving communist there is out there and they’d probably get the changes they want instead of a restoration of strict constitutionalism.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Go to the convention of states web site and read what proposals are on the menu to be voted on by the states. this is not a rewrite of our constitution but a reinstatement of our constitution which limits the government intrusion into states and citizens rights. Another item is to put term limits on the House and Senate terms and to limit the amount of money the feds can spend without the taxpayers voting on it. Also read up on the federalist papers as to what to do next if the politicians will not abide by our wishes after the convention.

        1. avatar Peter says:

          Ditto! The ONLY way the states are going to reign in our bloated, bureaucracy is via a COS. Term limits would be one of the first amendments passed with the next forcing the government to fund only its Constitutionally-mandated functions (Memo to liberals: education, welfare and health care are not Constitutionally-mandated functions). Another would be reaffirming the right of states to protect its citizens from invasion if the federal government fails to do so.

          I’m sure I’ve missed a few that others consider to be critical to restoring our Republic.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          I see no limit to what proposals a COS would consider, once called.
          “… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”, which I read as: any amendment can be proposed after the COS is called. I don’t see any limitation as to which or how many amendments can be proposed.

  2. avatar Mark N. says:

    What is there to regulate? Manufacturers are just as responsible for defective products as any other industry….Oh, I know what he means. He means that they should be prevented from producing firearms that are too dangerous for people to own. Or that they should be held responsible for illegal third party sales that they have nothing to do with, as the manufacturers typically ship to distributors who ship to ffls who in turn are already mandated to run back ground checks on any one wishing to buy a firearm.What else is there to do but regulate the industry out of business?

    Obviously, guys like Volsky, although they will never admit it, know that this is their true end game.

  3. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “Time Magazine Still Gets It Wrong”

    Say it ain’t so. 8>)

    I’m surprised that “Newsweek” didn’t change its name to “Week”, since it had more editorial content than news.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Newsweak and Slime Magazine — two pees (sic) in a pot (sic).

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Now days both of those “magazines” have been rightfully reduced down to phamplets only useful for lining a bird cage.

        Hell Newsweek was sold for $1 and the buyer still got robbed (Wouldn’t you feel robbed if you paid $1 for a flaming sheet sandwich)

    2. avatar Hush says:

      NEWSWEAK!

      1. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        Newspeak

  4. avatar MB says:

    They published the wrong information on purpose, just like the author of this article. If there were 100 million gun owners ( that would be almost every adult male in the country), there would not be a issue on gun control. Maybe there are 30 million gun owners (10% of the population) of both sex total, and maybe 300 million guns. If you are going to publish data, try to get it right.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      So average gun owner has 10 guns? I don’t argue a lot of gun owners may own that many and more but your owner ppopulation seems critically low given the number of owners that only own one or two (or lie like hell on any related survey). I would peg the number around 45-60 legal owners with a few million questionable.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Try 450 to 660 million guns in the United States and around 50% of the population that are gun owners. Unfortunately, many are not paying attention or are Fudds.

      1. avatar MB says:

        @Madmax, your numbers are so far of it is ludicrous. If that was the case there would never be a 2nd amendment debate. Go ask 100 people on the street if they own guns. I doubt you will find 10-15 of them own a gun. I live in rural Texas and I would bet a lot less than 50 % of my neighbors own guns. Get to big Texas cities and it is well below that. How many people N.Y. city ( with 4 times the population of Houston) own guns. 1% would be a stretch. Please stop listening to ” gun experts” folk law.

        1. avatar guest says:

          Many gun owners reply “no” when asked if they own guns. The real number of firearms in this country is unknown, but 300-600 million is a very probable range.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          I work in a very liberal northeastern city in a large business in which you would expect the workers to be ultra-left wing and, in my department (of about 350 employees) within the larger company, (to my surprise) more than 85% of the employees own firearms and many are Trump supporters. It’s a very well kept secret.

          The total number of NICS checks since 1998 equal 311 million as of the end of March. Each NICS check could equal none, one, or mulitiple purchases. The number of NICS checks compares favorably to NSSF manufacturing data.

          Considering, before 1998, the estimated number of firearms was 270 million, a 600 million figure seems reasonable.

        3. avatar MB says:

          @MadMax . Max, I lived in R.I. for 62 years, about 1% of the population will admit to owning a gun, maybe 5% may actually do. I lived in big cities and suburban and rural areas. The ratio was about the same 1-5% max. I said 300+ million, maybe as high and 400, but 600+ million is really fantasy land. and I doubt the percentages haven’t been anywhere near 50% population ownership in last 40 years. I think there are many people who own multiple guns, most people I know that own guns have 10 or more. But why should we argue, it the dam gun grabbers we need to convince to leave us the hell alone….

        4. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          “I live in rural Texas and I would bet a lot less than 50 % of my neighbors own guns.” I’ll take that bet – I don’t know why they don’t want you to know it, but every single one of your neighbors owns at least one gun.
          There are many published estimates of over 400 million guns in civilian American hands, and conservative estimates of gun owners in the U.S. at over 100 million. Over half of the world’s firearms are owned by American civilians, and by definition of constitutional law, American civilians comprise (by far) the largest standing army on the planet.
          And while I’ve never even been to Rhode Island, I have lived in Ga, Fla, Al, SC and NC, and I can’t think of anyone I’ve ever met in my whole life that I know for sure DOESN’T own a gun.

        5. avatar Dzapper says:

          Kamala Harris owns a gun as does Dianne Feinstein. They just don’t want YOU to own a gun. After all who are you? They don’t know who you are and if you can be trusted with a gun, therefore you shouldn’t have one. Even among pro gun folks there are a surprising number of people who think gun control isn’t about people like them, it is for “those other people.” There are a lot of gun owners like that sadly. Everyone knows that gun owners do not self identify at a particularly high rate for surveys. There are a lot of people who for one reason or another don’t want to be in anyway associated with gun ownership, but they own a gun. If you asked a large number of people’s wives if they were gun owners they might say no, because they aren’t, their husband is. FWIW if you asked my wife (if she answered in the first place, she does not answer surveys, I personally was excited to get a Neilson form, not her she threw it out) she might very well say no, because while she does own a Glock 19 she never shoots it, and probably considers it mine.

    3. avatar Longhaired Redneck says:

      MB, please reread. The author wrote ‘100 million “self-identified” gun owners’. We all know there are likely more, but in keeping with the ‘grey man’ stance many of us adopt, gun ownership is not always publicly discussed.

      1. avatar MB says:

        Like I said, the author is not telling the truth.

  5. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    He’s an ass, idiot, moron, and pure simpleton. There are only a couple of industries more regulated than firearms and probably none other than pharmaceuticals that more to fear from trial lawyers. We know he can write but can he actually read and comprehend. One has to understand the definition of “well regulated” in the 18th century and the date of Sept. 9, 1789, when the Senate voted down inserting the words “for the common defense” after the words “to bear arms”. An 18th-century dictionary should be required reading for every politician.

  6. avatar Skeeter35 says:

    Unfortunately criminals, who don’t follow laws, don’t really care about being patriotic Americans. Being in Massachusetts I have proven many times that I can own a firearm responsibly…which in my opinion I shouldn’t have to. When will they admit that it’s not the laws that are the problem. It’s the criminals who will never abide by them.

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I don’t know why you guys waste so much blood, sweat and tears on people like the idiot who wrote the Time article. If you present the facts to people like this they will stick their fingers in their ears and chant La! La! La! La! Their minds are made up no matter how open they claim them to be. (Our minds are made up too, but we happen to be right.) Instead, take a non-shooter to the range. Keep it safe, simple and fun. Don’t try to turn them into SF, Ranger or SEaL the first time out. Wait until at least the third. That’s how we win.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The issue isn’t so much the article but the book behind the article IMHO.

      There was a book a while back, coming up on 15 years I guess now. I used to have a copy of it but I’m not sure where it is right now, called Gun Show Nation by Joan Burbick. It was claimed that the book was the history the culture surrounding guns and was generally meant to be a fair and balanced. But really it was just a poli-sci op ed that the dust cover notes is mainly about the “lethal politics” of guns, cause you know right there that this book gives guns and their owners a fair shake. It wasn’t written by a historian as claimed on TV and in other media that pushed the book but rather a “cultural historian” which actually has a significantly different meaning.

      If you knew anything about guns or the owners of guns outside of an action movie the book was a joke. Political propaganda and bullshit mixed with antigun rhetoric. But it sold pretty well and was sold as being fair and balanced. I read it after some people I knew read it and came up to me with all these bullshit facts about “gun culture”.

      The book did decently well. I don’t think it made the NYT list but it did chart rather nicely on Amazon for a bit because it was pushed by publications like Time, outlets like MSNBC and discussed on The View.

      I don’t know if it “moved the needle” but they sure pushed it and it was decidedly not in our favor.

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Strych9, I understand what you’re saying, but I’m going to take an educated guess. If the book was pushed in the mainstream media then we are back to the point I was trying to make. Most of those who read it already agreed with it. Those that didn’t railed against it. No one’s mind was changed. Again, we have the luxury of being right, but that is a moot point. The only way we win is to recruit and educate new shooters.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I get what you’re saying and that’s often true but I don’t think that it’s always the case.

          That book was pushed very specifically at people who “want to know what this argument is about”. Whether or not that advertising push worked I can’t say because I didn’t follow it that closely. IOW they shoved that book specifically at the target audience the antis want to win over which also happens to be our target demographic. How will that work with this new book? We’ll see. Your average Time reader probably isn’t really that engaged with life which is why they read Time, to say that they’re engaged with life but that makes Time a good testing ground for messaging about the book.

          The issue as I see it isn’t this book or that book or a particular article or blog post or a specific bullshit poll. It’s that these things are intended to add up to form a perception of popular opinion that then becomes the zeitgeist of the country. At least, that’s what they’re trying to do. Kind of the way they push climate change by screaming about “scientific consensus” as if that means something, well it does mean something if the voting public believes that it means something and is motivated to vote by that perception. But really, even public opinion doesn’t matter as much as what politicians think public opinion is. That’s why astroturfing works and this is laying the groundwork for an astroturfing campaign.

          Each one is a straw, if you will, being added to the camel’s back until the spine breaks. That seems to be their way of going about this. I think that’s what they’re going after here and that’s why they promote the ever-living-fuck out of a book/poll/article/study that’s pro-gun control while ignoring the existence of the same thing coming from the other direction or even one that really is fair and balanced. In essence the attempt is to create a propaganda campaign centered on a propaganda campaign and use one to push the notion that people believe the other. If they can convince Congress Critters that this is the case then it might as well be.

          I think you can start to see this in the House right now. Lots of people are writing about how Dems are not scared of gun control/healthcare/the economy/insert item here any more and that they’re seizing the moment. But in reality the people “seizing the moment” are people like AOC while someone who’s smarter and more seasoned like Pelosi is trying to herd the cats away from the edge of various political cliffs. They want the same things but Pelosi understands politics and tactics in a way that AOC and some of these other far-Left Democrats do not. Pelosi knows how to sell a shit sandwhich and make people want it or at least accept it. AOC just wants to ram it down your throat and Pelosi knows that AOC’s approach is how you lose the next election “biggly” or end up not passing shit because people find out what you’re on about and start calling members and telling them to vote “no”.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Liked your analysis about “perception”. The most recent and horrendously indicative reports are that people are believing the Trump tax cut really was a tax increase because:
          – refunds are lower than last year
          – their circumstances were such that their standard deduction was higher than their itemized deductions, meaning they couldn’t use itemized deductions anymore, meaning their taxes are higher

      2. avatar Ing says:

        I went to grad school in the program Joan Burbick taught in. (Never took a class from her, thank God.) Cultural historian = Marxist English professor with an axe to grind.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    Questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with you isn’t a new tactic.

    However, these days I rather suspect that it’s engineered to lead right into an argument about “no fly, no buy” with the anti’s position defaulting to “if you don’t agree with us then you want terrorists to have guns” after having laid the groundwork that gun owners are unpatriotic and half-way to being terrorists themselves already.

    They already spew such nonsense about the NRA. They may feel they can increase the effectiveness of such slander by prepping the field.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Time” magazine? Really. Been so out of touch, didn’t know there still was a “Time” magazine.

    Should I start paying attention more?

  10. avatar MLee says:

    Time Magazine? Wow. My mom subscribed to Time and Newsweek religiously. As long as she was alive her kitchen table was covered with Time and Newsweeks.

  11. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    I did not read the article, seen Time magazine and that was snuff. I am not a Trump fan, however the way Time bashed him was slanderous, and then the propaganda of a certain breed of humans, that this breed of humans just happened to be at war with was beyond their anti American propaganda during the 1970’s. …when I had a wife she subscribed to time, she saved all the issues. After shed get a nice big stack we’d bundle them together and test bullet expansion of various calibers.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I was turned off TIME magazine after Port Arthur when they blamed guns and OTHER gun owners for the crime, and conveniently ignored the individual in custody who had more red flags than a mayday parade and institutionalized incompetence and negligence from the government agencies involved.

    1. avatar dph says:

      Damn dude, maybe you should start a website called the “The Truth As I See It About Vaccines”, because this still mostly a site about Guns.

      1. avatar MB says:

        @dph. He’s like a 8 track tape…

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Lol, 8-track….that bad?

        2. avatar MB says:

          Yup, repeat over and over, quality of noise similar to last time I stepped on the cat’s tail. Have a good day my friend. No offense, thought a little humor would help.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          I’ve been called a lot of things, nothing as bad as an 8-track!!

  12. avatar 2WarAbnVet says:

    When somebody uses a truck or car to mow down a group of people, it is no trumpeted as vehicular violence. When somebody goes on a stabbing spree, it isn’t described as knife violence. But woe unto those who use a gun to commit their crime! The left and their lapdog media jump immediately on the “gun violence” bandwagon; the inference being that if the miscreant had not had access to a firearm the violence would never have occurred.
    It’s all about the long-term agenda to deprive the American people of the right of self-defense, and leave them at the mercy of criminals and all-powerful government.

    “The right of self defense is the first law of nature. In most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty , if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s 1789 Commentaries on the Laws of England

    1. avatar Ing says:

      They’re all about “knife crime” in Merry Old England…and “gun violence” is on the upswing, despite their prohibition. Meanwhile people are routinely savaged by criminals wielding broken glass bottles.

      Just goes to prove that criminal violence will never go away, regardless of what tools are or aren’t available.

      And even if our anti-gun politicians get their way, the focus of control will shift to some other item that normal people are not to be trusted with. In the end, you’re right: it’s all about their power and control over us.

  13. avatar Ed says:

    Time magazine and newsweek are great. They make great tinder when starting my backyard firepit

  14. avatar Cliff Spirit says:

    Simple…..re elect no one. Always vote for the new guy. Get all the old growth out. The only way. If a governer wants to be a congressman….nope. He was already in the system too long and has connections and is corrupt. A simple concept that will work….do it again every 2 years. In a decade the pro politician will be extinct.

  15. avatar Clark Kent says:

    Yawn. Time and Newsweek were rendered irrelevant a decade ago. Most folks under 35 have no idea they ever existed.

  16. avatar Dzapper says:

    Just an FYI: the Undetectable Firearms Act was passed in 1988, not 1998, shortly after the introduction of the Glock 17 “plastic wonder nine” which obviously can pass through metal detectors without setting them off…provided you take off all of the parts that make it actually function as a firearm that is. It is worthy of note that this was before Die Hard 2 came out so you can’t blame the movie for creating the hysteria about Glocks and other polymer guns. No, this needless piece of legislation was the brain child of the man who never saw a gun he didn’t want to ban, Rep William Hughes (may he meet his doom in a slow and painful way so I can piss on his grave, I’m sure there will be a line).

  17. avatar Richard J Coon says:

    I would be willing to support a COS if we could somehow lop off most of the east and west coast.

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