New York Times columnist Joe Nocera jumped on Guns & Ammo-gate lickety-split. Duh. Joe is the Gray Lady’s leading proponent of civilian disarmament, through his own personal context-free zone (Gun Report) and regular editorials. Joe starts this morning’s anti-gun piece When a Gun Advocate Dissents with a simple statement: “It’s not as if Dick Metcalf was some kind of gun control fanatic.” You see what he did there? With one sentence Nocera paints gun rights advocates as intolerant fanatics. The rest of the polemic follows entirely predictable lines, especially this bit . . .
When people like me read an article like that [claiming mandatory training is not a Constitutional infringement], it seems momentarily possible that gun advocates and gun control advocates might be able to find some common ground. Much in the way that many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment — something that hasn’t always been the case — here was a man on the other side of the divide saying that some sensible regulation didn’t necessarily lead down a “slippery slope” to confiscation. If we are ever to have a sane gun policy, we desperately need people from both camps to meet somewhere in the middle.
As I explained to Joe on the ‘phone yesterday (before he wrote this column), there is no middle ground. The right to keep and bear arms in a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment specifically prohibits any government infringement. As in regulation. None.
In the course of our conversation, I asked Joe whether he would be in favor of mandatory training for journalists. “No I wouldn’t.” Then why do you support mandatory training for people exercising their right to keep and bear arms? “C’mon,” Joe said in his collegial sort of way. “There’s a quantitative difference between a newspaper and a gun. A gun kills people.”
And there you have it: the liberal elite’s rationale for regulating firearms. They’re dangerous. No really. Here’s a comment exchange underneath a cnn.com editorial Gun violence is a public health epidemic that called for universal background checks.
vrage UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS TO EXERCISE A RIGHT…..ok, I want a universal background check before people are allowed to vote to ensure they understand how our gov’t works, that they are a citizen in good standing and that they speak/understand American English. I want a universal background on all news agencies to ensure they have NO political bias and report the news events truthfully and factually. I want a universal background check on all persons wanting to exercise any of their US Constitutional RIGHTS . . .
kbtrpm Oh yes, because voting, like speaking English and reading newspapers, is lethal activity. One mistake and somebody dies. One fool and dozens die.
vrage What you fail to understand is whatever you allow the evil dictators in DC do to any one of the US Constitutional RIGHTS, you must be willing to allow them to do the same or similar actions to ALL your US Constitutional RIGHTS as you have allowed them to set the precedent to do so. Get it yet?
I didn’t take that tack with Nocera. I pointed out that knives are dangerous too. That car accidents claim the lives of 40k Americans per year. “That’s why I hate talking to you people,” Joe responded. “The conversation always devolves like this.” “You mean you don’t like it when people start talking about common sense and logic?” I replied.
At that point we both agreed that it would be a good idea to discuss gun control over a beer. Besides, Joe had an anti-gun rights advocates’ column to write.
But when people like me see the reaction from gun advocates to Metcalf’s tame proposal, it all seems hopeless again. Robert Farago, who maintains a blog called The Truth About Guns, started the ball rolling by linking to — and denouncing — Metcalf’s “diatribe.” He went on to describe the article as a “bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.” Other bloggers piled on. On the Guns & Ammo Facebook page, subscribers demanded Metcalf’s head, even as they canceled their subscriptions.
Well, it was. And I explained my reasoning to Mr. Nocera. But Joltin’ Joe had another agenda: taking a baseball bat to the gun control advocates’ bête noire, the NRA.
If you want to understand why so few gun owners are willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association, even though the majority disagree with the N.R.A.’s most extreme positions, here was a vivid example. Straying from the party line leads to vilification and condemnation that would give anybody pause.
Sure. The NRA are a bunch of jack-booted thugs looking to name, shame and defame anyone who goes against the “most extreme positions” of their “party line.”
That said, like all good propaganda, Nocera’s condemnation of the NRA contains a kernel of truth. The gun rights org is antagonistic to those who would compromise on Americans’ Second Amendment protections—in the same sense that the Democratic party has no tolerance for those who oppose income redistribution.
In fact, I wish the NRA was more antagonistic to gun rights waverers within its ranks. NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre’s call for the feds to fix the current FBI background check system before expanding it is the worst kind of appeasement. The NRA should declare itself opposed to background checks as a clear violation of the Second Amendment. Period.
Of course that’s not going to happen. Any more than gun control advocates are going to stop trying to portray themselves as reasonable, rational, open-minded—even as they work to undermine and destroy the right to keep and bear arms.
My guess is that Dick Metcalf always knew what he was in for — all the more reason writing his article took guts. In the aftermath, he was the only one who could still hold his head up high. On a blog called The Outdoor Wire, he wrote a lengthy response to his critics. He didn’t back down one iota. Describing himself as “disappointed” at the reaction to his article, he added, “If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and Internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue…then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause.”
Maybe there’s hope yet.
And maybe there isn’t. But here’s something you can do. Joe said he didn’t include defensive gun uses (DGU) in his Gun Report column because he couldn’t find them. When you see a DGU in the media—a good, “clean” one—click here and send him a link. Nothing else. Just the link. What else is there to say?
I think that the future use of this process will include making 1-off parts for guns that are no longer supported. I see a market for accurate CAD files of parts for old firearms.
well, there goes one more ‘pro-2A’ site, that I will never visit again.
This is actually good: it filters out the astroturf assholes from the real deal.
Fuck Guns.com.
Joe – I am going to make it my mission to publish your HOME ADDRESS and then put signs up around NY indicating that you don’t have a gun and am proudly defenseless.
Wonder how long you will buy into that restriction thingy. . . . .
as for newspapers don’t kill . . . seems to me that Hitler used the press to his advantage too. And so, I guess we can now claim you are anti-Semite, too? Or wait, let’s call you a racist instead. Yeah, I like that better. Because you like seeing Black people defenseless and dependent on the gov’t. . . . you are the new slavemaster. Like how this works?
You think you’re being clever, but all you’re doing is giving the guy ammo… literally.
With enough documented specific threats, e.g. creeps like you posting his home address online, the NYPD will grant a high-visibility journalist like Mr. Nocera a “special carry” permit.
So get over yourself.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/07/new-book-looks-at-hitlers-use-of-gun-control-to-disarm-jews/
and then he would be a punk b!tch hypocrite. I have more respect if he wears his BS views on his sleeve. Anyhow – your “theory” presupposes he doesn’t already have a special NYC permit. I have $20 he does have a permit to carry already
like commie DeBlasio is gonna give out permits . . . . .
I’ll bet he HAS a gun and DOESN’T have a permit. Think he’ll roll to that one?
“With enough documented specific threats, e.g. creeps like you posting his home address online, the NYPD will grant a high-visibility journalist like Mr. Nocera a “special carry” permit.”
As Dirk says, “That would be irony of the first class!”
And we should not tome down the rhetoric. Specific threats aside, the Anti 2A industry does not need anything we say or do to use against us. Even if we say or do NOTHING, which they would dearly love, they will make things up out of whole cloth. We must not be intimidated by these people! Defensive tactics have NOT worked to protect our Second Amendment RKBA. It’s try to work up a new strategy.
By the way, if having your address posted on line as being a documented Gun Free Zone is by default a “threat” of some sort, doesn’t that make our case pretty thoroughly?
There is a good reason Julius Streicher was hung as a war criminal though he never wielded anything more dangerous than a pen
Call me a filthy traitor if you like, but I’m willing — in theory — to accept a certain level of regulation of firearms that might include some that aren’t currently law. In the same way that I’m willing to accept being asked to show ID before I vote.
The problem is that, quite frankly, I don’t trust the anti-self-defense side to say what they mean, mean what they say, or even stick to the same definition over time. We’ve already seen California’s attempt to reclassify my late father-in-law’s squirrel gun as an “assault weapon” — an act that finally turned my wife strongly against them. We’ve seen the willingness to twist words and alter meaning in the name of what they believe the right outcome is, whatever the spirit of the law may be.
When the anti-self-defense side is willing to admit that owning, carrying, and using a firearm of modern design in the defense of yourself, your family, or your country is a civil right, and one that is every bit as nonnegotiable as the right to vote, the right to speak freely, the right to choose one’s own religion, and the right to control one’s own body and medical decisions — and willing to admit it without a “but” or an insistence that this doesn’t apply to firearms commonly carried by individual soldiers or police officers as duty weapons — then I will be happy to listen to their requests for further regulation. I can’t promise I’ll find all of them acceptable, and I may insist that other extant regulation which has outlived its purpose or conflicts with the above admission be repealed as part of any agreement for more. But when I am confident that people asking for regulation have enough in common with me that I can trust them to mean what they say, I’ll listen.
I’m not holding my breath for that time to come.
I see what you mean but I feel it should be a business decision. If I owned a firearm store I would check the ID and would make use of an optional NICS check. I should then be able to make my own decision on whether to sell or not then. If a store doesn’t check IDs and consistently sells to violent felons who go on to commit crimes then they can be boycotted to oblivion. I wouldn’t support such a store and firearms manufacturers would not want their products sold through such firearm stores.
SWAT teams here have looser rules of engagement than combat units in the sandbox.
Guaranteed to have great performance, the Villaware wafflers demarcate the true essence of waffle making.
Whether its actual offgassing or just the toxicity of the chemical composition,
I don’t really know for sure. Before you head on out to the
store or go online to make a purchase of a waffle iron read
a few reviews and make a more informed choice.
The open carry movement has taken the next step. It’s your right to carry, it’s your right to be hairy, and damn it if you’re gonna let anyone tell you other wise.
What poll is he citing that a majority of gun owners disagree with anything the NRA is doing?
The Nocera Poll. He talked to all his friends, and both of them favored gun control.
That’s not true. One of them was sick, and he forgot to pay the other one so he changed his mind.
He got it from his poll. The idea that the NRA members don’t agree with the NRA gave him a stiffy.
My problem with the anti-gun advocates is their idea of ‘compromise’ is skewed. If I were to suggest a ‘compromise’ like those that they put forth, I would be calling for constitutional carry of all firearms, including machineguns but excluding grenades. See? I compromised.
Now, if we were to actually have one trade for another… like national carry reciprocity in exchange for, I don’t know, a national background check for those permits. Even though I might not think one should need a background check and permit, I would be willing to entertain the measure if we would get something good in exchange. That would also avoid the “becoming Australia” model, as they soon would have nothing left to exchange in a true compromise. But instead the “gun safety” folks offer nothing but demand more restrictions and claim it’s a compromise because they’re not (yet) demanding the full monty.
That said, I’m not afraid to hear views in opposition, though I question when a publication like “Runner’s World” decides to step in it…
That’s right. They always like to use the word “compromise” instead of “more restrictions.” In 1900 there were no restrictions. In 1934 there was the National firearms act, in 1938, the federal firearms act, In 1968, the gun control act, 1972 – ATF formed, 1986 – LEO protection act, crime control act of 1990, brady handgun violence prevention act of 1994. Is it just me or do these “compromises” seem to go in one direction only? I don’t see any of them rescinded… what compromise??
^^^ Another awakening.
Which is specifically why you don’t let them steer the conversation into “compromises”. When they get to define the rules of the game, they win and we lose.
This for all of you who believe that a constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to ‘reasonable regulation’. If that is true, then ALL other constitutionally protected RIGHTS are subject to the same ‘reasonable regulation’. Therefore, I turn your focus to the 1st Amendment and I propose that history has proved the following statement to be true: The pen is mightier than the sword. This being the case, it is logical that rights under the 1st Amendment should clearly be subject to reasonable regulation that is AT A MINIMUM as stringent as the various restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Let’s begin (I’ll make this quick because I am in a hurry at the moment, but we can flesh it out completely later):
1) All publishers must be licensed by the federal government to distribute newspapers, magazines, publish websites, etc. It is a felony to publish any material without a federal license.
2) You must be 21 to either publish or read a licensed publication.
3) No convicted felons may publish or read any publication. No person convicted of domestic violence may publish or read any publication.
4) You may only publish or read one publication per month.
5) Your publication may not exceed XX pages. Any articles contained therein may not exceed XX words. If you can’t make your point within the limits, you shouldn’t be writing. There is no legitimate purpose for unlimited pages or words. Unlimited words pose an undue danger to the public.
6) You must take and pass a reading class to purchase publications.
7) You must take and pass a writing class to publish anything.
8) Offensive “assault language” in a publication is banned and it’s use constitutes a felony. Words that APPEAR to resemble assault language will be considered assault language. Assault language published before the passage of the law may be retained in a library if the publication is registered with the government. Otherwise the publication must be destroyed. A list of outlawed assault words will be provided.
9) Reading or writing a publication in public is prohibited. Your right to read or write publications is limited to your home only. Brandishing a publication is a crime and a breech of the peace.
10) Publishers must keep a record of each publication purchase including the name and address of each buyer.
Every one of you that believes the 2nd Amendment is subject to ‘reasonable regulation’ can go screw yourself. Either you support the RIGHTS guaranteed under the Constitution 100% or you don’t support them at all. A RIGHT means it can’t be regulated. If it can be regulated, it’s a PRIVILEGE. Wise up before it’s too late.
He’s right, the news doesn’t kill people… not physically/directly.
I might be more than willing to listen if the other side would at least admit that this is less about criminals getting guns, and more about the anti’s just hating guns and anyone owning one. Then again… I guess a criminal to them is anyone who walks in to a gun store who isn’t police/military.
Also, concerning Dick’s editorial, if there really should be ANY regulation of firearms for ANY reasons, I personally don’t want the government (city, county, state, and/or federal) doing the regulating.
If the NRA is so dangerous, why don’t we read stories about NRA representatives invading people’s homes in the dead of night, stealing their money, raping the women and killing the men?
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen many stories about NRA SWAT teams assaulting the wrong person’s house, killing family pets and holding children at gunpoint.
Nor have I read any stories about NRA writers being fired from their employment for plagiarism or worse, making sh1t up.
Then again, no NRA member has ever won the Nobel Peace Prize and then gone on to kill thousands of people with drone strikes.
I guess that the NRA has a lot to learn from street thugs, government and newspapers.
You forgot “leaders,” elected or self-proclaimed.
I bet his family sues the heck out of the city and gets a big settlement. If the police don’t have a warrant he has every right to refuse them entry, and they can just sit outside until they obtain one. Their was no one in danger, let the guy sit inside by himself what is he going to do with all that firepower outside?
Also if they cops want to play military do it right, a .50BMG sniper rifle really? Someone watches to many movies and than goes and buys dumb toys. They need to upgrade to an RPG while they are at it, that would work about as well as a .50BMG in a subdivision!
Clearly no thought was given to how many innocent people they were going to grease if they let lose with all that firepower in a residential area. I guess they must have gotten their training from the NYPD! No one piles up bystanders like the NYPD!
You might remind him newspaper articles have killed before. They’ve started wars.
“Remember the Maine”, anyone?
And what about the serial killers and mass shooters who do it because they know the media will make them famous?
You could argue the first amendment is responsible for a lot more violence than the second.
I always like the argument that the 2nd Amendment is “out dated”. The founders never envisioned “assault weapons” and “machine guns” that ANYONE (haha) can own.
I usually will go to the first Amendment and state that the founders never envisioned: television, computers, blogs, chat rooms, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, inter web news 24/7. If the second is out dated so must be the first. The Founders obviously intended only to protect the spoken word or the word that was written on paper with ink and quill.
I usually get a confused look and “they’re not the same” (or “Whatever!”) response. And please stop telling me that the written word (as well as Twitter, Facebook) has never caused death (Twitter bullying, etc) or incited mobs. That is just plain BULLSHIT.
If you are OK with applying restrictions to the 2nd then you can’t complain when they apply them to ALL.
Don’t hunt with a tactical shotty. You’ll frighten the deer and the Fudds.
You now what the Commies always say;Divide and conquer.
If you wanna see a crazed mass murderer, get between Moore and a Dairy Queen.
“There’s a quantitative difference between a newspaper and a gun. A gun kills people.”
That’s really funny coming from the New York times lol.
One could argue they were absolutely instrumental in at least one war–and they’d be right. (And some might argue for the war in Iraq as well, though I wouldn’t).
Also, there’s the whole covering up for Stalin’s mass murder bit. Yeah. But to their credit they did give back that Pulitzer prize the guy got for that…oh, my bad, LOL…of course they didn’t!
I really don’t even understand how people can take the NYT seriously. Simply because of that whole…you know…covering up mass murder and mass starvation–(and even sticking up for it!) thing…
I don’t care how long ago that was, if that happened to a newspaper I owned, I’d at the very least change the freaking name. lol. The thing is though, most people at this point seem to know it. In most places if the NYT is attacking you, it’s an endorsement.
“(And some might argue for the war in Iraq as well, though I wouldn’t).”
Well I for one would. They were one of the biggest cheerleaders. I used to read screed from them all the time in the Early Bird.
<quote>
“It’s not as if Dick Metcalf was some kind of gun control fanatic.” You see what he did there? With one sentence Nocera paints gun rights advocates as intolerant fanatics.
</quote>
How exactly did you get from “not … some kind of gun control fanatic” to “paints [us] as intolerant fanatics” in one breath? I don’t even see the connection.
In my little pea-brain, saying “You don’t seem to be ‘A'” isn’t the same as saying, “You must be ‘B’.”
To the anti-gun crowd, all gun owners are insurrectionist, misogynist , racist, people. They continually push for this image for us, despite how untrue it is, for the sake of pulling low-information voters their way.
Does that make the anti gun crowd misandrists? Being that they can’t stop talking about penis size and evil OFWGs…
Insurrectionist is a code word for “round them all up and throw them in camps”. Were it not for the mainstream media giving them free PR, groups like CSGV and Moms Demand Action would be about as politically relevant as the Green Party and Stormfront.
If anything, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) is are misogynist. They projecting their misogyny towards us gun owners. It is they who want women to not own any guns and thus protect themselves from rapists, burglars, murderers, etc. Guns put women on equal ground against 250lb armed rapists. CSGV hate women and the disabled.
That’s called “misandry”, not “misogyny”.
Does the Magpul calendar show the date that they’re moving out of Colorado, or will I need a perpetual calendar for that?
“many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment”. So long as the person remains a ‘gun control advocate’ it is impossible that the person accepts the legitimacy of the Second Amendment. “Shall no be infringed” is mutually exclusive with “gun control”.
Where we’re the guns in the video?
Magpul is still based in Colorado, I know. But, It’s pretty cool that the cover shot was taken in downtown Dallas. Am I reading to much into that? The whole shoot may have taken place there. That house looks very Preston Hollow.
If Dick Metcalf pull what he done at Guns & Ammo over at Motor Trend car magzine againt cars instead of guns they fired him to. There was very slipyer slope that Dick Metcalf slide way down in statements he made at Guns & Ammo. That once you given just little bet to those want take way all are gun rights away than give those who want take all are gun right away one step closer doing so. What brave act did Dick Metcalf do it seem he leaving Guns & Ammo at end year so was so brave in what he did there???
Well if the CSGV wants to call out misogynist, then the call start by calling out Gordon Hintz, D-WI. He is the state representative who issued a direct and real death threat to a female Republican colleague in 2011. “You’re F÷%!^#ing Dead” was his direct quote. To date, he is still a state rep and no, none, nil, nadda, zilch, zero womens groups, domestic violence groups, democrats, or other violence groups have called for his resignation much less even condemn the comment.
What we all need to ask ourselves is “why do anti-gunners invest so much political and monetary capital in gun control? Is it for safety? Is it for the children? Or, is it for something more nefarious?”
After all, we have established through facts and history that there are other items that cause as much if not more fatalities than guns, but there are not people demanding a prohibition on them. We have also established with those same facts and history that in the absence of firearms, there is still violent crime, murder, mass murder at or more than the rate of places where firearm possession is common place. So why is so much effort placed on banning certain guns with cosmetic features or making the possession of a firearms so costly or bureaucratic it stops people from owning them?
I believe that when it comes to gun control there are three kinds of people…
1. The ignorant person. These people believe that a+b=c. That is that if we ban guns, there will be no more gun crime and we will live in a utopia. These are the people that have their hearts in the right place, but the minds are no where to be found.
2. The vindictive person. These are the radical leftists that want gun control for nothing more than to punish their political opposition and show that the mighty government is the center of all mankind. These people often have little or nothing to gain by gun control other than to be mean and use the power of government to enforce their will on others.
3. The insidious person. These are the most dangerous and the most powerful. These are more often than not, politicians who look at civilian gun ownership as a obstacle to absolute power over the citizenry. They do not care about crime, children or safety. They care about power and maintaining that power. Especially when they pass tyrannical and oppressive laws or enslave the population by various means. These people will lie about their intentions and use the other two kinds of anti-gunners as useful idiots to further their cause.
This is why I think Bloomberg, Obama and Feinstein invest so much into gun control. They know that one day they will cross a line and the people will revolt, but without guns, the politician will remain safe behind the walls of security, guarded by the same guns they banned. History has proven this out many times.
why are the threats hands up right before he shoots him?
It’s the Carl Grimes Threat Assessment Method (CGTAM).
why are the threats hands up right before he shoots him?
Because the gun was decorated for a SWAT officer and the artist couldn’t draw a dog.
Make sure the house is a “fixer-upper” if you really hate her.
Man, that’s just Fugly. I don’t require great looks from my bang sticks, I love Mosins after all, but that crosses too many lines to ignore. Ray Charles could see the Fugly shining off that.
That might actually be the ugliest goddamned firearm I’ve ever laid eyes upon. Is it a Maverick, hecho en Mexico?
It is beyond bubba, perhaps a sheepdog was licking himself and he was inspired to make this. That is the only explanation I can think of.
To me, it’s the same thing as ‘Universal Health Care’ (or the ACA)….
Sure, in theory, wouldn’t it be great for every single American to be able to have access to affordable, quality health care – without it costing anything to taxpayers – and anyone who wants to keep their existing health care policy can absolutely do so? Yeah, sure… ok.
In reality, it’s not turning out that way though, huh?
The liberal’s theoretical notions don’t seem to work when they meet reality, because it’s not logic or fact that drives them. It’s blind ideology. It’s emotion. It’s low-information, group-think. It’s feel-good, in-a-perfect-world, wouldn’t-it-be-nice, stuff of dreams. It’s what CNN and their friendly corporate media masters ever-so-subtly told them… without actually telling them of course, because that would be too overt. But they got the message none-the-less.
Just for the Government to actually implement (let alone successfully manage) such a ‘program’ is quite a different thing from the wonderful little notion it seemed in theory, isn’t it?
In reality, it turns out you can’t actually keep your insurance policy if they decide to cancel it. (oh, sorry… what we actually said was uhhh…we owe you an apology…ooops )
In reality, it won’t end up ‘affordable’ for the working class/middle class who will shoulder the burden (ooops, we better delay that employer mandate for a year to get through mid-term elections.. heehee)
In reality, the quality of service is going to decrease for everyone, except the rich. Give it some time.
In reality, even if it works out as well as the promoters could possibly hope, it will still leave 30 million+ people without healthcare.
In reality, it has already cost the tax payers billions of dollars. And who knows how much more that cost will grow to… Hell, $600 million didn’t even launch a working website.
Now try applying that little dose of reality to old one-eyed Dick’s ‘mandatory training program’ or old trader Joe’s ‘universal background checks’…
Can you imagine the complete LACK of Media outrage when the ‘UniversalBackgroundCheck.GOV’ website launches and no one can sign up and nothing works?
Oh, I think I can hear the crickets.
The Media might have a Trayvon update to cover that day. After all, he’d still be alive if it weren’t for stand your ground law! (well, of course not really, but we just want to use that to further our agenda a little, that’s all… snicker snicker wink wink).
I’m guessing we probably wouldn’t be holding our breath waiting for an ‘apology’ from the President either, huh?
Can you imagine the wall to wall media coverage when the waiting list makes means it takes 3 years to get booked for a ‘training session’? – OH, and you have to re-certify every year too! (what – but it takes 3 years to get booked? well we’re working on that, Miss. We are very sorry for the inconvenience. For those 2 off years you can always spit at your attacker. Or urinate or defecate. That’ll scare ‘em off)
Can you imagine the media outrage when the ‘training coordinator’ ends up a political appointee and decides in which order to accept (or not accept) ‘applications’ to sign up for the ‘training course’? Think it would even get as much press as the IRS auditing people/companies based on their (opposing) political affiliation?
Can you see the headlines light up when the ‘training budget manager’ decides that they can’t pay the trainers unless the fee goes up to $400/training session …or $600 or $800?
How about when the next psycho steals someone’s gun and takes it into an airport or a mall to get his/her media-guaranteed wall-to-wall coverage for being a pyscho criminal murderer scumbag?
Think Feinstein might have a pre-packaged bill that would adjust the parameters of WHO exactly should be ‘eligible’ to ‘apply’ for a ‘mandatory training program’ – oh, and for which TYPE firearms too? (Mr. and Mrs. America of course do not need rifles, 7-round max capacity handguns are the only permits they need to be able to apply for …but former law enforcement can still apply for a rifle training class! so we’re not taking anything away from anyone!)
And where does all that data live too? In a database, right? Think Obama would be up in arms when the first liberal rag decided to start publishing ‘trained firearm-owning killer’ locational maps? Or how about when the data was pillaged for identity theft?
Oh, and mind you, that National Gun Registry database will come in real handy when people don’t manage to renew their ‘mandatory training certifications’ on time and they start sending out the DHS teams to confiscate…
And when ALL of that fails to prevent yet another psycho loser kid from stealing someone’s firearm and killing innocent people, because ALL of these laws only really apply to LAW ABIDING people like you and me that aren’t going to break the law, then what? What’s next? No guns at all? (well, the British don’t need guns, why do we?)
So when people like Dick or ‘S.H’ want to start having open theoretical discussions about what ‘regulations’ they think are totally fine and dandy – and float such ‘reasonable theoretical ideas’ like a NEW ‘mandatory training program’ regulation… yeah – I get a little bit pissed off and I don’t want to promote their dangerous naivety by purchasing their product or visiting their website anymore.
We don’t live in a theoretical world, DICK. This is reality. And reality is that there is a full-blown, well-funded, liberal media-supported campaign from a crowd of rabid, frothing, anti-gun nuts that tell bold-faced lies with a smirk and a wink in order to accomplish their ideological mission of disarming the populace by any means necessary (because it would make them ‘FEEL’ a little safer)
Anyone who would TRUST the rabid, frothing anti-gun crowd enough to make any deal with them – to give them ANY NEW MECHANISM by which they can further infringe on our RKBA – is a naive FOOL, as it would soon be augmented and twisted and manipulated and used as their new tool to restrict gun ownership to the point of practical disarmament.
“…and that’s all I have to say about that” – F.Gump.
They stated, “A SWAT Vehicle.” That description leads me to think it was one of those lightly armored vehicles SWAT likes to show up at a scene in. I would like to see a photo of this so called, “SWAT Vehicle.” I bet it looks just like a car most of us drive!
Um, what do you think would have happened if one of those protesters tried some “defensive gun use” against the cops? This is China, they’d just send for the army to level the entire block flat.
And if you think that everybody having guns over there would result in the govt being overthrown, you’re very naive. The reason why Chinese government is so strong is because a broad majority of the population approve of their particular brand of authoritarian statism; the notion of “state before individual” and “peace and security over freedom” are very much ingrained in the culture there.
At least he did not shoot someone in the face and have taxpayers pay for it to go away…yep Cheney is worse.
Ah yes, MA. I am glad I don’t live there anymore. Not because I don’t like the area, I just hate their gun laws that much. The whole AWB is idiotic and the capacity restrictions are easily circumvented by pre ban mags which makes me wonder, what is the point?
Magazines and guns can last forever. I am currently cleaning an Eddystone M1917 and Colt M1917 revolver tonight. They are almost 100 years old and were potentially used in combat. A newer plastic gun or magazine will last an eternity if you protect the metal parts. Especially with the light use that most people will put their guns through. That is until it breaks. In a few years you can fire up the 3D printer to make a new part and get back out on the range without skipping a beat.
Congratulations Ralph…
After readin your article a couple times it bacame apparent to me that there are more types of gun owners than there are antis.
Come out, come out, wherever you are Dirk Diggler…
We need our resident Shannon Watts (TM) specialist.
It’s cool, but I’d rather get my Tavor and Mossberg 930 dipped in A-tacs FG.
http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=4289.0
Hoplophobes + Anticulturalists + Gungrabbers = HAGs for short drawing upon the first initial of the three types of gun control advocates.
What’s the story on that Tactical Kilt?
I owned both-A Sig P226 and a P30 LEM.
The Sig was competent gear, but its heavy and blocky.The blockiness makes concealment difficult.
The HK was svelte, but magazines were and are expensive and the P30s grippy stocks are like a cheese grater when carried IWB.I guess a $900 pistol should come with a free sandpaper feature.Plus, the recoil on the .40 P30 was like driving a sport package BMW across a potholed Chicago city street-abusive.
So, I now carry a Beretta.
🙂
If I’m going to own a gun that looks like crap, I’m going to pay as little as I can for crap that works. And that comes down to a Glock.
BTW, Your store there needs an education in what a “fine gun” is. Neither of the above need apply.
Looks like HK took a tip from the Walther PK380 on that gun.
The Sig because, HK, you suck and I hate you.
Personally I didn’t have a problem until the whole shoot you in the head threat. Then, they had to put on their “thinking caps” to try and put charges on the guy? And LEOS wonder why they aren’t trusted…
Funny how politicians and criminals alike have the same modus operandi. Just ignore/break the law to serve their purpose and agenda.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer person. Ill put 20 that she blames the Republican party, or those of us of the gun.
Just emailed Mr Nocera about the Missouri beheadings. Couldn’t find a defensive use of a gun my ass.