Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control

The anti-gun crowd doesn't want "compromise." They want confiscation and control.

(Page 2 of 2)

Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.

That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” 

Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”

New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”

So much for compromise.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    They want to ban and confiscate all guns. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. Everything they do is towards that end.

  • ||

    ^This.

    They dont give a shit about crime or about the children. Their actions prove it and occasionally one slips up and admits it.

    Gun control is a means to an end, that end being the complete subjugation of the American people.

  • scottstams||

    my half-sister/mother earns eternal ecstasy giving herself to Satan every hour on the computer. She has been promised to the Dark Lord for 9 months but last month her reward was 12383 virgins just writhing on her eternal soul for a few hours. Read more on this site 666.COM

  • ||

    That's nothing she makes $200 an hour every hour on her back.

    She likes it so much though most of the time she does it for free.

    Check it here WEP_Whores.com

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    This is one of the issues I use as a litmus test for distinguishing between general American "liberals" and so-called "progressives."

    Mind you, I call for a pox on both their houses, but the latter are much, much worse...

  • Free Society||

    Progressives are the spawn of populist liberals and fascists. They see no reason to limit the power of government and have never met a right or liberty they didn't want to erode or destroy.

  • dfjonathon||

    I always add another issue, how closely do their actions follow the UN policy, to my litmus test. The founders of the US were considered liberal and progressive for wanting to take society away from the royalty/peasant way of life, in favor of a way of life where the peasants had the same rights as the royalty. The UN policy is that only the UN has the right to self defense, and the UN has the right to censor whatever it wants-including the curriculum being taught in US schools(which it has been doing since the late 70's) , etc..., and that the government should be able squash individual rights at it's whim, pretty much a return to the royalty/peasant way of life. Anyone that supports basic UN policy is a traitor to individual rights, whether they realize it or not, no matter what they call themselves.

  • Matrix||

    Yes. And they are infuriating to no end. They think it is a compromise for us to give up our rights.

    End goal: total ban on guns for private ownership and possession, similar to the UK.

    Again, they are playing a waiting game. This is a slow roasted meal for them. They will take their time, steadily eating away at it until, all of a sudden, a total ban is upon us. They play the serpents role, "no, we don't want a total ban, just common sense measures" (no, you surely will not die. When you eat it, you will be like God knowing good from evil). Yeah, I'm not biting that fruit, proglodytes! Nor shall I surrender my rights because of your misguided means of creating an enslaved a peaceful society.

    The end state is a total confiscation of privately owned guns.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    I'm so afraid.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    You'll feel much better properly armed and trained. :-)

  • Overt||

    Here in CO, the Universal Background Check just went into effect. Proponents insisted- as they did when CO closed the "Gun Show Loophole"- that this is just closing a simple loophole.

    Now, in order to pass along my rifle to my son, I will have to go find an FFL dealer and perform background checks. Yay. And of course, most people (not me, mind you, but most people) will avoid this step. Nobody knows who owns what guns, and so if an individual is found with a firearm, it will be nearly impossible to determine whether or not they acquired that firearm against the law unless they can prove it was acquired after 7/1.

    And so, we can predictably expect that in another year or two (or whenever the next mass shooting occurs), the concerned pragmatists who just want sensible gun laws, will fight to remove this loophole, and institute a gun registry. If you are found without a registered gun, you will be a criminal.

    I am so sad at what has happened to the Colorado my family has lived and ranched on for the past several hundred years.

  • ||

    Yep. It's all the Californians fleeing their progressive nightmare, who then decide they need to institute the same policies they just escaped from.

  • John||

    It was just bad luck that California is falling apart. So the progs decided to move to Colorado where the luck was a bit better.

  • Overt||

    This is a convenient excuse, and I wish I could believe it (as a native) but natives are doing this.

    There have always been lefties in Colorado. Boulder was one of the first cities to declare itself a nuclear free zone. And Denver has been blue-blue-blue for years.

    I think the problem is that Colorado's conservative side lost a lot of messaging and they lost an entire generation of kids. All of my peer group- growing up in 80's and 90s colorado- did not see the Reagan boom due to local economic issues, and were deeply shaken by Columbine. The military influence in this state has reduced significantly since the cold war.

  • John||

    It is really funny to hear twits like Thomas Franks talk about how the Republicans get people to vote against their economic interests by distracting voters with social issues. What a case of projection that is. All Democrats have is social issues. They have no economic platform much less appeal anymore beyond free shit. They get people to vote for socialists who will destroy the economy because the only issues talked about in the election are abortion, birth control, and racism.

  • sarcasmic||

    They have no economic platform much less appeal anymore beyond free shit.

    Yeah they do. Punish the rich. The rich don't pay their fair share and we know this because they're rich. If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich, now would they?
    Taxes are not just a means to give away free shit. They're punishment for being rich.
    They've got an economic policy alright. It's called envy.

  • John||

    Eat the rich is a social issue.

  • sarcasmic||

    Eat the rich is a social issue.

    It becomes an economic issue when the act of punishing the rich causes the economy to go down the shitter.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "Redistribution of wealth" isn't an economic platform?
    "Social justice" isn't an economic platform?
    "Social democracy"? Socialism? "From each according to his ability..."?

    (Not that there's anything right about that...)

  • Mizchief||

    I think the point was that even their platforms that touch on economics, don't have any basis in improving the economy and it's only the social aspect they really care about regardless of the real economic impacts.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    Bad economic advice is still economic advice.

    What they care about is power, wealth (but I repeat myself), influence (but I repeat myself), status, etc. However, their personal concerns and their platform are quite different things...

  • NoVAHockey||

    i think they're like locusts. or one of the plagues.

  • John||

    Everyone will ignore the law and continue trading guns as they always have. And the result of that will be everyone or most people who own a gun will be criminals. That is the end state of universal background checks. Make owning a gun subject to significant risk of criminal liability such that few new people want to own one and the ones who continue to own them are criminals and can be slowly rounded up, convicted and then completely unable to legally own a firearm.

    Anyone who tells you they are for universal background checks is either stupid or lying about why they support such.

  • ||

    I wonder how long it will be before a security clearance questionnaire asks about gun ownership?

  • AlexInCT||

    They already do, don't they?

  • ||

    Nope

  • ||

    Not on the Federal level, anyhow.

  • SDN||

    They are, however, interested in what organizations you belong to. Being a Life Member of the NRA raises "questions". I know; I got them back when Clinton was President.

  • John||

    That is a good question. I am frankly surprised they haven't thought of that.

    They would have a hard time putting giving up a federally protected right as a condition to federal employment. I don't think the courts would ever go for that. But if Heller were ever overturned, the President could by a stroke of a pen make everyone choose between gun ownership and their security clearance.

  • shamalam||

    "Your question about my second amendment participation forces me to invoke my fifth amendment protections!"

  • ||

    Then you ain't gettin' no security clearance!

  • shamalam||

    Somehow I knew you were going to say that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I believe there are two kinds of people on the left. There are the manipulators and the manipulated. The manipulators are blatant liars, and the manipulated are too stupid or emotional to understand (or care) that they are being lied to. And that is why evil will always triumph. Because even when their lies are brought into the light, their supporters don't notice or care.

  • AlexInCT||

    Well put sir.

  • Overt||

    Many of my highschool friends believe that even though the politicians on the left are dishonest, at least they are saying the right things. They aren't being manipulated. They are willing dupes.

  • sarcasmic||

    You still have high school friends? Wow. Then again my high school was like three hundred people. That tungsten mining town up the creek from Boulder. You know the one.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    So...
    "Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb"?

  • Ronald Reagan||

    You are wrong about what "everyone" will do. I won't ignore the law. I am a law abiding citizen.

    You guys are really bad about defining reality to conform to your world view, or as it is convenient for your argument, rather than as it is.

  • MilDot||

    Then you, sir, are a coward if you're willing to conform to unjust/unconstitutional laws just to remain law-abiding. The good German folk who went along with the Nazi Party's new laws no doubt had a kindred law-abiding moral compass. I personally know a whole pile of gun owners from diverse regions in the US, and while it's true that "everyone" might be an overstatement, based on my sampling of those folks, John's estimate of the overall gun-owner response is much closer to the truth than yours.

  • Mike M.||

    "Loophole" is shorthand for "I'm about to screw you over."

  • Free Society||

    I am so sad at what has happened to the Colorado my family has lived and ranched on for the past several hundred years.

    A couple is two. A few is three. Several is not much more than that. Was your family native American ranchers? Spanish Conquistador ranchers?

  • Overt||

    "A couple is two. A few is three. Several is not much more than that."

    According to the dictionary, several is "more than two, but not a lot".

    Given that my family is a mix of Spanish settlers who started 8 generations ago in the area of Trinidad, as well as native american and WASPy ranchers, I don't think it an imprecise summary.

    Anything else twitching that stick up your ass?

  • Loki||

    I'll just leave this here:

    http://news.msn.com/rumors/rum.....51st-state

    Apparently you're not the only one who's fed with the People's Republics of Boulder and Denver fucking everything up for the rest of the state.

  • Loki||

    *fed up...

  • Paul.||

    So many people want to seceed, so few (0) ever do.

    Eastern Washington wants to be the 51st state. Southern New Mexico wants to be the 51st state. Eastern Oregon wants to be the 51st state. Canada wants to be the 51st state. Now Northern Colorado wants to be the 51st state. We can't all be the 51st state.

  • KalkiDas||

    I want to be/live in the -first- state... of Galt's Gulch

  • Rasilio||

    "if an individual is found with a firearm, it will be nearly impossible to determine whether or not they acquired that firearm against the law unless they can prove it was acquired after 7/1."

    Maybe today, but what happens in 15 years when they find a 22 year old who has not passed a background check in possession of a gun?

    Obviously he could not have owned it prior to 7/1/13, he was only 7 at the time therefore whenever and wherever he got it it was illegally.

    10 years after that the same logic could be applied to anyone under about 40.

    Next what happens when they look up the manufacturers serial number and determine that the gun was manufactured after 7/1/13? Same deal.

    What they have done is passed a backdoor universal background check law, sure today it will not have much impact but as time passes it's impact will grow and grow as time itself will be able to prove that the gun was acquired after the target date.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Is your car registered?

  • dinkster||

    Is your ham radio registered? I say abolish car registration.

  • SIV||

    Criminalizing the private transfer of personal property which has been perfectly legal since forever is not a limited or symbolic action.

    Fuck Robert A Levy and those gun-grabbers at Cato too.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    I believe they want to require registration, like when you transfer a car.

  • Enigma||

    Why do we have to register cars?

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Driving is a privilege, firearm ownership is a God-given right.
    Least that was the way it was explained to me fifty years ago.

  • phwest||

    Because cars are valuable pieces of property, broadly owned, that are frequenty left unattended in public places. It is generally in the interest of car owners to have a system that makes it readily apparent that they own their vehicles and can provide an obvious means of identification if stolen.

    Registration is also used by the government as a means of enforcing other laws (mandatory insurance being the main one), but that was not why government registration was established in the first place.

  • Jerryskids||

    RKBA defenders are criticized for not being willing to accept 'reasonable' restrictions, but what the gun-grabbers call 'reasonable' are not actually, from their perspective, reasonable - they are always only a reasonable first step. It seems to me that reasonable restrictions are ones which to go beyond would be unreasonable but there are no restrictions the gun-grabbers would call unreasonable. If the 'reasonable' restrictions we have allowed so far are not enough for the gun-grabbers then obviously they don't consider the restrictions reasonable.

  • Paul.||

    You can say that again.

  • Jerryskids||

    RKBA defenders are criticized for not being willing to accept 'reasonable' restrictions, but what the gun-grabbers call 'reasonable' are not actually, from their perspective, reasonable - they are always only a reasonable first step. It seems to me that reasonable restrictions are ones which to go beyond would be unreasonable but there are no restrictions the gun-grabbers would call unreasonable. If the 'reasonable' restrictions we have allowed so far are not enough for the gun-grabbers then obviously they don't consider the restrictions reasonable.

  • John||

    The measures are not reasonable. They will have the effect of making nearly every gun owner in America a criminal.

  • sarcasmic||

    Many people believe that making nearly every gun owner into a criminal is perfectly reasonable. After all, they're only bitter clingers. They're not even human. They're just bits of shit stuck in the pubic hairs.

  • ||

    Hmmm. That makes me think about other tones he has set.

    Of late I see lots of blatant, ugly racism of the sort I have rarely seen in my lifetime.

  • shamalam||

    I agree.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    "The measures are not reasonable. They will have the effect of making nearly every gun owner in America a criminal."

    Registration is not unreasonable. I will register my gun, like my car.

  • SDN||

    Anything I have to register is a privilege, not a right. Repeal the Second Amendment and we'll talk.

  • Killazontherun||

    They don't see themselves as political actors involved in compromise, they see themselves as hostage negotiators. Reasonable to them is you giving in to a series of demands that don't end until you no longer have possession of a firearm. Who is the hostage on whose behalf they are working for? Why, America, of course. Scared and frightened by crazy eyed gun owners, and too coward with a little touch of Stockholm Syndrome to do anything about it.

  • R C Dean||

    RKBA defenders are criticized for not being willing to accept 'reasonable' restrictions,

    Its not a reasonable restriction unless the burden it imposes is (more than) balanced by some societal good.

    Identify for me the societal good that universal gun registration (whether overt or covert) will achieve, and we can talk.

  • Paul.||

    Identify for me the societal good that universal gun registration (whether overt or covert) will achieve, and we can talk.

    We know where all the gun owners are... it makes confiscation so much easier.

    Boom, societal good.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Hi--No, you are wrong. Many gun owner's, like me, want reasonable controls AND the right to own a gun.

    Your whole argument is based on a lie.

  • Enigma||

    want reasonable controls

    Like what?

    the right to own a gun.

    That doesn't satisfy a lot of left wingers.

    Your whole argument is based on a lie.

    His whole argument is based on the truth about the left and their view of gun control. You're senile.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    "Gozer the Gozerian on Why Free Men Are Right to Fight Against Oppression"

    Fucking tautologies, how do they work?

    Next question...

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Being shot and killed is the ultimate oppression, and your gun will not protect you if someone is determined to take you out. There are armed criminals shooting each other every day, and their guns don't protect them.

    So, if your gun can not actually protect you, what will?

  • dinkster||

    Why the state of course. Amirite? PS fuck off slaver

  • Enigma||

    and your gun will not protect you if someone is determined to take you out.

    Neither will a whole Secret Service force. The only reason Ronald Reagan didn't die was because he got to the hospital in time. A little longer and he would've died. Should we dismantle the Secret Service?

    So, if your gun can not actually protect you, what will?

    This argument can be twisted to justify almost any government program and regulation. Do you want to go down the route?

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Well, I could stab you, run you over, poison you, push you off a cliff, strangle you, falsely accuse you of crimes that send you to prison for life. If I really wanted you dead, I'd figure out the details. That's human nature, and it goes way back before the advent firearms.

    The fact remains it's not the tool that is at issue, is it? Or is it?

    Even though I walk through the valley of death, I fear no evil, for I am well-armed and well-trained. ;-)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had.

    Let me preface by saying I was happy to see the Toomey-Manchin thing go tits up in the Senate, and want to see my senator, Toomey, watch his political career do the same because of it. But didn't that legislation actually have the gun grabbers giving something up? Weren't there relaxed restrictions on traveling through gun grabbing states?

  • ||

    Speaking of which....if I bring my gun to my VT vacation this year, I will be passing through several of the least gun-friendly states in the Union. My only stop will be in NJ at the top of the GSP. Can the po-po "get" me for this? Or is it OK as long as the thing is packed away and unloaded?

  • DaveSs||

    Per the Federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, you are OK if the firearm is cased, not immediately accessible, the ammunition is stored separate from the firearm, and the firearm is legal in the jurisdiction you are traveling from and traveling to.

    NJ though is known to not concern itself with FOPA.

  • ||

    I guess I'll just have to risk it. My only stopping options are MD (too close to home to need a stop), DE (all 5 miles of it), NJ and NY (too close to my destination to bother).

    I suppose I could do the whole 8 hours without stopping, but the dog wouldn't appreciate that too much.

  • John||

    Kristen,

    Take the Poconos root and drive up I-81. And then cut across to get to Connecticut and up to Vermont. DO NOT drive through New Jersey and avoid New York as much as possible. It is not worth the risk.

  • ||

    Unfortunately I'm staying just south of the Champlain Bridge on the lake, making any route but 95-GSP-NYS Thruway un-doable. If I were headed to Burlington or Stowe, I might consider 84-684-91, but not this time.

  • ||

    (it's not unfortunate where I'm staying - it's lovely. It's just unfortunately close to all the gun-grabbers).

  • Ted S.||

    If you're going all the way to Champlain, stopping along the Thruway shouldn't be that much farther than stopping along the Garden State. Isn't Sloatsburg just over the border?

  • Drake||

    John - Driving through CT and MA is an even worse idea than NJ. The signs on 495 in MA are disturbingly Orwellian.

  • DaveSs||

    Incidental stops for food/gas are allowed.

    Just keep it in the trunk

  • brokencycle||

    Just leave it in the trunk how will they know it is there? If you get pulled over, be friendly to the cop but don't submit to a search.

  • Archer||

    If your gun is legal in NJ, you shouldn't have a problem at all, even with some stops.

    If your gun is illegal in NJ, but legal where you are from and where you are going (say, a AR type with a 15 round mag, collapsible stock, etc) - then as long as your stops are reasonably a part of your trip (gas, food, hotel, etc) then there shouldn't be a problem (like DavidSs said). You can't stop for a week at your friend's house in NJ and when they find your gun just say "oh, I was just on my way to VT."

  • shamalam||

    "Weren't there relaxed restrictions on traveling through gun grabbing states?"

    No! Read this analysis of the bill:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/.....n-control/

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Okay! Stop yelling at me.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    All those off-the-books guns from the bad old days when you could buy a pistol at the hardware store, no questions asked; they really really want to know where they are.

  • T||

    I have a pre-64 Winchester Model 12 shotgun. Paperwork? What's that?

  • R C Dean||

    I have [number redacted] guns, and not a stitch of paperwork on any of them.

    When the universal registration mandate hits, I'll probably register my least favorite couple of guns, that I won't miss when registration is followed, as night follows day, with confiscation. The other [number redacted] guns will be stored out of harms way.

  • Paul.||

    The other [number redacted] guns will be stored out of harms way.

    In your cold dead hands?

  • Almanian!||

    ^^this, what RC said

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I've been carrying a gun for 30 years and it hasn't shot someone yet. I was even robbed during that time. The cops came and collected him off the floor of the shop, un-shot.
    Yet people claim because I carry a gun, I can't wait to shoot someone?

  • sarcasmic||

    The people who claim that are slaves to their emotions. If they had a gun then they would kill someone the very first time they got into an argument, got cut off on the road, got the wrong order at a restaurant, or anything else.

    So they project their own failings onto everyone else. Well, not everyone. Everyone except people in government. They're special.

  • Matrix||

    Yeah, I don't understand that. I can do a lot of damage to someone, and quite easily kill them, with my car. I have been very enraged behind the wheel, especially after having been cut off. I have also been mad at someone outside of a vehicle while I was near them in mine. I have yet to run someone off the road or run them over. Even if a part of me wanted to, I never did.

  • The Fatman||

    I get that shit too. I always tell them, "I have no desire to kill anyone. However, do not mistake my lack of desire for a lack of will. While I do not desire to harm anyone, I WILL kill you, if YOU make it necessary.
    I have had positive response from my "hippy" friends when I put it that way.

  • Ronald Reagan||

    "Yet people claim because I carry a gun, I can't wait to shoot someone?"

    A lot of people claim a lot of things. Your statement is irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.

    "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
    -Ayn Rand

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I like that quote, but using it has only convinced my mainstream friends that I am an unreasonable radical. The reason is that, while these same people grew up with and profess to believe the phrase "government is a necessary evil," they don't really think of government as evil in the way that I, and perhaps you, and certainly Ayn Rand define it. In their minds, foul-tasting medicine is a "necessary evil." It tastes bad, but is itself inherently good, and used for a good purpose. When I think of government as evil, I think of it as force, bluntly applied to situations for a good purpose if we are lucky, but employed all too often, regardless, always used clumsily, and for questionable or even bad purposes more times than is healthy for our society. It is my failure to see government as "good at heart" that serves as the wedge to alienate me politically from the crowd.

  • Salvatore||

    Why aren't we giving guns to every American on their 2nd birthday?

  • The Fatman||

    Because their little hands can't work the trigger?

  • UnCivilServant||

    We can engineer a solution to that.

  • Almanian!||

    Babies with trigger-jobbed single actions. Goddamn what could go wrong with that?

  • ||

    Who is "we"? You want some kind of government-mandated gun ownership? Fuck off, slaver.

  • Salvatore||

    I meant 'we' as reason commentariat should set up a fund to give all 2 year olds a gun.
    That's all.
    No need to cuss.

  • Jordan||

    Obvious troll is obvious.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    It wasn't obvious to me. If it's trolling, it doesn't seem to be particularly effective.

  • SugarFree||

    A crying infant doesn't know what he's doing either, but still manages to be annoying as fuck.

  • ||

    There's always a need cuss. Fuckin-a.

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

    You've been detected!

  • Dweebston||

    Also this, or this.

  • shamalam||

    I gave each of my three children a gun when they were born. They are Americans, after all.

  • Almanian!||

    nice

  • Paul.||

    I will read any article on guns from David T. Hardy.

    That is all.

  • ||

    "Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years." - Pete Shields 1976

    Ahahahahahaaa 7 to 10 years lol.. Suck it douchebag!

  • Gozer the Gozerian||

  • Floridian||

    The mistake he made was thinking gun owners would not fight back. A strange assumption since armed people tend to be more willing to fight.

  • Almanian!||

    armed people tend to be more willing to fight

    THAT'S WHY TRAYVON MARTIN IS DEAD! AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF ANYONE BUT COPS, AND TEH ARMEE, AND...GOVERNMENT PEOPLE!

    Cause we can TRUST them to do the right thing!

    /derp

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun ownersLibertarians.

    FTFY

  • Mr. Weebles||

    I had this same argument with one of the resident trolls a month or two ago. He kept asking why I wasn't willing to compromise and I said I certainly was prepared to compromise: I'll agree to universal background checks but he has to agree to the repeal of NFA laws, the GCA or the Lautenberg Amendment.

    Surprisingly, he was unwilling to give me any of those.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    In a real compromise both parties get something they want but not everything. Libertarians want more net freedom. The types of "compromises" offered to them usually grant privilege in one area for the loss of true freedom in that or another area: the same or less net freedom. This is not compromise, it is slow motion capitulation, and deserves to be rejected. But when it is rejected, Libertarians are criticized as being unwilling to compromise, in the same way that the failure of over-regulated markets is typically blamed on "free-market capitalism." And the public buys both lies.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun ownersLibertarians.

    FTFY

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Whose turn was it to feed the server squirrels today. Sorry for the redundant post.

  • Anders||

    An excellent article.

    And it is notable that after the Kafka-esque trial of George Zimmer, Holder is using it to stir up mischief about Stand Your Ground laws.

    SYG did not feature in that trial but gun grabbers will stop at nothing. They don't stop and they won't stop.

  • Jim Kress||

    Understanding requires a reflection on the tactics used by the totalitarians who want to enslave us.

    They are INCREMENTALISTS. They have incrementally taken a Constitutionally Limited Republic and turned it into a political rats nest so violently in opposition to the original intent of the Founders as to be unrecognizable.

    Even us dumb libertarians have finally recognized we must react vigorously against the word "reasonable" because the Left have redefined "reasonable" as "the next step in our plan to implement totalitarianism."

    There is no reasoning with people who want to make you slaves to themselves and the government. There is only resistance, perpetual resistance.

    As Jefferson said so eloquently:

    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

    and

    "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

  • Ronald Reagan||

    As Jefferson said so eloquently:

    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

    Which is why he helped create our democracy, which allows us to peacefully change our government. If you love Jefferson so much quit whining about our system of government.

  • dinkster||

    You mean constitutional republic, right slaver?

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Sure. Just quit whining about our government. The system the founders set up is working. "The people" have the opportunity to over throw our government every four years. The fact is "the people" have chosen. Your views lost.

    A more coherent argument and less name calling will make you more persuasive.

  • Enigma||

    Just quit whining about our government.

    Make me.

    "The people" have the opportunity to over throw our government every four years.

    How insipid. The executive bureaucracies are not elected and unaccountable. Our system is controlled by two major parties that often times collude with big business and big labor to screw us out of our money. Instead of offering solutions, they give us excuses, lame and deceitful justifications of their corruption.

    The fact is "the people" have chosen.

    No, the fact is 50% of the country choose. The rest don't care (perhaps because they know the system is rigged). Also I'm interested, if "the people" choose, does that give them a right to do whatever they want to the minority? I mean, democracy and all. Right? Are the majority's views more virtuous because they are the majority's views?

    Your views lost.

    People thought the world was flat for a long time. Those who said otherwise were ridiculed. Their views lost at that time. (PS, please tell this to a Stalinist or Maoist)

    A more coherent argument and less name calling will make you more persuasive.

    This applies to all of your posts (and most left-wing and conservative criticisms of libertarianism).

  • ||

    But, even if we could save just one child's life, don't we need to try?

    Now, come on, guys: let's go throw some teens in jail for smoking pot.

  • timbo||

    I wish all sane, law abiding people had guns. Then crime would be less and the criminal fucks in Washington would be less apt to fuck with our freedom.

  • BambiB||

    The American Revolution began as a result of British attempts at gun control. It is not inconceivable that future efforts at gun control may lead to the Second American Revolution.

    Our government is balanced on the edge of a razor. The Federal Reserve is churning out tens of billions of fiat dollars each month, desperately trying to "stimulate" the economy. Each dollar it prints devalues every other dollar in circulation, portending rampant inflation. What will Americans do when their $50,000 incomes will only buy them a dozen loaves of bread? As the Country circles the vortex of economic destruction at an ever-increasing rate, the political masters are fervently plotting means to prevent a citizen backlash that may well include violent revolt. To them, it is ever more important to disarm the People they intend to rule before those People dispossess them of power.

    But how do you convince a third of the population to surrender their right to bear arms?

    This has been the intractable question for recent administrations - one they are increasingly desperate to resolve. Where previous efforts involved appeals to "reasonable" gun control, recent efforts have been cruder and more devious. (cont.)

  • BambiB||

    The Attorney General has presided over a program involving the FBI, ICE, DEA, ATF and DOJ in a plot to drive up the number of "American" guns found at Mexican crimes scenes (and thereby justify more gun control in America) by shipping thousands of "assault weapons" to Mexican drug cartels. These guns have been used to murder hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one American, and will continue to be used in crime for many years to come. No legitimate law-enforcement goal was served by this wholesale export of arms to criminals. The president has exerted "executive privilege" to cover up the details.

    The DHS has ordered more than 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition (enough to fight 25 years worth of wars) to dry up supplies and raise the cost of ammunition. It should not escape anyone's attention that the TYPE of ammunition being purchased costs twice the price of suitable practice ammunition. Nor should anyone fail to recognize that it cannot legally be used in wars with other countries. This ammunition (hollow point) may only be used to kill Americans - and DHS has ordered enough to shoot every American five times. Is our government stupid enough to pay double for ammunition ostensibly purchased in bulk as a "cost-saving" measure? Or is it preparing to go to war with its citizens?

  • Ronald Reagan||

    "The American Revolution began as a result of British attempts at gun control."

    I thought it was about tea...

    The genius of our system is the ability of citizens to overthrow a government that they objet to by VOTING. The government that you are whining about is the result of the system that the founding fathers you worship put in place.

  • James Solbakken||

    "The genius of our system is the ability of citizens to overthrow a government that they objet to by VOTING. The government that you are whining about is the result of the system that the founding fathers you worship put in place."
    Some problems with that: Our Founders did NOT place a lot of faith in voting. In fact, they had a LOT of critical things to say about democracy in general. They considered the general LIMITATION of government to be the most important factor in preserving the people's liberty. Also, our Founders said flat out that when the government THEY set up no longer served the People then the People should ALTER AND/OR ABOLISH IT!!! See how stupid and ignorant you really are? You got it all wrong!!!!

  • Ronald Reagan||

    "Our Founders did NOT place a lot of faith in voting. In fact, they had a LOT of critical things to say about democracy in general"

    And yet that is the system they chose.

    "Also, our Founders said flat out that when the government THEY set up no longer served the People then the People should ALTER AND/OR ABOLISH IT!!!"

    Yes, and they gave us the vote as a tool to do it without violence.

    So, you are actually the one who got it wrong, and you made yourself look bad by calling me names.

    I'm done with you. But go ahead and prove your foolishness by writing a response that I won't ever read.

  • dinkster||

    Great. Please stop posting.

  • Enigma||

    And yet that is the system they chose.

    And???

    Yes, and they gave us the vote as a tool to do it without violence.

    What happens if the vote fails? What happens if the democratic system becomes ineffective at solving the problem? What happens if people lose faith in the system? What will happen to people like you when it fails? Will you go insane? Will you kill those who you believe corrupted your worthless ideas? The world would like to know.

    I'm done with you. But go ahead and prove your foolishness by writing a response that I won't ever read.

    Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    If gun control passes and crime goes down: "Hey, the gun control's working! We should have more of it!

    If gun control passes and crime goes up: "Oh, gee, the gun control isn't quite working. We need more!"

    No matter what outcome, we always need more gun control. It's completely divorced from results.

    The best thing we can do to stop crime is what we already do, prosecute criminals.

  • Polo Ralph Lauren outlet||

    organizer steve Hollister, Existed as a result of his signature limits. In the corner we are united states skull cap. Online, America large eagle lists top have Haves for the summer season it is entirely adequate. The collectible narrowed a pair of shorts and also candy striped t tops are fantastic ordinary stuff to enjoy, As there are those antique pick up polo shirts.
    Bottes Timberland,Timberland France http://www.bottestimberlandfrance.com/
    abercrombie köpenhamn http://www.xn--abercrombie-kpenhamn-gbc.com/

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Hi--I am a gun owner and I would like to see more controls on guns.

    This article is dishonest in that it lumps all gun control advocates(and gun owners) into one extreme position. In fact ome gun control advocates want to eliminate all gun ownership; others don't. Most gun owners want more controls; others don't.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-says.html

  • Ronald Reagan||

    Gosh, y'all don't know what to say when confronted with the facts.

  • Dave In SoCal||

    We're waiting for actual, you know, facts rather than just opinion or speculation.

    Do you understand the difference

  • Irish||

    Hilarious. Guy posts comment a day after this article is no longer on the front page of reason. Assumes that the fact that no one saw his comment is proof that he is right.

    Stupendous.

  • Archer||

    "Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds."

    I'd like to clarify: NJ does not "require a license to own guns" you can certainly own guns in NJ without a license - for example, if you bought a gun in PA and moved to NJ. You are not required to register it, or obtain a license even for a handgun. NJ requires a "Firearms ID card" - through your local municipality with a background check for purchase of a gun or ammo in NJ. "Plus a separate permit for each handgun" - it is a "Pistol purchase permit" and only for purchase of new handguns in NJ but is required for each - and only one per 30 days now.

    Carrying is pretty much forbidden, with certain exceptions of necessity. Technically though, you could get a permit to carry a machine gun - all you have to do is prove to Superior Court judge that is in societies best interest that you do so. (ha!)

    Hollow points aren't particularly complex: it is legal to purchase, sell, transport, own, and fire them. It is illegal to carry them in your concealed weapon (unless you are an active duty officer) and it is illegal to possess them for an "unlawful purpose." For example, if you have hollow points loaded in your 15 round mag they can charge you with multiple crimes.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Succinctly put. The goal is not safety or crime control, it is about societal control. Given the steady loss of constitutional rights, starting with Bush's so-called Patriot Act right up through 0bama's 3.6 billion round ammo purchases all-but denying citizens right to purchase ammo. That would be like the government trying to ban cars and when that didn't work, buy all the gas so you can't fuel your car. They are doing that with coal fired plants right now. We the People are facing real tyranny. The very tyranny our forefathers warned us about and set the Bill of Rights to protects us with. The Second Amendment was never about hunting or self-protection, it was always and still is about protection from a tyrannical government. So now ask yourself why is the government so adamant about disarming We The People?

  • Seamus Archer||

    I don't understand what problem this article is supposed to be addressing. Why lead with a forty-year-old quote, taken out of context, from a guy who has been dead for twenty years? Pete Shields isn't taking anyone's guns.

    Presently, about a quarter of Americans support a ban on the private possession of firearms. Is that the "gun control crowd"? I wouldn't worry too much about them. Even before the Second Amendment was reanimated by the Supreme Court (making gun bans unconstitutional, and your alarmist argument moot) they hadn't succeeded *anywhere* - not even in DC or Chicago.

    Meanwhile, somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of Americans support federal background checks. Assuming that every one of those people also support banning guns, that still leaves a *majority* of Americans who want reasonable gun laws but don't support "confiscation and control." Is giving in to them really the first step to a gun ban, which most of them oppose? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)

    And speaking of facts, you misstate the law - the New Jersey example, which others have already pointed out - in a way that needlessly exaggerates the amount of gun control out there. For a lawyer, and one who specializes in firearms, that's an easily avoidable mistake.

    The gun control debate desperately needs people on both sides who are honest, clear, and not out to score cheap rhetorical points. In honor of the venue, let's stick to reason.

  • Inquisitor2||

    They say: “Reasonable Restrictions” and “Common Sense Laws”, but?

    Instead of actually trying to address the underlying problems that spark the horrific mass shootings, the Democratic party is using each of these events as an excuse to further their long-time goal of banning all firearms except for law enforcement and government agents. They define almost every modern semiautomatic firearm as a “powerful assault weapon” and every magazine with a capacity over an arbitrary number of 7 or 10 as a “high capacity magazine”. They say “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense laws”. But what they do is, try to sneak in purposely “poorly worded” terms like:

    a) “possess a grip” to an “assault weapons ban” so that they can eventually ban all semiautomatic weapons;

    b) “capable of being converted” to “high capacity magazine bans” so that they can eventually ban all magazines;

    c) “suspected terrorists”, “record keeping” and “transfer” to “universal background checks” so that they can ban possession without due process or recourse of law, and use the records to create a “back door” gun registration list, which is currently prohibited under federal law and serves no purpose other than a list for confiscation;

  • Inquisitor2||

    PART 2 - They say: “Reasonable Restrictions” and “Common Sense Laws”, but?

    d) add the term “sporting purposes as determined by the Director of the BATF” to a proposed “Saturday Night Special” weapons bans even though this term is not used in the 2nd Amendment, is clearly not an included purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and allows a bureaucrat the authority to deny a citizen their Constitutional right without due process or recourse of law;

    e) create Federal regulations on the minimum criteria for State issued concealed weapons permits even though concealed weapons permit holders are the most law-abiding segment of the US population, better than police officers, elected officials, and the members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns;

    f) and add excessive taxes to firearms and ammunition.

    A review of the legislation proposed by the Democrats at all levels of government clearly shows that the ultimate objective of the “gun control” movement is to ban all firearms. They don't even attempt to actually address violent crime and are clearly not trying to solve that problem. Instead it appears that they actually need the horrific mass shootings to continue to occur so that they can use them as an excuse to further their anti-gun agenda.

  • Inquisitor2||

    The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for the protection of self and others. Law enforcement carry firearms for protection of self and others.

    Law enforcement personnel almost universally carry semiautomatic pistols containing magazines with 15 to 19 round capacity, loaded with high pressure (P+) hollow-point ammunition. They also carry, on average, 2 spare magazines with that same capacity and ammunition. As for long-guns, the most common long gun carried in law enforcement vehicles and SWAT teams is the AR-15 [type] rifle along with multiple 30 round magazines.

    The most popular handgun in the US is the Glock 17 with a STANDARD magazine capacity of 17 rounds and with a magazine extension the capacity is 19 rounds which is what many police carry. The most popular rifle is the AR-15 type with STANDARD magazines of 30 round capacity for 5.56 NATO (.223) and 20 rounds for 7.62 NATO (.308).

    If these weapons, ammunition and magazines are the standard, most common, selected for protection of self and others, why are the Democratic politicians at all levels of government trying to ban exactly these weapons and magazines for everyone EXCEPT government agents and law enforcement. Under the recent Supreme Court rulings those bans and regulations are clearly an infringement of the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment!

  • Inquisitor2||

    When terrorists flew airplanes in the World Trade Center, we blamed the terrorists not the airplanes. When a drunk driver kills or injures someone we blame the drunk, not the motor vehicle. But when a person kills or wounds someone with a gun, we blame the gun. We need to stop blaming guns and start trying to honestly identify and then address the true root causes of violent crime. Only then can we hope to make significant gains in the reduction of violent crime in this country.

    Firearms are not the cause of violence in our country! They are merely one of the tools used by the perpetrators of violence (26% of violent crime in 2011). However, they are also the tools used by law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and others. The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for the protection of self and others. This is one of the reasons why we need the 2nd Amendment!

  • Inquisitor2||

    “Universal” background checks.

    If the Democrats were truly serious about “fixing” background checks then they would try to address the issues I emphasize below, especially dealing with mental illness. They would stop trying to create a back-door national firearm registry and also stop trying to add a secret, no-recourse, bureaucratic list as a criteria for denying a constitutional right.

    The only area not covered by background checks is face-to-face sales between private individuals that also don't require transfers through Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers (which is required for all interstate shipments of firearms). To fix this, the following problems would have to be fixed (CAPITALIZATION added for emphasis only):

    o Private individuals need to be able to access the NICS database WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.

    o The laws need to be changed to require all private individual gun sales to be verified through the NICS database WHILE STILL RETAINING THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY KEEPING ANY RECORDS OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN THE SELLER'S IDENTIFICATION AND A TRANSACTION NUMBER and addressing any privacy law concerns.

    o The criteria contained in Federal law [18 USC - 922 - Unlawful Acts] needs to be reviewed BY THE COURTS and updated by congress to ONLY INCLUDE THOSE PERSONS ADJUDICATED TO BE A THREAT TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS as prohibited from possessing firearms and this law needs to be the ONLY criteria used by the NICS for verification.

  • Inquisitor2||

    PART 2 - “Universal” background checks.

    o Private individuals would have to keep records such as: a record of the gun's make, model and serial number; require the buyer to fill out and the seller to retain ATF Form 4473; a copy of the buyer's government issued photo identification; and a copy of the verification from the NICS database for the sale. THIS INFORMATION IS TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE SELLER'S RESIDENCE AND NOT PROVIDED TO ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR REPRESENTATIVE WITHOUT A WARRANT.

    o Currently different states have different requirements on what and how they share data with the NICS database. Those differences would have to be eliminated through standardization and compliance by the states.

    o Overall, it must be a requirement of law that ALL information contained in the NICS database is VERIFIED AS THE RESULT OF LEGAL DUE PROCESS AND is SUBJECT TO LEGAL RECOURSE.

    Major problems facing universal background checks are:

    o The criteria for mental health, which is a major issue in mass shootings, may not be the result of legal due process and recourse. Mental health information may not be available because of privacy laws, medical information laws and concerns. The MENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA WHERE SOMEONE BECOMES A THREAT TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS IS NOT DEFINED, AND THE MECHANISM FOR THIS DETERMINATION THROUGH DUE PROCESS AND RECOURSE OF LAW IS NOT CODIFIED.

  • Inquisitor2||

    PART 3 - “Universal” background checks.

    o But the biggest problem is that there are approximately 300 million firearms already in circulation in this country. It would be impossible to identify the current ownership of all those weapons because none of the criminals would comply even if there was UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE AND COMPLIANCE with universal gun registration by the law-abiding citizens. Such acceptance and compliance, however, WILL NEVER HAPPEN in this country because HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT GUN REGISTRATION ALWAYS LEADS TO GUN CONFISCATION. While countries that have firearm registration like Canada and New Zealand are eliminating gun registries because they are incomplete, are too expensive to maintain, and can not be shown to have any significant benefit.

    o Also, the democrats are trying to include temporary transfers under the requirement for background checks which would completely overwhelm all background check systems and MAKE THEM UNUSABLE! There are already laws that make it a crime to provide a firearm to someone, that is subsequently used in a crime; ENFORCE THOSE LAWS!

  • melpee||

    Armed self defense by civilians will become obsolete and the wimp will have to accept his punishment. But those who are talented with the use of their fists will harvest the goodies.

  • Alan@.4||

    Re the David Hardy article, and the problems of compromise with anti gunners, "compromise" with the anti gunners is akin to sleeping with dogs, then wondering why one has fleas, or so it seems to me.

  • Alan@.4||

    Oh by the way, as has been noted, gun registration leads to gun confiscation. It happened in California where I lived for 3 years, and I personally saw it happen in New York City, where I grew up, and lived for many years.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement