Vox Provides a Helpful Primer on Firearms, Ammunition and Such for Their Gun-Grabbing Readers

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com

The anti-gun left and their stenographers in the media know less about guns and the laws that regulate them in this country than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows about astrophysics.

Now the Voxen have taken it upon themselves to educate their friends in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex in hopes that they won’t embarrass themselves quite so often in the rhetorical gun control wars to come.

Gun control supporters are getting more ambitious in their rhetoric; presidential candidate and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke told a reporter that under his plan, if you own an AK-47 or AR-15, “you’ll have to sell them to the government.” That promises new debates about banning “assault weapons,” and with them discussions about what an “assault weapon” even is.

New attempts at gun control often prompt a specific frustration among gun rights supporters: that their opponents in this debate just don’t get how guns work.

They think it’s ridiculous that former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who lost her husband in a mass shooting in 1993 and became a vocal advocate for gun regulation, didn’t know what a barrel shroud was, despite wanting to ban them. They rolled their eyes when then-California state Sen. Kevin de León described a gun as having a “30-caliber clip” when he meant a 30-round magazine, and when Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) appeared to believe that gun magazines can’t be reloaded.

If these are the people who want to restrict guns, firearms advocates argue, why in the world should we trust them?

I don’t totally buy this argument — for instance, I think you can have an opinion on the death penalty without knowing exactly how lethal injections work — but I understand the frustration behind it.

– Dylan Matthews in Caliber, cartridges, and bump stocks: guns, explained for non-gun people

guns.com thousands of new and used guns at great prices


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

    How it will happen is this –

    They will push for an outright ban, but settle for mandatory registration.

    That’s their idea of ‘compromise’…

    1. avatar The Montana Banana says:

      Usually, the concept of “compromise” entails both sides getting something–a somewhat desired gain–lessened by the compromise.

      So far, their “compromises” have only been losses on our end. I fail to see how it’s a “compromise” when we don’t get anything in return, just wind up losing less than they pushed for initially.

      Robber: Give me all your money or I’ll kill you!
      Victim: No!! But I worked so hard for this money!
      Robber: OK, let’s compromise, give me 80% of your money and I shoot you in the leg!
      Victim: Fine, that’s better than the first option, I guess.

      1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

        “Usually, the concept of “compromise” entails both sides getting something”

        Not when dealing with either a liberal or a woman.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        Man… you must be single.

        Compromise is a one way street.

    2. avatar Joe says:

      Well my demand is that 100% of the socialistic demorats will be kicked out of the country. I am fine with settling at 50% and then I will run the same demand 10 more times and we got a clean country.

    3. avatar Jimmy says:

      I like the ear plugs,, for rubber bullets

    4. avatar ORCON says:

      Can somebody post The LawDog comic? Pleeeeaaaaase? *makes anime eyes*

  2. avatar bryan1980 says:

    What state is that guy from? I don’t remember having to pass a background check the last time I bought Sudafed.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      When I visited Oregon, a store clerk informed me of their state law requiring them to see my ID and take my personal information if I wanted to buy more than one Sudafed or Nyquil at a time. Something to do with meth production. So yes, unfortunately this kind of this really is happening.

      I ended up passing on the Nyquil.

      1. avatar ScottMc says:

        That’s not uncommon. West Virginia requires positive identification and some paperwork too. We had a big meth lab problem until the Mexican cartels took over the business. I doubt falsifying the paperwork is a Federal felony.

        I wrote off Sudafed when an apparently generally healthy friend about my age (65 at that point) with a bad cold or flu took one that was generally accepted to have caused a stroke. Ultimately he survived, but not without a lot of rehabilitation and he was forced to retire. At that point I took the Sudafeds I had left to drug disposal and will not buy more in the future.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      It is more difficult to buy any firearm legally than to buy cold medicines. But it has become a tiny bit more involved on the cold meds too because of the meth problem.

      So these people claiming it is so easy to buy an AR-15 are simply assuming their imaginary fears about how easy it is to buy a gun are in fact true. Once they have that falsehood firmly in their heads, the next step is to make the exaggeration about cold meds.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Which would be more difficult? Getting someone to buy some cold medicine for you or talking someone into buying a gun for you that you can’t legally own? These people come up with the dumbest arguments, even when they’re trying to point out dumb comments on their side of the argument.

    3. avatar Wedge259 says:

      I wouldn’t call it a “background” check, but here in Kansas it is also logged by the state with your ID everytime you buy pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient in Sudafed). My understanding is that there’s a limit to how much you can buy a month, but I don’t know what that is. I used to take it semi regularly because of regular sinus headaches, and it was the only thing that would clear it up. I have to at least give credit for ingenuity to the meth heads though. On top of pseudoephedrine, at least here in Kansas some stores are locking up their immodium because it’s also being used in meth production somehow. This is a great annoyance to my brother who has some kind of chronic bowel condition. And then, when I worked in pharmaceuticals, I was a controlled drug agent that allowed me to supervise the custody of controlled drugs, as well as having access to the locked safe that we kept them in. Well we had to keep our pure iodine locked up in that safe for the same reason, somehow the meth heads had found a way to use it in production.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Friggin’ meth heads screw up everything.

      2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Basically the same here in Pennsylvania. It is all behind the counter in the pharmacy. They take your ID and submit your purchase data to a statewide database so you can’t spread purchasing a large amount into a lot of small purchases at different places.

        Apparently prohibition never works.

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Ingenuity and desperation to get high on something made from cough medicine, cleaning products, and the lithium strip from a battery. My life may suck at times but I’m not that desperate to escape.

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

        “…here in Kansas some stores are locking up their immodium because it’s also being used in meth production somehow.”

        Synthetic opiate painkillers, actually.

        Immodium works on your gut the same way that opiates can constipate you…

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    Vox is a terrorist organization.

    1. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

      Vox is the enemy, and the enemy does not get negotiated with, it gets eradicated…..

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Spreading propaganda to affect political change. Encouraging violence against the police and political opposition. CNN literally fits this profile.

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      Please stop. A terrorist organization is a non-state[1] actor that perpetrates[2] violence[3] against civilian targets, to further political ends.

      [1] They have to put that in there just to prevent most any government failing under the definition of a terrorist organization, but I digress…

      [2] Perpetrates, not “encourages”. What does it mean to “encourage” violence? If I point out specific facts that show somebody is a horrible person, have I “encouraged” less stable members of society to act violently against them? Far too slippery a concept for a definition of terrorism.

      [3] Violence. Not propaganda. Organizations that use propaganda for political ends are just political organizations. No, words that you disagree with aren’t violence.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        When they provide material support in the form of propaganda for left wing terrorists, they become a part of a criminal conspiracy.

      2. avatar Hank says:

        Well you essentially just defined the left in general as a terrorist organization…

      3. avatar Dude says:

        The San Francisco Board said the NRA was a terror org because they spread propaganda. I’m not saying they’re correct, but by their made up definition, if the NRA is a domestic terrorist org, then CNN would have to be one. Like just about every left wing position these days, it sounds absurd because it is.

    4. avatar Hank says:

      What’s funny about Vox is it’s a liberal rag… however Vox was a fascist organization in fascist Spain.

    5. avatar pwrserge says:

      Didn’t I tell you to go fuck yourself with a power drill?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        “honey”…having sex with tools…..get help you sexually confused commie.

  4. avatar million says:

    this is way too dry for gun grabbers to absorb. if he had heavily salted it with dead children, then maybe the scolds would retain some of it.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Yes, you have to take into consideration the short attention span of the typical leftist. This I think is the predominant reason why they know next to nothing about anything they opine, be it gun control, abortion, anthropogenic global warming, taxation, etc. There’s only so much science and knowledge a human brain can absorb about a topic in 30 seconds or less.

      1. avatar Rocketman says:

        Whoever confirmed that the socialist brains were human? I’m think part rat, part weasel and part chicken.

        1. avatar daveinwyo says:

          That’s 3 out of 4. You missed one of the most important parts; stupid.

    2. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      Yep, the facts in the article don’t match their spew. Most won’t make it through the ammunition section.

      1. avatar million says:

        He saved the double- vs single-action til the very end to finish off any Shrieking Harpies Demanding Action still standing.

    3. avatar Herb Allen says:

      “the scolds”

      That’s an excellent term for gungrabbers. Originally applied to the execrable Elizabeth Warren, but works very well here, too.

      It’s not about safety, it’s about confiscation and people control.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        It’s always about control. The outcome of the revolution.

        For those who have never read this.


        You do realize some American Citizens will shoot back.

    4. avatar GunnyGene says:

      If you think that’s too dry, try to explain internal, external, and terminal ballistics at extreme long ranges to them. Or modern optics that help you make that head shot at 1 mile plus.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Headshot at 1 mile”

        That right there is a big part of the problem.

        You don’t make Headshots with target shooting, or hunting, or defending your life or home.
        Why POTG keep focusing on killing people affectively with their guns is beyond me.

        All that does is justify the anti-gunners desire to ban weapons because POTG exhibit bloodthirsty behavior totally unrelated to the sport aspect of shooting.

        Thanks a lot, statements like that are very effective in promoting their anti-gun agenda.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          It will probably always be beyond you, and I’m not inclined to attempt to explain it to you.

        2. avatar Jon says:

          “Why POTG keep focusing on killing people affectively with their guns is beyond me”

          As opposed to killing them ineffectively with something other than guns…?
          I’m confused too because the alternatives are far more painful and messy.

        3. avatar Jim Bullockj [email protected] says:

          The point of defensive gun use is to stop an attack that’s gonna kill you, when that’s your last option other than just die cooperatively … circumstances so dire, the risk that the assailant might end up dead is the *lesser* evil.

          The anti-people object to each part of that: It isn’t your business to protect yourself, decide you need protecting, or wield the power to do so. Also, you’re not worth it were the choice up to them.

          Your life isn’t worth more than someone else thugging on you — indeed, it isn’t your life.

          In the end, you may not impact other people: they own it all — shooting someone to stay alive youself is unauthorized, thus verboten.

        4. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not hunting, sport shooting, or defending your life or home. It was defense against tyranny. In defense against tyranny headshots at > 1 mile are indeed important.

          When you try to limit the right to own weapons to things like hunting, sporting, or defense against criminals you dismiss all other reasons for that right and by doing so you give them excuses to limit our rights piece by small piece to those specific things you list. So a sarcastic thanks to you too.

          Also, we want them to be well aware of the danger posed by POTG so they will leave us the hell alone.

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

          “All that does is justify the anti-gunners desire to ban weapons because POTG exhibit bloodthirsty behavior totally unrelated to the sport aspect of shooting.”

          Long-distance target shooting is training for 1-mile head shots.

          Do you know what the Military calls a scoped, bolt-action single-shot rifle?

          A sniper rifle capable of making one-mile distance shots…

  5. avatar A says:

    The Vox author thanks Massad Ayoob at the end of the article for his (among others) help. I would hope that anyone who has had the privilege of sitting with Mr. Ayoob for any length of time, especially one on one, would come away with a much more level headed understanding of the matter.
    Overall not a terrible article.

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

      “Thanks to Lois Beckett, Alex Yablon, and especially Massad Ayoob for their help researching and fact-checking this piece. All errors and opinions are my own.”

      Yeah, thanks, Mas, for fucking us over like that…

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Or…perhaps Ayoob reviewed the piece and (fortunately for POTG) made a crap ton of red ink corrections all over it. Otherwise it would have been worse.

        1. avatar A says:

          This. but when I tried to write it earlier the webs wouldnt let me

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        How’s ‘ol Ruthie doing today, Geoff?

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

          Doing a very extended “circling of the drain”.

          I’m encouraging her to pick up the pace…

    2. avatar napresto says:

      Yeah, I agree, not such a terrible article if you read it all the way (I did). The first section on flintlocks is kind of a mess though: “the bullet would bounce around in the barrel, causing it to fly off in a random direction.” Har har. I also like “cocked and blocked” instead of “cocked and locked” later on. Maybe this is a regional term that I just have never heard before?

      Anyway, I was surprised that the article was mostly pretty straightforward and covered the basics reasonably well (there is a lot of room to nitpick over some of the broader generalizations, but the author is obviously trying to simplify things for his readers). I agree with the comments above that very few Vox readers will take anything sensible away from this, as it is a bit technical, clearly demonstrates that gun control efforts are based on fear, emotion, and cosmetics and largely don’t work, and is rather short on dead children for their tastes…

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Maybe “cocked and blocked” is referring to a thumb break when used with a cocked and locked 1911 (but I doubt they are that smart).

  6. avatar Rocketman says:

    Full gun registration. A number of years ago another politician proposed the same thing in his country.
    “This year will go down in history.” “For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration.” “Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future.” That politician was none other than Adolph Hitler and we all know how that turned out now don’t we?

    1. avatar Herb Allen says:

      What Adolf Hitler achieved was attempted in 1968 by the evil Lyndon B. Johnson. Yeah, GCA-68 was passed and we’ve had to live with it ever since with 4473s, FFLs, import bans, etc.

      But it’s nowhere near what LBJ wanted, which was national registration of all firearms and Federal licensing of all owners. As he signed it into law with his usual multiple ink pens, Johnson was fuming with rage that it didn’t go far enough.

      Not even with the assassinations of RFK and MLK as political ammunition. Google his remarks; this was his parting shot to gun owners as he left office without even running for reelection.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Having an opinion on the morality of the death penalty is different than having an opinion on how it works. I wouldn’t ask someone from Vox about what chemicals or procedures to use in most cases either.

  8. avatar jwtaylor says:

    For those of you interested in reading the Vox article on how guns work, don’t bother. It gets it wrong immediately. And I mean immediately, in the description of the performance of muskets.
    It also tells us that rifling didn’t become common until the 1850s. For those of you who don’t know, Rifles made up about half of the Small Arms used in the American Revolution. My Flintlock 50, made sometime between 1790 and 1820, is rifled. And quite accurate.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      All true, but to be fair, it improves somewhat after that. Not perfect, but those sections you point out are easily the very worst and most wrong. They are also badly written and quite confusing compared to the rest.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      From what my understanding was they took an accuracy hit to increase rate of fire by going with smooth bores instead of rifled muskets. Feel free to correct if wrong.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        I’m not a black powder guy (yet?), but the gist as I understand is: smooth bore muskets are, indeed, less accurate. This is not because the shot rattles around in the barrel (lol) but because it picks up no twist from rifling and is therefore not as aerodynamically stabilized in flight. Smooth bore muskets are still pretty accurate out to moderate ranges (something like 100yrds) but the shot tends to veer fairly early in flight, making them less accurate at longer ranges. Because the guns of this period were muzzle loaded, the powder and shot were rammed down the full length of the barrel. It is a lot easier to do this with a smooth barrel than a rifled one, so yes, smooth bores were quicker and easier to load. As with all things military, there were undoubtedly trade-offs to consider in terms of performance, accuracy, and also the expense of producing rifled vs. smooth barrels.

        Like I said, not a black powder guy, so there are certainly folks in here who must have more knowledge and can correct me as needed.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Your description is accurate. The Brown Bess, the primary arm of the British Army, was not rifled, but instead a smooth bore musket, and for the reason that it was easier to reload during battle. Formations were shoulder to shoulder, several ranks deep, a practice that continued through the Civil War. The object was massed firepower in a volley, where accuracy was of less importance, since they were shooting at a similar massed formations. I suspect that life expectancy in the front ranks was very short, especially when struck with a .57 to .65 caliber musket ball.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        You are not wrong at all, but it is a little more complicated. If we are talking about just loading one round, then there’s no real difference in a smoothbore versus a rifle barrel, especially if the muzzle is funneled.
        However, after the second or third shot, things change dramatically, where the rifled barrel is much more difficult to reload and where a barrel swabbing really helps.
        It is also important to note that the potential accuracy of the early smoothbore muskets was much greater than the accuracy you typically saw on the line. That is because the ball was not perfectly matched to the bore, which, given the manufacturing capabilities of the time, would vary. In short, the mass-produced standard ball, patch, lube, and charge issued to the troop was rarely the best combination for that particular gun.
        Those same guns, in the hands of a militiaman, could actually be far more accurate, as those men could take the time to get the right patch and ball combination for a ball that was snug in the bore.
        For instance, I have a 20 gauge smooth bore flintlock rifle. The only thing that makes it a rifle is the stock geometry and did it has sights. I can put that big, heavy ball into a 10 inch circle at a hundred yards all day long. And often much better. That is no different than the colonial times, and before.

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      The whole SA, DA, DA/SA section is messed up too. SA pistols are different because they need to be “racked,” DA/SA ones can be carried “cocked and blocked,” etc.
      I used to like M.A. when I first got onto guns and didn’t know anything. I don’t blame him for the errors in an article he didn’t write. I found out long ago that he was clown shoes — using articles to promote products he had an undisclosed financial interest in, overselling his credentials as a volunteer officer in a tiny department in an essentially crime-free small town, pushing opinions contrary to facts (158 gr +P .38 special = amazing, 147 gr 9mm= worthless when they are almost identical ballistically). The only thing I find from him to be reputable are the “Ayoob Files” where he related other people’s gunfight experiences, and even then not entirely accurate. He’s the Wayne LaPierre of gun writers – seems credible and has a good rep until you look behind the curtain.

  9. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

    The entirety of the left is the enemy. They deserve no peace or quarter.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      They will find none.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    So Mas Ayoob helped you?!? I always thought he was mostly a cop loving fudd😫

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      You forgot to mention how Mas A always goes for the paycheck, regardless of source.
      This makes him WORSE then a fudd, and MUCH more dangerous.

  11. avatar Rokurota says:

    But it’s also common to carry double/single-action semiautomatic pistols in “cocked and blocked” mode

    If that isn’t a Freudian slip, I don’t know what is!

  12. avatar daveinwyo says:

    To TTAG. Is it possible to have up/down checks? I don’t ALWAYS feel the need to respond on an agree/disagree.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      I find the lack of the up/down feature odd.
      We could weed out the trolls in no time with this feature.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Exact opposite is true, especially in a forum like this where do don’t have to register.

    2. We’d like to provide that, too. We’ve looked into that in the past.

      But it’s not part of the commenting system we use and, from what I understand, adding it would be a significant job and slow screen load times. Or so I’ve been told.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        And on sites heavily trolled, the likes/dislikes are easily abused by special interests.

        1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Good point PG2 I never thought of that but its true.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          I never think of this and I never thought of that and I never think of anything at all mostly I am like one of those talking dolls where you pull the string and the same thing comes out over and over and over again.

      2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        (OMG I can’t believe I’m about to say this, Dan…)

        I agree with Pg2 and Vlad on this. At least, the Vlad that posted above. Disregard the other voices in his head shown elsewhere in this comment forum.

      3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        I never think of much of anything except how to steal credit for other peoples work.

  13. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Quote—————— They rolled their eyes when then-California state Sen. Kevin de León described a gun as having a “30-caliber clip” when he meant a 30-round magazine, and when Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) appeared to believe that gun magazines can’t be reloaded.—————–quote

    Actually Kevin de Leon was correct. The terms Magazine and Clip have been interchangeable since at least 1911 and probably way before that. U.S. training manuals that were issued with the 1911 pistol stated the feeding device was a “7 round clip” not a 7 round magazine.

    This controversy some years ago became so heated that the NRA finally stepped in and set the record straight.

    I might add that in modern times most people call a 30 round feeding device a 30 round clip and use the term “magazine” to describe a fixed feeding device such as is often found on a pump action shotgun or a tubular feeding .22 rimfire or a fixed magazine on a bolt action military rifle. Every weapon mentioned has variations that may feed from a detachable clip. And of course there are stripper clips as well to further confuse and stoke the inferno for the far right ridged dogmatic traditionalists (at least that is what they think they are). I once worked in a gun store part time just for fun and believe me nine out of ten people asked me for a 30 round “clip” not a 30 round magazine.

    Me, I call any detachable feeding device a clip. I always have and always will.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      And that’s why you’re stupid.

      1. avatar And Jesus wept says:

        Can I buy you a beer Guesty? That comment was brilliant.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          I’ll have a glass of wine tonight with the wife for dinner and thank you for it. Wine was, after all, Jesus’ first public miracle.

          Beer and ale will be saved for Saturday after the yard chores are done. 🙂

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        I always blame the glue in the paper sack.

    2. Yes, you’re quite right in pointing this out. A good counterexample for most of you clip vs magazine obsessives is what George Patton called “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” the M1 Garand. The M1 uses 8-round en bloc clips to load the rifle’s internal magazine.

      You might even call it a .30 caliber clip. .30-06 to be specific.

    3. avatar Mad Max says:

      I call standard capacity magazines for my AR-15 as Pmags.

      I call the rest standard capacity magazines or mags.

      I refer to the steel spring thingy (and it does go up when it’s empty) for my M1 Garand as an Enbloc Clip.

      I use stripper clips to insert cartridges into the fixed magazine in my 1917 Eddystone.

  14. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    Well, I went and read it. The problem for the gun ban fan author is the average lefty gun banner has a much smaller attention span and a lower level of intelligence than average. Though to be fair this is generally true of all Democrats and since that’s the source they draw their support from…

    1. avatar Dave G. says:

      @Rusty – Molon Labe – Chains:
      “The problem for the gun ban fan author is the average lefty gun banner has a much smaller attention span and a lower level of intelligence than average. Though to be fair this is generally true of all Democrats and since that’s the source they draw their support from…”
      I’m sorry, Rusty, but I just can’t let this one pass. Generalizations like this just aren’t true, and if you believe what you wrote here, you are underestimating the abilities of your enemy/adversary. Maybe some anti-gunner true believers are stupid, but not all of them and maybe not most of them. If we (you and I) underestimate them and dismiss them as stupid, they’re going to eat our lunch.

  15. avatar NORDNEG says:

    I agree, I’m special & interesting,
    Sometimes I like that,
    & sometimes I dislike that also…
    But every time I hear the word troll I want to go phishing.🎣

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    There may actually be a law on the books that bans any kind of registration, the Requisitioning of Property for National Defense Act of October 1941 at the end of section 1 where it reads; Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed- (1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport( and possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), and here’s a goodie that will make current Democrats choke because Congress recognized the 2nd, (2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms,or..(3) which has nothing to do with firearms. People were paid for the property and if they wanted it back they could get it at fair value thereof, be returned to the owner no later than December 31, 1943, which means the Act was self-limiting and did not require repealing keeping (1) and (2) on the active books.

  17. avatar Timothy says:

    Yes there were details he got wrong. But I quite enjoyed that he didn’t once, much less every paragraph, say how gun owners had small d1cks or wanted to murder babies or called the NRA a terrorist organization. This article had far information in it than the typical gun grabber has. It’s quite possibly the best written Vox article I have ever read.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      The best way to use an article like this is to memorize and use the phrase, “even Vox acknowledges that…” when talking to lefties about guns, gun control, etc.

  18. avatar cg123m says:

    Honestly, for a site like Vox, this was an extremely fair, if not supportive article regarding guns and 2A. While the author expressed his views in the opener, he had no qualms about admitting the inefficacy of most proposed gun control actions. He outright admits that assault weapon bans, magazine capacity bans, etc have been researched and proven to have little or no effect on gun crime.

  19. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventrilouquist's Dummy says:

    Ever notice that the antis never talk about “former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who lost her husband in a mass shooting in 1993 and became a vocal advocate for gun regulation,” or her son, ‘Vegetable Lasagna” who survived the attack?

    There is a reason for that, it’s because the LIRR (Long Island Railroad) shooter, Colin Ferguson, was Black, an “illegal alien” (came here on a student visa/never went to school a violation/when his visa expired he stayed), and worst of all a RABID “RACIST” and “anti-Semite”, police found his apartment was filled with hundreds of the old style composition books filled with anti-White/anti-Semitic scribblings. He is the perfect candidate for a cabinet position in any Democrat administration in the 21st Century

  20. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

    As I said earlier, I can’t wait for them to try confiscation… 🙂

    I’m looking forward to the inevitable:

    1) Confrontations where cops die…

    2) 40-120 million firearms remaining on the street – and now illegal, so no background checks required to buy them from any owner who wants or has to sell one…

    3) The black market in smuggled in untraceable firearms – including full auto – which will be available on every street corner that will arise to supply the demand…

    Good times, baby! Just don’t get caught printing through your clothes or firing one in the woods…

  21. avatar Xanderbach says:

    This was posted a few years ago, originally. One of my friends- A NYC native who never knew anything about firearms, posted it and asked if it was valid. I responded “Yes, with a few errors” and pointed them out. Her Far-left “friends” then attacked me, messaging me over and over again with various death threats and frothing at the mouth.

    And that was when I quit Facebook. Recommended!

  22. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Dear Voxen,


    Not one more inch.

    A free citizen who is tired of having his cake taken from him and then being asked to give up more of the cake.

  23. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    It doesn’t matter how long it takes demotards to learn how mechanical devices work, their goal is to ban. They’ll get there little by little; albeit misinformed and ignorant as ever.

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      The ones, the (mostly “urban”) Libs/Progs, that own vehicles, don’t know how or why they operate never-mind how to repair them (it’s why many of their ilk ride bicycles which they can’t maintain either) and we are supposed to expect THEM to comprehend firearm terms and how THOSE particular mechanical devices operate now THAT’S “funny” stuff.

  24. avatar Popeye the Sailor Man says:

    I don’t expect you to be able to wax poetic on the difference between piston driven and direct impingement systems. I don’t expect you to know the difference between .300 Blackout and .300 Win Mag. At least, not unless you bring up points about them specifically in a debate, which frankly, why would you?
    I *do* expect you to have a functional knowledge of what a gun is, what a gun does, how guns are used, what the laws are already surrounding them, to understand the features that you want to ban and why you want to ban them, and to understand that you are responsible for the negative outcomes these laws will effect. We can’t just “do something because guns are scary” without knowing why or considering either the cosequences or our founding values as Americans.
    Unfortunately, I have yet to find someone who’s anti-gun who has a functional understanding of weapons. Or violence. Or human nature, or mission, or war, or the bill of rights, or history. And at that point, you have no place at the debate and you don’t deserve for your opinions to be taken seriously.
    But such is the double-edged sword of free speech and the democratic republic, that we keep having to exlain the obvious to ignorant people lest they wander into a voting booth- because so far, they have not only had the luxury of that voting booth, they haven’t had to put a stop to someone who may try to remove it as so many have.

  25. avatar BusyBeef says:

    I didn’t buy them from the Government, and they’re not for sale in any case.

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