Previous Post
Next Post

Michael Foreman just wants congress to DO SOMETHING about guns.

Stop me before I Fudd again! . . . One gun owner’s plea for Congress to do something

I own multiple shotguns, handguns and rifles, including an AR-15. Unfortunately, when the gun-control debate is reignited by another mass shooting, my voice is often unheard. Maybe my message is drowned out by the NRA’s continued silence. Perhaps I’m ignored because I don’t fall within a pre-defined box, allowing you to label me an outlier. Either way, in the wake of yet another mass shooting by a U.S. citizen, please do not allow my plea to fall on deaf ears. So I ask that you do the following:

Put me on a registration list or ban my AR-15. Force me to wait three days before I pick up the next gun I buy, or conduct a more thorough background check. Tell me I can’t own a 20-round clip for my AR-15. I don’t care what you do. But please do something. …

Sure, there may be debate about which laws appropriately strike the balance between individual liberties and the safety of civilians, but the time for discussion has long passed. It is time for you to enact laws that require mandatory waiting periods and universal background checks. If you need to ban all semi-automatic, high-capacity guns, then draft the bill.

Steve Wynn thinks gun-free zones work.

Wasn’t Mandalay Bay a gun-free zone, too? . . . Steve Wynn Claims Gun Free Zone Would Have Prevented The Vegas Shooting

Steve Wynn is the billionaire CEO of Wynn Resorts. Steve Wynn and his wife Elaine Wynn are also a gun control advocates.

The Wynns have long banned guns from their casinos and resorts. Steven Wynn’s latest statements give us an insight into the minds of the gun grabbers.

Mr. Wynn believes that the attack that Stephen Paddock launched killing nearly 60 people would never have been able to happen at any of his properties. He thinks that the fact that his hotels and properties are gun-free zones would have stopped the massacre that occurred in Las Vegas.

Please, don’t give them any ideas . . . Paul Ryan Challenger Bump Fires Rifle Without Bump-Stock, Asks: ‘Will Congress Outlaw Fingers?’

Paul Nehlen, the America First conservative who is challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan in the 2018 primaries, has released a campaign video using his fingers to demonstrate how a bump stock is not necessary to simulate automatic gunfire — as fake news permeates the airwaves about the misunderstood accessory.

The video is in response to media reports making strange claims about the accessories in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting massacre, and the hysteria to ban them.

“What’s Congress gonna do? Outlaw fingers?” Nehlen asks after bump-firing his M214 without a bump stock.

Debbie Dingell doesn't think a bump stock ban bill will become law.

Wish we were as confident . . . Dingell On Gun Control: Bump Legislation Unlikely to Pass

A bipartisan bill banning the accessories was introduced in Congress yesterday. Does that mean we’ll have a law in the books anytime soon?

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan who advocates for “common sense” gun control, doesn’t think so. “It’s very hard to get anything through,” she said at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, D.C. Wednesday morning. “We probably won’t even get the bump legislation even though the NRA says we should. People have a way with the legislative process of adding other things to the bump stock legislation, which will make it toxic and will get it killed in the senate.”

Gun violence is predominately a male problem.

Toxic masculinity . . . ‘Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say

Data shows gun violence is disproportionately a male problem. Of the 91 mass shootings in which four or more victims died since 1982, only three were committed by women, according to a database from the liberal-leaning news outlet Mother Jones. Men also accounted for 86% of gun deaths in the United States, according to an analysis by the non-partisan non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation.

Men are more likely to own a gun — three times more, according to a 2017 survey from the Pew Research Center. This, despite marketing from gun manufacturers and groups such as the National Rifle Association to lure women. So why the discrepancy? Why are men so drawn to guns and so much more likely to live and die — and kill — by them?

The Spokane Police Department will outfit all of their officers' rifles with silencers.

Don’t tell Hillary . . . Spokane Police will add suppressors to rifles, citing concerns about hearing damage

Rifles carried by Spokane police on patrol will soon be equipped with suppressors, a move the department says will protect officers and civilians from hearing damage.

“It’s nothing more than like the muffler you put on your car,” said Lt. Rob Boothe, the range master and lead firearms instructor for the department.

Outfitting the department’s 181 service rifles with suppressors will protect the city from the legal costs of worker’s compensation claims filed by officers, as well as from potential lawsuits filed by bystanders whose ears are exposed to firearm blasts. The sound of a fired shot can be louder than the takeoff of jet engines, the department says.

Pretty soon they’ll be claiming that Eugene Stoner didn’t invent the AR, it was actually Brian Williams.

Ken Blackwell knows the truth about guns.

Please, don’t confuse them with facts . . . The simple truth is that guns help, not hurt, millions of Americans

Anyone seriously concerned about violence knows that none of the usual panaceas would do much to reduce gun deaths. Gun restrictions in countries such as Australia and Great Britain didn’t end gun-related crimes.

“Assault weapons” is a fake category, cooked up for political purposes. Most guns are “semi-automatics.” Silencers do not enable James Bond wannabes to silently kill; they only modestly reduce the noise.

Purchase limits won’t stop a criminal from planning ahead. Any competent person can quickly swap out gun magazines. Gun shows account for only a small percentage of sales, and dealers still must follow the usual rules. Machine guns are extremely hard to obtain, and the legally owned ones have been used in a crime only three times since 1934.

Massachusetts is on the way to banning "assault rifles"

There was never any doubt . . . Mass. House Approves Ban On Bump Stocks

The Massachusetts House approved a bill Wednesday that would outlaw devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to mimic fully automatic guns.

The House voted 151-3 in favor of legislation to ban so-called bump stocks, such as those used by the Las Vegas shooter.

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has said he supports a ban.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Force me to wait three days before I pick up the next gun I buy, or conduct a more thorough background check.

    I heard that Paddock bought a rifle Thursday and drove down to Mandalay Bay the same day. The police said he checked in on Thursday, but he actually did so around Monday. So, why did Paddock go home to buy another rifle? Friday, Saturday, Sunday — that’s 72 hours of waiting. Hmm… Is there some kind of 72 hour waiting period law for guns?

    • It varies from state to state. Some, such as California (soon to be People’s Republic of) has waiting periods on all firearm purchases. Others may only have a waiting period on handguns and others have none beyond the NICS check.

      And background checks can only assess on what you have done in the past. They cannot predict what you will do in the future. Pre-Crime prediction is pure Hollywood fantasy (Minority Report).

      • I think he did that to make a point. There was no reason to go home (about an hour and half away) to buy another rifle when he has about 20 of them already. Don’t risk getting caught bringing another rifle. He did it to get a 72 hour wait period on guns. Anti human rights people would have said he would have never gotten that rifle if there was a 72 hour wait time.

        It appears to be another piece that reveals his motive, the motive he worked so hard to conceal (along with his brother).

    • 72 hours for handguns and 24 hours for long guns in Illinoisistan. And universal background checks-even for close relatives. And it makes a HELLUVA difference in Chiraq…😎

  2. “Put me on a registration list or ban my AR-15. Force me to wait three days before I pick up the next gun I buy, or conduct a more thorough background check. Tell me I can’t own a 20-round clip for my AR-15. I don’t care what you do. But please do something. …”

    OK, we’ll craft a law that does that…just for you. Leave the rest of us alone.

    “The [Mass] House voted 151-3 in favor of legislation to ban so-called bump stocks, such as those used by the Las Vegas shooter. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has said he supports a ban.”

    Why did I leave MA again? Oh, yeah. (And Healey the Weasel and her “lawmakers intent” BS!)

    • My money’s on him having inherited his guns from a relative. Assuming, of course, that he’s telling the truth about owning them.

      He’s clearly never filled out a 4473 for himself, and he would know a lot better than it seems he does if he regularly enjoyed shooting sports.

    • That isn’t an article written from a gun owner. And if it is? Well if he feels so strongly and morally opposed and wishes congress to ban his AR and limit his mag capacities then what’s stopping him from dropping them off at the local PD or Sheriff’s station right now? It’s just disgusting that people fall for this nonsense!


      “Please, don’t give them any ideas . . .”

      ^ That also chaps my hide. We sit here and cower and say shush, don’t talk about arm braces or suppressors or bump fires or binaries. You’ll just give ’em ideas. So worthless and pathetic.

      Rather than cowering on your knees hoping that big bad .gov doesn’t come for your stuff wouldn’t your time be better spent educating and forthrightly explaining the truth about guns to your fellow neighbors?

      Frankly, while I basically despise all politicians, at least the guy in the article above is actually showing people how ludicrous the idea of banning anything is…we should be at least praising this guy rather than shushing him for speaking the truth.

      • My thoughts exactly on the writer of the first article. Another cuckold pretend shooter like the Phoenix, AZ guy turning in his guns to police in a publicity stunt. Please turn in your guns to your local gun shop. Don’t presume to speak for other gun owners & spread your BS vitriolic opinions. A 10/22 isn’t a machinegun & they’re magazines not clips. Both these stupid fucks sounds like (insert any clueless liberal asshole politician who wants to write laws about something of which they know nothing & infringe on the Constitutional Rights of the common peasants they rule here).
        I cannot grasp the fact that people don’t understand this: criminals don’t follow laws. Someone who would murder others (that is against the law) will not abide by the laws you write restricting their access to or use of firearms. Politicians know this already, but the average citizen getting their biased & intentionally misleading “news” from the MSM can’t seem to use common sense despite all the ironic references to the proposed legislation as just that. But I digress.

    • The author never owned an AR15. He doesn’t even know that the standard (not high capacity) magazine (not clip) capacity is 30 rounds. Just standard bs gun grabber’s wishlist regurgitated as if from gun owner. Non of them would stop the LV murderer anyways.
      Run around, wave your arms and yell: “Do something! Anything! I don’t care it will not help, just do something now! ” That’s gonna help.

  3. Knew the MA ban-hammer was coming down. Baker is a RINO, he was elected simply for variety’s sake. It’s too bad our representatives haven’t been able to close the three biggest loopholes in any of our state laws: Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

      • It’s not an ex post facto thing. “An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. ‘out of the aftermath’) is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.” – Wikipedia. It’s a taking without compensation. It’s also probably unconstitutionally vague, which has to be the case when people who don’t know anything about guns are making laws about guns and want to cover any future loopholes. (The bump stock really is a loophole, unlike gun shows and “the internet”).

  4. Two stories about politicians supporting bans. Yet people keep trying to convince me the NRA is in the middle of some super fancy political tango that is somehow helpful to firearm owners….. What am I missing?

  5. “We probably won’t even get the bump legislation even though the NRA says we should.”

    A congressional Democrat saying what I’ve been saying, and she’s probably correct. It’s very unlikely that any bump stock legislation will make it through. Maybe a ton of folks missed civics but the whole point of the system is to make passing shit like this HARD. Sub-committees, committees, markup sessions, rules committee, scheduling, motions, floor debate…

    It will be months before any proposals even make it out of committee by which time things will have moved on.

    So… why are people panicking again? Oh, right. Dollars and cents.

      • Still waiting for someone to give me the legislative road map where one of these monstrosities passes and then is signed by the POTUS.

        Still hearing nothing but crickets. Rather telling.

        • The Constitution doesn’t appear to be in effect in California, but the federal government didn’t repeal The Bill of Rights. The state of California banned all handguns and have been working on a scheme for semi auto long guns. All handguns must be on an approved list to be sold, effectively banning handguns. They also setup selective licensing for carry and they don’t give out those permission slips to the general public.

          The Constitution of California says they will follow the US Constitution. However, since there is no written amendment in the California Constitution that humans have the right to keep and bear arms, they do whatever they want. The federal government doesn’t come to the rescue and there is no militia rising up to free the state from tyrants.

          It doesn’t matter what the US Constitution says if there is no enforcement throughout the Union. The US government doesn’t have to pass a law to be followed nation wide if the States do it themselves.

        • California and the 9th circuit are their own problems.

          However, California’s issues have nothing to do with the process of getting this bill through Congress.

        • CZ, California did not “ban” handguns. However, there is a microstamping law that has gone into effect (for reasons too tedious to post) that prevent new model semiautomatic handguns from being added to the Roster. Older models are still sold, and revolvers are not effected at all. California is trying to ban the evil black rifle, but so far it has not been very successful at it, because there are too many smarty people inventing work-arounds.

          But speaking about the microstamping law, NSSF sued to invalidate the AG certification that allowed the law to take effect on the basis that compliant technology does not exist. The trial court held that NSSF could proceed with its proof, despite the AG’s persistent contention that the AG’s certification was not subject to judicial review. The trial court and the court of appeal dumped on that theory, and the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court which granted review. The case is fully briefed as of today. I am guessing that oral argument will occur in the spring, with a decision to follow within 90 days.

        • Considering the intent of microstamping I find it hilarious that revolvers, guns that keep the brass contained, are exempted.

          It’s basically an admission that the law is useless.

    • We should make gun control laws harder. Since Democrats love waiting periods, we should instate a mandatory 30 day waiting period between any violent tragedy and any new legislation in regards to said tragedy.

  6. I haven’t chimed in on the bump-fire thing yet, so anyone who’s interested;

    First, I don’t think that any ban or regulation on any weapon is constitutional. However, constitutional or not, there is a social utility in regulating certain weapons. Which ones are a matter of debate. Almost no one would approve of civilian nukes. There’s a fundamental difference in that a nuclear bomb kills indiscriminately whereas a (most) firea rm kills with relative precision. If you’re going to ban or regulate a weapon it should be on the grounds that it produces indiscriminate fire. Indiscriminate fire is a problem because it shows a willingness to harm innocent bystanders. Now I’ve never fired either a bump-stock or a full auto, but I would have to believe that neither produces the precision of a semi-auto rif le, yet much more precision than say a diesel and fertilizer bomb.

    So here’s my proposition for the left; add certain rapid fire adaptations (making sure to specify that trigger upgrades are not included) to the NFA list, take suppressors off the list and allow the manufacture, importation and sale of new fully automatic weapons to qualifying civilians under the current NFA rules. This would insure that ownership of this type of less discriminate fire involves extra scrutiny from our masters in Washington, while establishing a principal most of us could live with as to which type of weapons are banned outright.

    I keep hearing how the other side is so willing to ‘work across the aisle’, etc. so I’ll begin holding my breath right… now.

    • So this is off topic a bit, but I was thinking about how nukes, gas, and bio weapons could factor in to checks and balances on government power. The only thing I could come up with was giving state governments their own mini nuclear arsenal. This makes allot of sense, when you figure a totalitarian federal government would likely use nukes in the event of a popular revolt, or to further force states into submission. Hypothetically speaking, in an alternate universe where Hillary won, we’re all fighting a civil war right now. Let’s say we’re winning and control large swaths of the nation and have set up a new continental congress in a major city… I’m quite certain Hillary wouldn’t think twice about using nukes to level that city and cripple the rebellion. Anyways, Nuclear armed states would be a useful check against the federal nuclear arsenal.

      • God help us all if it comes to that.

        Bear in mind that California and New Jersey are also states, so I’m thinking I’d rather just keep the status quo. As bad as it is having Thedonald in control of the nuclear codes, we don’t need to had them off to Gov. Moonbeam as well.

      • ” Hypothetically speaking, in an alternate universe where Hillary won, we’re all fighting a civil war right now.”

        There’s no hypothetically about it, it is *here*, and now.

        Check out this fascinating article about a Leftist that is actually fantasizing about the fucking French Revolution, executions and all.

        This is some seriously concerning stuff :

        “The Left’s Sirens Are Already Hinting Our Culture Wars Will End In Another Civil War”

        “When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’”

        Tool up, people. We just very well may need to in the not-too-distant future.

        (At the least, we may need to crowdfund a transport-class helicopter for Serge…)

        • Who comes up with this tripe?!? ‘the complete abolition of race as a construct’? What the hell is he talking about? Is he thinking he can bring about forced interbreeding to make us all a single homogenous race? Or is he just planning on gouging everyone’s eyeballs out so no one can tell what race everyone else is? Or is he just spouting out meaningless nonsense?

      • Hey, just do what every “newkulur” armed country did since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed:

        Film badly exposed gasoline bombs on soundstages or blow up huge loads of surplus ordnance, and declare yourselves “Newkulur powers.” (Hint: Newkulur weapons should not produce orange flames or black smoke. No hydrocarbons are burning. And “burning atmosphere” does not produce black smoke.)

        It amuses me to no end that people still worry about weapons that have never been used, never killed anyone, and according to the laws of physics, do not and cannot exist (look up moderators). The German’s realized this in 1942 and dropped nuclear weapons research to focus on their Wirbelwind bomb (coal dust + LOx + solid state plasmoid, making an extremely powerful FAE).

        But 3….2….1…. for the indignant responses telling how their uncle’s father worked at a Newkulur weapon plant, making the casing screws, so they HAVE to exist, and they saw the tests on TV, so they have to be real, and how dare I use logic, reason, and science to refute the scawwy sacwed cow.

        Using the same logic, my uncle worked at the Unicorn plant. He assembled the horns. Ergo, Unicorns exist.

        In a hundred years, those that believed in Newkulur weapons will be laughed at like we laugh at the imbecile flat-earthers now.

        By the way, Bikini Atoll is possibly the best dive site I’ve ever been to. And not a lick of radiation. Just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like Alamogordo.

        But hey, keep believing whatever you want. It’s a (mostly) free country.

        “What’s the difference between Santa Claus and nuclear weapons? Most kids over ten realize Santa Claus is fake.”

        • Huh, never heard of a nuclear weapons denier before.

          Ya know there are a few incontrovertible pieces of evidence of nuclear weapons. For one I’ll point to the Sedan crater in Nevada. Or operation Starfish that lit up Hawaii like fucking Christmas. There have been many thousands of military personnel that have been witnesses to them.

          Are you denying that nuclear electrical power generators don’t exist either? Why exactly isn’t it possible to make that reaction happen in a few microseconds as opposed to a year? You said something about nuclear moderators, um….. why would you put a nuclear moderator in a bomb?

        • “and according to the laws of physics, do not and cannot exist (look up moderators).”

          That’s what the Boron is for in a nuclear weapon, ‘doc’. Google it.

          Yeah, ‘doc’ started spouting this ‘Truther’ crapolola about a week back.

          For some reason, ‘doc’ can’t explain how underground nuclear detonations are recorded on seismographs world-wide *precisely* synchronized as the shockwave has been noted to circle the earth *several times* for the underground megaton-range detonations…

    • Well, Gov, what you’re proposing is a “compromise”: we give up a near-useless doodad and we get more freedom elsewhere… But we’re not hearing that anywhere except here…
      Oh, and we need to add National Reciprocity as a rider to a bump stock ban too – let them choke on that.

      • I’d gladly trade national reciprocity for either suppressors or full autos, but I’m hoping that the SCOTUS will eventually do that for us. I don’t see SCOTUS overturning the FOPA.

        I’d be happy to compromise if the other side wasn’t so uncompromising.

        • “I don’t see SCOTUS overturning the FOPA.”

          If they *did*, that’s grounds for Civil War 2, ‘Electric Boogaloo’, as far as I’m concerned.

          Then again, it would be open season on the automakers for drunk driving crashes.

          The lawyers would *love* to have a crack at bankrupting them…

        • I’m pretty sure you’re not talking about FOPA. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.” – from googling lawful commerce in arms because I couldn’t remember the name of the act.

        • I should have specified the Hughs Amendment. I don’t see SCOTUS ever overturning the Hughs Amendment.

    • “…there is a social utility in regulating certain weapons. ”


      There isn’t.

      That argument gives credence to the anti-gunners that there are weapons too dangerous to own by mere Citizens. Which means that there is a line to be drawn and they, of course, want to be the one to draw that line. And move that line anywhere they want whenever they want and I can guarantee you that every time they move the line our rights will be smaller and smaller and smaller.

      • First off, I’ll admit I’m sniffing unicorn farts here. But, my proposal creates a principal for which weapons can be regulated, the level of discrimination of fire. As it is we have regulation based on whatever the hell the politicians feel like imposing on our sorry asses. If you built a double barreled .410 shotgun that fired both barrels with one pull of the single trigger it would be classified as a machine gun, but a bump-fire stock is off limit to regulation. This is law without principal. I’m just suggesting principal behind our laws.

        Granted the other side will not be satisfied with this compromise, and neither should our side. If this proposal gained traction and became the law, I’d still push for national reciprocity, so I’m not really compromising either. Just picking my battles. Anyway, the other side is far too uncompromising to let any sort of principal encroach into their rule by fiat, so this is really just an exercise in mental masturbation. Still, it wouldn’t hurt making the offer.

        • There’s a whole mess of brain ‘baitin goin’ on, because ballistic ‘baitin. And there’s always those on both sides insisting that any ‘baitin is bad.

          History is replete with killjoys ruining fun for everyone by legislating morality….
          usually prefaced by “compromise” & “for the greater good”.

          But with any kind of ‘baitin, it’s best when solitary (or mutually with the right company); the problem only being when some nutbag’s ‘baitin goes public. Yet neither side has learned the futility in trying to stop others’ private ‘baitin permanently.

        • @ anaxis – Speaking of compromise, did anyone notice when Pelosi said banning bump fire stocks was a compromise because they wanted to do more than that. That’s like calling the passage of the SHARE Act, SAGA (Second Amendment Guarantee Act), and the House version of the reciprocity act a compromise because it leaves any/all other state and federal gun control in place.

          Nancy Pelosi is a [insert appropriate insult].

        • “But, my proposal creates a principal for which weapons can be regulated, the level of discrimination of fire.”

          During the revolutionary war, cannons were in private hands.
          Cannons fired grapeshot (very large buckshot rounds).
          They were the indiscriminate fire weapons of the day, and they were legal to own and use (“…keep and bear…”) when the second amendment was written and passed.
          To now promote a test that so obviously goes against the direct wording of that amendment is unconstitutional on its face.

        • Don’t forget canister shot, Bill.

          Anyway, as I pointed out, ‘First, I don’t think that any ban or regulation on any weapon is constitutional.’ But pouting about the Constitution didn’t stop the NFA or the GCA or the Hughs Amendment now did it? It didn’t stop DC from imposing a total ban on handguns. It didn’t stop ‘may issue’ carry permits. The other side wipes their ass with the Constitution. And not just the 2nd Amendment, they despise the whole thing.

        • “It didn’t stop DC from imposing a total ban on handguns.” It did eventually. “It didn’t stop ‘may issue’ carry permits.” It has in the 7th Circuit and DC.

          As to the rest, we have to keep pushing. The SC is the slipperiest slope of them all. The decision that led directly to Roe v. Wade specifically said it didn’t mean that abortions were a constitutional right. Anytime the court finds a new right and declares that it doesn’t mean x, I assume that it will mean x in a decade or so. Heller might be different because it was a conservative talking about a right they found explicitly stated in the Constitution.

    • I’m sad to report that at approximately 20:45 on October 11, 2017 Gov. William J Le Petomane died of asphyxiation.

  7. Re: the 1st article:

    Dude, of all you really care about is to have someone dominate you, you can actually hire someone to do that in the privacy of your own home. They’ll make you get rid of your guns, stomp your nether regions with stilletto heels, whatever floats your boat.

    Now, stop parading your weirdness around in public, you’re creeping everybody out.

  8. “The Wynns have long banned guns from their casinos and resorts.”

    Good to know, since the last time I stayed at The Encore, I can assure you and Steve Wynn that I was packing.

    I was also carrying at the Mirage, the Aria, the Vdara, the Rio (my fave), the Venetian, the Palazzo, THE Hotel at Mandalay Bay and the Golden Nugget. I’m sure I left out a hotel or three.

    Until 2016, I had a Nevada CCW. Now I don’t need one, since Nevada recognizes my MA LTC. How great is that!

    • I’m glad someone brought the hotel GFZ up. I could be out of my mind, but I seem to remember some federal law making banning guns from hotels, apartment ans other sorts of accommodation unlawful. Am I nuts, or is this a thing?

  9. “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to protect our rights. One must be willing to kill for them, too.” That time is fast approaching.

  10. Yeah..I’m gonna call BS on this “gun owner”. I’m so tired of the same propaganda the antigun crowd puts out. It’s such an obious tactic “Hey, write the paper and tell them you are a gun owner, hunter, pro 2nd Amendment guy who just wants some common sense laws”.

    Thing is…what they don’t realize is that with a quick 5 minutes on GOOGLE it’s really not hard to dig up info on people and see that they are probably not who they say they are.

    This guy makes it sound likes he’s the average Joe…hunter…..really big into guns(Hey, I own a bunch of them..even an AR15!). Maybe…but the first thing that stands out on my BS meter is him talking about his AR.
    He’s calls the magazine a “clip”….and even worse a “20 round cip”…….20? Wasn’t that the standard back in like 1980? I’m pretty sure if this young guy bought any AR it either came with a 30 rounder or that’s what he bought(again..if he REALLy even has one). I know a ton of shooters…and can’t name ONE who I’ve ever seen shoot with or said they purchased or bought a 20 round “clip”.

    So once your BS meter starts going off you just need to pull up google. a simple search on that “gun owner” [email protected] and you’ll find he’s an attorney in Texas.!

    Well..he’s been an attorney for a grand total of one year…actually just graduated from college in 2013. So he’s what….maybe 26 years old? So hardly a man of the world. And yeah…since he’s an attorney I’m wondering if he ever even took a Constitutional law class since he obviosly doesn’t care about the 2nd Amendment….nor the govt having the “right” to just ban whatever it wants and make millions of law abiding people criminals…..or creating registration lists for excercising a Constitutional right.

    He grew up in Chicago….so you’ll excuse me from doubting he had a lot of pro gun experience while there….or grew up in any type of gun culture.

    Coached a LaCrosse team….LaCrosse…huh..that’s pretty much a rich white kid sport. Not something your average Joe does.

    Sits on the board of his homeowners assocation. Odd that a 26 yr old would be sitting on any homeowners board…..when I was that age I had a lot of other things I was doing….BUT might make sense….Let’s see….lawyer, sits on the board of the homeowners assoc, and writes solidly liberal antigun articles…almost sounds like a guy thinking about a career in politics? Maybe building a resume to run for city council…then State Rep…then who knows. Kinda like every other scumbag lawyer in Washington DC.

    Odd too…having a nice $400k home on 10 acres…..pretty good for a guy who’s only been working for a year.

    Oh…and I’m sorry….but this kinda makes me think also he’s not that big of a gun guy….or really a Guy at all(at least not a Texan Guy)
    Michael Foreman February 11, 2017 at 11:23 am – Reply

    Congrats on passing the exam! I appreciate you taking the time to post this. It was extremely helpful and somewhat puts my mind at ease. I am taking the level one exam in March. I have been studying but will continue to study up until the exam. I know you may be tired of hearing this request, but could you also send me the spreadsheet you’ve developed? My email is [email protected]. That would be a huge help. Thanks again for this post and good luck on your future journey!

    Finally…from his Twitter feed I’ll fairly confident he’s a progessive Democrat(certainly not an avid hunter/shooter or Conservative Republican)….lot’s of Trump and Republican bashing.

    So yeah….call me crazy but I’m not taking any stock in the 2nd Amendment opinions of 26 yr old ambulance chasing Lawyer progressive democrat wanna be sommelier.

    It’d been nice if the author just had the balls to come out and say “I hate guns and want them banned” instead of this propaganda.

    • The only reason I could see for having a 20 round magazine is if that is your states arbitrary limit. As for calling them clips, I know quite a few people with large gun collections who do that. In fact, it wasn’t until I started reading TTAG that I learned that was not the correct term.
      I totally agree with your assessment of this guy, and good work looking him up. Sounds like he’s rolling along on family money and looking for a seat in politics.

    • Hey! I have a shitpot of 20-round mags, find the gun easier to handle and fire, 20-rd mags fit into bandoleers, and 20 is plenty, particularly without select fire. Besides, that was all I had in Vietnam, was kinda used to them. OTOH, I have adequate supply of 30-rd, as well.

    • A couple of points.

      First, I’m a gun owner, hunter, pro 2nd Amendment guy who just wants some common sense laws. A couple of things any rational person who has a basic understanding of the issue, believes in the rule of law, and doesn’t let emotional responses rule them will agree on. Those common sense gun laws are the SHARE Act, SAGA (Second Amendment Guarantee Act), and the House version of the reciprocity act.

      Second, I’ve never been in a con law class that even mentioned the 2A, but hey, maybe I’m just too old, and they teach these new landmark cases now.

  11. “Put me on a registration list or ban my AR-15. Force me to wait three days before I pick up the next gun I buy, or conduct a more thorough background check. Tell me I can’t own a 20-round clip for my AR-15. I don’t care what you do. But please do something. …”

    At the end of each sentence, insert the word “Daddy”.

  12. Steve Wynn has lost his mind. I’ve had firearms at both the Wynn and the Encore, as have literally thousands of others. His properties have the same percentage of people who carry as other casinos, which is a pretty high percentage.
    It’s rare at any higher end casino in Vegas that you can’t see at least two people at any time who you know are carrying. For every one you see, there must be a dozen more where you can’t tell. There are hundreds of people carrying in his casinos at any given moment. Plus, there are even more that have a gun in the safe in their room.

  13. “F WA, especially Spokane, the only thing Spokane cops need to suppress are their Fing communist urges, and voting (D)”.

    “the time for discussion has long passed.” You bet your ass. Long passed.

    Everything coming out of D.C. gets an FU. All you aholes are just wasting your time.

    We’ve given up on the communist (D) and our POS AHOLE NEIGHBORS WHO NEEDED A JOB from stopping their BS tyrannical infringement.

  14. You know how, when there’s a notable crime, or a terrorist act, the aholes-in-charge all spout off with “_______ was ‘on our radar’; or __________ was being tracked; or we had a file on___________” Well that’s how stupid, worthless, and ineffective you sound every Fing day, and our founding fathers ARMED US AGAINST YOU.

  15. I think single shot rifles would probably make a better marksman then a semi auto, so if the anti constitutionalist get what they will let gun owners have, then the ban just made better shots out of gun users. A silver lining in every cloud, and a 1500 yrd shit storm for others

  16. So it’s cool for experts and statistics to say men kill each other more than women.
    Is it also cool to use experts and statistics to say blacks kill each other magnitudes more than whites?
    Didn’t think so.

  17. from the article that is pro-gun:

    “South African “comedian” Trevor Noah of “The Daily Show” went even further. He said he’d “never been to a country where people are as afraid to speak about guns.” He said that … on national TV, to every American who tuned in.”

    Trevor Noah is correct, just not the way he thinks. Gun owners concerned about nosy neighbors, censorious scolds, and overbearing authorities are hesitant to publicly broach the subject of firearms. Hence why I almost always lie to my neighbors, coworkers, and other acquaintances when they inquire about my personal perspective on and possession of firearms.

  18. Talk about stupid & useless laws. NJ allows the purchase of bump stocks but it is a felony to attach it to the firearm. So, now they’ll ban them. More “feel good” legislation.

  19. People are still missing the obvious: Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

    Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

    • Most federal overreach is done through the Commerce Clause and the Tax and Spend Clause. I agree it’s overreach. Now go violate these statutes, tell that to the judge, and see what happens.

  20. Hasn’t anyone heard? In fact, Eugene Stoner did not invent the first AR 15. Al Gore invented is before devoting his time to the invention now known as the internet. LOL

  21. Michael Foreman….The picture at the top of the page. My wife taught me a word for that in German:
    “A face that needs to be slapped”

  22. people need to understand where the disarmament of the population originates from. all these laws come from the same agenda that is flooding all nations with illegal immigrants,radical Muslims and so-called refugees from Africa. any politicians or law makers are sell outs of their country. they are bought and paid for by the EU. The universal background check is the EU agenda. the EU WANTS AND IS GETTING TOTAL DISARMAMENT DONE. Look at South Africa, England, Australia. If the EU gets what it wants with Gun control, the only people that will be armed are terrorists, tyrants and criminals. we ,the NRA Should join the Visegrad group because they are the only nations fighting the EU.

  23. I’ve been attending the SHOT Show since 1982, most often in Las Vegas. This past year, there were 67,000 attendees, many being law enforcement or military personnel, and many were armed. I’ve never felt safer in my life. Ditto for the NRA Annual Meeting and even local gun shows.

  24. On: “Put me on a registration list or ban my AR-15. ”

    Having guns does not make one’s willingness to have them taken a good argument.

    I would like to repeat the fact that there are plenty of people who are scared of guns, who don’t believe in personally using them for self defense, who would never hunt, but who are steadfastly against restrictions of civilian gun restrictions. (I am not one of those people.)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here