Gun Control

The National Guard was not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, the hoplophobes tend to point to the National Guard as the right of the people acknowledged in the 2nd Amendment. The fact that a sitting President is contemplating, and has the authority, to take control of the National Guard, simply demonstrates that the current National Guard is an extension of the standing federal army that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit.

I'm somewhat amused at how many anti-gun advocates are proud of how profoundly ignorant they are on the subject. Imagine if cancer researchers wanted to fight cancer but refused to learn anything about it.

I have no use for the bump-fire stock (I also know how to bump-fire without a gadget). In fact, I have very little use for full-auto fire, at all. I prefer 20 round magazines over 30 round or larger. If either of those things were banned, I would hardly notice. However, I won't give them up in the name of compromise. If you throw passengers out of the sleigh to appease the wolves, you just end up getting chased by well-fed wolves.

"Gun violence"? "Gun homicides"? Am I to understand that the hoplophobes (someone with an irrational fear of firearms) are okay with people stabbing, poisoning, and strangling each other but shooting is somehow gauche?

An armed man can be killed, but he cannot be enslaved.

How are red flag laws and mandatory "buybacks" not confiscation? 

I don't get overly upset when you want to disarm me- that's not personal, it's just business. What upsets me is when you want to blame me, and punish me, for horrendous crimes that I didn't commit. I suppose it's easier for you to blame me than face real criminals. You think I won't harm you while you know they will, so you feel safer abusing me and can pretend you are showing courage while doing so. And, after all, it's not about reality, it's all about your feelings.

Seems to me the irrational ones are the ones who insist on blaming inanimate objects and innocent third parties for the acts of criminals. Of course, I understand that criminals are scary so it's safer to scream at someone (or something) who you know won't hurt you. It's kind of like the abusive husband going home after tough day and kicking his dog or yelling at his wife.

I'm going to start equating hoplophobes with wife-beaters. A wife-beater is a coward who can't face his real problems so he takes it out on someone he believes won't fight back. Criminals and crazies are scary so, instead of facing them, the hoplophobes make a big production out of blaming the NRA and law-abiding gun owners and, of course, inanimate objects.

The second amendment allows us to have the weapons we need to keep our (or, now, "the") government from disarming us so that they can subject us to whatever indignities they deem appropriate. The second amendment is intended to allow us the tools to defend ourselves against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Our government is intended to be of, by and for the people - that means you and me. We are in charge, not some nebulous "government".

It's not about guns. It's not about the second amendment of the Constitution. It's about the entire Constitution. The actions and proposed laws violate almost all of our Constitutional rights. The right to free speech, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to due process, the right against self-incrimination, the entire tenth amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), freedom of religion. . . guys, it's all coming to a head. I'm reminded of Germany just before the nazis came into power. The rhetoric is the same.

Our right to keep and bear arms is based on the natural right of self-preservation. You can't intelligently argue the point with someone who does not believe in your right to live. You need to keep in mind that someone who wants to disarm you doesn't acknowledge your right to exist.

I've been asked several times how best to argue with hoplophobes (anti-gunners). I may write an in-depth article on it but it does present a problem. Hoplophobes tend to be emotionally and intellectually immature as well as profoundly ignorant. It's almost impossible to argue fact and reason with someone who lives in denial of both in pursuit of "feeling safe" (which is not the same as actually being safe). It's similar to arguing religion with a 2 year old. The fact is, banning firearms will not cure someone's emotional problems.

One of the more popular arguments for gun control involves the question, "Who needs a high-capacity magazine and semi-automatic gun?" Since when do I have to demonstrate need for almost anything? If need is the primary criterium for ownership, perhaps we should all be riding bicycles and wearing Mao suits. As a matter of fact, though, I may very well need a military style rifle. The second amendment to our constitution was not about hunting and only secondarily about self-defense. The idea was that the people of this nation be armed sufficiently to defend ourselves against abusive governments, both foreign and domestic.

Before you go demanding new gun-control laws, you might want to familiarize yourself with the laws that are on the books. It's not my fault if the government doesn't want to enforce them. Some of them include the 1934 National Firearms Act (strictly controls assault rifles), 1968 Gun Control Act (eliminates the so-called Internet/gun-show loophole), 1989 Firearm Owner's Protection Act (bans the import or manufacture of assault rifles except for government or corporations), and the 1993 Brady Act (requires background checks for firearm purchases).

There is no question what the intent was of the second amendment. You might be able to argue it's current relevancy but the intent was clear; that the people of this nation be able to mount an armed resistance to an abusive government (at any level). I do not believe people should be allowed to store large quantities of high-explosives in a residential area (although, all the assault rifles in the world wouldn't present an unreasonable hazard), but my neighbor has a full propane tank right next to my carport so I guess it's a matter of perspective on that one.

Pro-self defender - "Chicago has gun control but they have a terrible crime problem."

Anti-self defender - "The criminals buy their guns in Indiana and bring them to Chicago. We need more gun control."

So, the non-logic is; Chicago has gun control. Chicago has a crime problem. Indiana does not have gun control. Indiana does not have a crime problem. Therefore we need more gun control in Indiana to solve Chicago's crime problem.

Saw a post from Canada supporting a ban on "dangerous" guns. (Not like I care what gun control other countries do or don't have.) Thought about posting this -

You guys should just do what we did in the States and ban murder. The "Don't Kill Nobody" act of 1804 banned all forms of murder. Since the act was passed there have been no murders in the United States. That act was followed in 1924 with the "Words not Sticks and Stones" act of 1922 (no explanation why "1922"). This act prohibited all forms of violence in favor of public debate for all disputes. There hasn't been a fist-fight in the U.S. since 1924.

I'm not overly interested in the whole gun control "debate". Nothing I say or do is going to change anybody's mind on either side. I did, however, find this amusing. It's essentially the argument used by the founding fathers. Never forget, when someone wants to disarm you, either in person or by proxy, it's because they want to do something that your being armed and able to defend yourself prevents.

Before you get all passionate about proposed gun-control (victim disarmament) laws, ask three questions. Is the law already on the books? (Usually, yes.) Would the proposed law have had any effect on the latest atrocity? (Usually, no.) Will criminals obey the new law? (Universally, no.)

Remember, if someone wants to disarm you, it's because they want to do something to you that you're being armed prevents. There are currently two groups of people who want to disarm you; and make no bones about it, they want to take all your guns plus anything else that keeps you from being helpless.

The first group is what Lenin termed "useful idiots" ("Four legs good, two legs bad!" for anyone familiar with "Animal Farm".). These are people who react out of ignorance and irrationality. Belief is much more important than reality for these people. They are religious fanatics. You cannot reason or argue facts with a religious fanatic.

The second group are the real impetus behind the whole gun control movement. These are the people who know they can't subjugate an armed populous. (As Jeff Cooper wrote, "A rifle turns a man from a subject to a citizen.") This second group wants to get richer and more powerful than they are currently by taking your money, your labor, your land, or even your daughters. This second group is what the second amendment was all about.

Both groups will never be satisfied with compromise. They want you helpless before their wills. If a man tries to rob you, and compromises by leaving you half your money, you've still been robbed.

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." - L. Neil Smith

Guns are just the first step. It's not about safety. It's about control. The very rich people who run the corporations are using their money to run the government and disenfranchise the rest of us. The very rich (many of whom are descended from European royalty) would like very badly to return to the feudal system.

All the supposed restrictions on cars don't seem to be preventing the misuse of automobiles. You hear about people driving even though their license has been suspended dozens of times (75th time's the charm). Why would firearms be any different?

Crimes on college campuses are on the rise. One student group wants to allow concealed carry of firearms. Another group thinks more gun control is the answer. Since firearms are banned entirely on campus, I’d be interested to know how one gets more gun control than that.

Please, read "Fahrenheit 451", "Animal Farm", and "1984". (Or, at least watch the movies.) Google has been doing some really shitty anti-gun (anti-self defense) stuff ever since they acquired YouTube. They pulled videos over to Google Plus so they could claim that the YouTube channels were violating their standards and shut down the channels. Now, they are blatantly doing it on YouTube (no more secret, back-door crap). It's not about guns; it's about information and control.

If you don't like guns don't buy, own, or carry one. You can even make your home or business a gun-free zone by posting signs. I will, personally, honor your wishes and do not bring firearms into homes or businesses where they're not wanted. You don't think criminals will pay attention to your signs? If it won't work in your home or business, what makes you think it would work on the city, state, or national level?

I don't worship firearms. To me, they are tools, nothing more. I am not a member of the Firearms Ownership religion as so many shooters seem to be nowadays. However, I do get amused at people who think I am some kind of danger to them because I'm carrying a pistol. First, what is it they would like to do that my being armed prevents them from doing? Second, I don't need a pistol to be a danger to the sort of person who's afraid of guns.

For firearms registration to be effective in solving a crime a very specific set of circumstances must occur.

The would-be criminal must purchase the firearm legally and register it. Most criminals can’t legally purchase firearms and most firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally.

The criminal must leave the firearm at the scene of the crime. Most criminals take their firearms with them when they leave.

The criminal must have no other connections with the victim or the crime scene. There must be no other forensics or motive to lead to the criminal.

There must be no other connection- like fingerprints- connecting the criminal to the firearm.

The simple fact is that (except on TV) firearms registration has almost never been used to solve a crime.

What does firearms registration do? First, it allows the government another method to take your money. Second, it tells the government where it can go to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding citizens.

As for registering cars; I am not required to register my car unless I operate it on public streets. I am also not required to have a driver’s license unless I operate my car on public streets.

Criminals do not register their guns. Only law-abiding people register their guns. Seems like registration only applies to good people, not the bad ones. Tells you who the government wants to control.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - C. S. Wheatley

Russel Brand would like a kinder, more considerate and compassionate society with restrictions on firearms. What he fails to understand is that firearms aren't a problem if people have no wish to harm each other. On the other hand, if you remove the firearms from a less enlightened society, you simply leave the weak at the mercy, or lack thereof, of any strong who might wish them harm.

"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." - Col. Jeff Cooper

I've been contacted by a number of people who are interested in obtaining firearms for self-defense. This is somewhat like waiting until you smell smoke before you buy a fire extinguisher. Unfortunately, firearms are in short supply, as of right now. Beggars can't be choosers and you may not be able to purchase exactly what you want. Very expensive models are still available new. The other option is to find whatever is available used. Also remember, simply owning a firearm does not make you armed any more than owning a piano makes you a musician; you must learn, at the very minimum, safe gun-handling procedures.

Jeff Cooper said Colts were like the Ladies Hat's in Boston. That is when asked where they got their hats, the ladies would say, "we don't get hats, we have our hats".

The solutions are quite simple. If you're against marijuana, don't smoke it. If you're against abortion, don't get one. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual. If you're against firearms, don't buy one. Problem solved.

The hoplophobes (pro-victim disarmament, anti-gun) constantly demonstrate how profoundly ignorant they are on the subject. (I should begin referring to them as I2; ignorant and irrational.) What strikes me is how proud they are of their ignorance. They will proudly proclaim, "I don't know anything about guns!" Since they seem to perceive firearms as some sort of health concern, I would equate this with a cancer researcher proudly proclaiming, "I don't know anything about cancer!"

If you cannot trust someone with a firearm, how can you trust them with a car, with a vote, or with free speech? When someone tells me they don't trust me with an AR15, how long will it be before they decide I can't be trusted with any of the others? And who are they that they get to decide who's trustworthy enough for anything? As a matter of fact, I don't trust most Americans with any of those things (traffic this weekend bears me out) but, I am not conceited enough to think I should decide these things for others until they have proven, through our justice system, that they can't be trusted. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

I was reading some anti-self defense propaganda piece. The author wrote that he dreamt of a world without guns. The dumbass doesn't need to dream. He should have just paid attention in history class. Crime, murder, war, massacre, genocide, all existed prior to the invention of gunpowder; let alone the autoloader. The difference is swords, knives and bludgeons require muscle power. The repeating firearm makes the weak a physical match for the large and strong; it doesn't turn good people evil.

The same piece of offal claimed that, as he fired an AR15 for the first time, all he could do was picture what it could do to school children and churchgoers. If picking up a rifle causes him to fantasize about killing children, maybe he should have himself committed.

Just owning a firearm isn't sufficient. They are easier to use safely than an automobile but you still have to apply some thought. “It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully.” - Jeff Cooper

I was working in a gun store when the so-called assault weapons ban went into effect. Most of my customers supported the ban and made comments like, "Who needs an oozie or AK?" These same customers threw a fit when I told them I couldn't sell them larger magazines for their Remington 740 hunting rifles. As some of you may be aware, the 1934 national firearms act actually bans 12 guage pump shotguns as destructive devices unless specifically approved by the Secretary of the Treasury as suitable for sporting purposes. Just remember, when you are supporting a ban on specific firearms because you don't own one, any ban can be extended to almost any firearm. Anybody remember when the Secretary of the Treasury redefined bullet resistant vests as machine guns so that civilians couldn't buy them under the 1989 act?

Hmm. . . I clicked on an anti-gun article from Business Insider and found several factual errors (lies). When I attempted to mark it as "offensive content" the button wouldn't activate for me. I'll bet I could have marked an NRA ad as "offensive".

The latest thing is for gun owners to destroy their AR15s in support of not killing children. I think if those people are feeling the urge to go out and murder children, they need to do more than simply cut up a rifle.

Cowards? The only cowards I see are the hypocrites who are ready to send their assault rifle wielding bully-boys out to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights and property. They're awfully brave when surrounded by armed bodyguards.

Some mass murderers choose the AR15 because the media keeps telling them it's the best thing for mass murder. It's a good thing the media doesn't promote gasoline and matches the same way as they've been used in more mass murders than any rifle.

The ATF pistol brace amnesty is a scam. Do not fall for it. ATF did something similar many years ago with the Striker shotguns. They told people the Striker was legal. They changed their minds. They offered an "amnesty". They accepted the $200.00 tax stamp fees from the owners. They changed their minds and seized the now registered shotguns. Please note, ATF had the option of sending these people to prison as felons.

The anti-self defense crowd likes to point to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as justification for limits on the first amendment and thus justification for limits on the second amendment. However, it is perfectly legal and moral to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there really is a fire.

Semi-autos are easier to operate than manual actions, especially for many people with physical handicaps or limitations. A call for a ban on semi-autos is discriminatory against the handicapped.

“I coined the term hoplophobia in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political posititon.” - Jeff Cooper