Nick Gillespie Talking Guns, Fiscal Cliff on Fox News' Tom Sullivan Show Tonight at 7pm ET

I'll be on the Tom Sullivan Show tonight on Fox News, talking gun control, fiscal cliff, and more.

Go here for more details.

The show airs tonight at 7pm ET and 10pm ET and again tomorrow at 7am ET and 7pm ET.

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.

  • JeremyR||

    Does anyone really want to hear Nick talk about guns? Other than maybe Chris Christie...

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I don't know. I saw the posting just too late to catch the 7pm airing. Does he have a nice McMillan TAC-50A1-R2?

  • OldMexican||

    Set your DVR to 10:00 PM EDT for the replay.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    DVR? I was kidding about being able to see it at all. I'm up at my cabin where I have no cable service.

  • OldMexican||

    A cabin without cable or Sat TV? I hope you have plenty of beer...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    or ladies

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Or both.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Sorry, the best lady within 2 miles is the wood stove. When I talk nice to her and keep her fed, she keeps me warm and cooks my meals. I appreciate it, as -5C (23F) feels a lot colder than it used to.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    A cabin without cable or Sat TV? I hope you have plenty of beer...

    I did bring beer this time. I keep a bottle of Goldschlager around here too.

    My big entertainment today is to finish butchering the mule deer I took yesterday. If not, it'll attract the Cinnamon I keep seeing along the stream, and I don't want to have to shoot him. Even if I like bear meat, who needs 300 pounds of it?

  • Jerry A. Blackmer||

    my best friend's sister-in-law makes $81 hourly on the laptop. She has been out of work for six months but last month her payment was $17483 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site... www.Snag4.com

  • Hawk Spitui||

    Hey, it's Reason... Think Pink!

  • ||

    My wife is not about to give up the tv so I wont see it. I will watch later if it is posted here.

    I went back and read some of Nick's gun stories.

    Nick, we need to have a talk, brother.

  • RBS||

    Why? Because he's not all Gun! Guns! Guns!? He doesn't personally like guns and doesn't think the argument that armed citizens can stand up to a modern military is very convincing but he still thinks the Second Amendment is very important and what type of gun you own and how many rounds your magazine holds is nobody's business.

  • ||

    Yes.

  • johnl||

    Why would armed citizens stand up to the military? Or even the police? These institutions are constrained to operate not too far outside mainstream opinion. Political violence is organized by party controlled militias like the Brown Shirts, KKK, Mormon Militia, Sigma Pi, ... Those irregulars are very sensitive to how well armed their would be victims are.

  • An0nB0t||

    Yep. And I'd be willing to pit a bunch of paramilitary rednecks from yokeltarian-friendly locales like TX, KY, and ND (brrr) against their secret police any day.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Sigma Pi? The college fraternity? I must have missed them changing to militia status. Did they get their charter pulled?

  • ||

    Could be worse. It could have been Smegma Nu...err Sigma, Sigma Nu. I make that mistake all the time.

    (SOD-damn I hated those fuckers..)

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    Yes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This is a libertarian website; dissent CANNOT be tolerated. Get with the pogrom.

  • Ted S.||

    Get a second TV, or a new wife.

  • ||

    Nah, I like this wife. TV not so much.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Deval Patrick was interviewed this evening on The-Brit-who's-now-Larry-King Show on CNN. I'd never heard him speak before. He is an absolute blithering idiot.

    With all those top colleges in Boston, this is the person they pick as their leader? I know William F Buckley said he'd rather be led by the first 100 names in the phone book than the faculty at Harvard, but I never thought they'd actually do it.

  • RBS||

    Good lord, how did you make it through that without stabbing yourself in the ears with a pair of scissors?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: RBS,

    Good lord, how did you make it through that without stabbing yourself in the ears with a pair of scissors?


    Lots of vodka?

  • ||

    Works for Russkij and Ukrainij...-D

  • AlmightyJB||

    Being a blathering idiot is also known as pandering to the constituency.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He's a blithering idiot AND Obama plagiarized his speeches.

  • An0nB0t||

    The Boston phonebook, at that. Buckley pulled no punches when it came to the Kremlin on the Charles.

  • Guy Laguy||

    YAY FOR MAH GUNZ!

    Gun Appreciation Day Celebrated With Accidental Shootings at Gun Shows in North Carolina and Ohio

    Three people were wounded Saturday afternoon after an accidental shooting at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, North Carolina. The incident apparently occurred at a security check point when the owner of a 12-gauge shotgun was asked to remove his gun from its case. Somehow, the gun discharged, shooting two people in the hand and one in the right torso.
    Meanwhile, in an entirely unrelated incident, a man at the Medina County Gun Show was shot and injured later Saturday afternoon.
  • Virginian||

    Fuck those checkpoints. Guns discharge when they are fucked with. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes me cringe more then having people unload their guns at the entrance to a gun store or range or gun show in the name of safety.

    My CCW piece in the holster cannot discharge. The holster completely prevents the trigger from being pulled back. Similarly, a gun in a case, even one that is stupidly left loaded, cannot discharge. This accidental discharge was caused entirely by this so called security checkpoint.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Guns discharge when they are fucked with.

    First off, WHAT. THE. FUCK. Guns don't discharge, people discharge them. I "fuck with" my guns all the time, cleaning, inspecting, oiling, taking pictures, practicing drawing and loading quickly with snapcaps, etc. They never discharge when I'm doing any of these things. You know why? Because I make sure they're unloaded first. There is no substitute for that.

    The guy with the shotgun was trying to sell it. It was not going to stay inside the case the whole time. Better to have it negligently discharged outside the event rather than in the middle of a packed crowd.

  • Virginian||

    I wasn't trying to ascribe sentience and agency to an inanimate object, I was pointing out that guns, even loaded ones, in cases or holsters do not discharge. Ever. As for this specific case, I bet you the cop or the event security doofus at the "security" checkpoint exhibited poorer gun handling skills then a gun show patron would have.

    Clearing barrels, requests to unload concealed weapons, and these gun show "safety" checkpoints are in reality anti-safety, because every single negligent or accidental discharge begins with someone manipulating the firearm. Ceteris paribus, less fucking with the gun means less ADs and NDs. If you loaded your Glock this morning and holstered it, leave it there until you get home in the evening. Don't function check it on your lunch break, or press check it in the bathroom. Leave it in the fucking holster. Unless you need to use it, leave it right there in the holster.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Dude, he was trying to sell the gun. It wasn't staying in the case unless someone was going to buy it without seeing it.

    And it's not hard to discharge a loaded gun with the safety off inside a soft case. Easily done with a coat hanger or a metal rod. That's why you point it in a safe direction while carrying in a holster and make sure it's unloaded before putting it in a case.

  • Virginian||

    And it's not hard to discharge a loaded gun with the safety off inside a soft case. Easily done with a coat hanger or a metal rod.

    Sorry, I forgot I was talking to the world's greatest pedant.

    A gun in a holster or case will not go off unless someone reaches into said case or holster with an implement in an effort to cause a discharge.

    Does that work better for you Captain Autism?

    Look, the point is that "please unload your gun" signs, clearing barrels, gun show checkpoints, etc are based on the false premise that guns just go off for no reason at random intervals. It's movie bullshit. A Glock in a holster can be kicked around the floor by a crowd of people and it will not go off. The same holds true for any modern firearm.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Leaving aside the holster question, in this case the shotgun wasn't going to be kept in the case the whole time. He was trying to sell it. If removing the gun from the case was going to cause a discharge, it was only a question of where and when the discharge happened.

  • Virginian||

    Reading the article, we find that it was a law enforcement officer working the "safety checkpoint". I would bet money that the cop decided he was going to check the gun personally, and trusted in his magic badge powers instead of the Four Rules.

    I know that whenever I pick up a gun from the table at the show, I point it in a safe direction, clear it, double check that it's clear, and then I shoulder it. I rarely actuate the trigger, even though the gun is unloaded. Because I practice safe gun handling at all times.

    I bet ol Piggly decided to shove his hand into the case, and drag out a totally strange weapon without laying eyes on it first. I bet his finger naturally went inside the trigger guard, like most cops do.

    Proper headline is probably: Cop wounds three at gun show.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you're making up facts that aren't in the story now.

    The actual source that Gawker links to says the discharge happened while the case was being unzipped BY THE OWNER. One possibility is that he ran his knuckles next to the trigger, or possibly held the case with the other hand right next to the trigger, while unzipping and the trigger got pushed back accidentally.

    In any case, it's not the LEO that left the gun loaded in the case.

  • Virginian||

    I didn't make up anything. I expressed an opinion that the cop was probably at fault, rather than the guy who owned the gun. Gawker knows shit all about guns, so their opinion is worthless, and the actual story doesn't say either way who was at fault. I merely expressed an opinion, and I was clear that it was that.

    My point that the whole problem is the bullshit security theater still stands. I never unload my CCW gun at a gun show or store. It's a lot safer in the holster then it is taking it out and waving it around.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The article says it "went off" while being unzipped by the owner. Hard to see how the LEO could be at fault if that's the case.

    In the case of CCW that's different, as you're presumably never going to be taking it out of the holster inside the store. I totally agree with policies requiring that any firearm that's going to be taken out in the open and shown to people be unloaded and checked before entry.

    Though if you can't safely unload your CCW firearm you shouldn't be carrying it in the first place.

  • Virginian||

    Right because the news does such a good job accurately reporting firearms stories. It's certainly very possible things happen the way I theorized, though I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

    As for the CCW thing, it's not a matter of whether or not the gun can be safely unloaded. The fact is that a gun in a holster will not go off, while a gun in the hand might possibly go off. We go from zero chance of an ND to a greater than zero chance. It's a classic example of how something designed to make us safer makes us less safer. Instead of "Unload your guns before entering" at the range, I'd like to see "Any guns you plan on shooting should be unloaded"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A gun that's unloaded has zero chance of going off (even for so-called "pedants"), which is why they're making people unload.

  • Virginian||

    Except to get from loaded and safely in a holster to unloaded and safely back in a holster we have to pass through a time when the risk is much higher. So we go from zero danger, to a very small amount of danger, in order to get back to zero danger. That doesn't make any sense at all.

  • Generic Stranger||

    On the same day, there were roughly 29,600 auto accidents resulting in 98 deaths.

    Haven't noticed anyone wanting to take away people's cars, though.

  • Mike M.||

    And almost 4,000 abortions happen every single day, yet we're supposed to ignore those and pretend they're not happening.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Do you know how many Irish are injured on St. Patrick's Day? ALL OF THEM.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Somehow, the gun discharged

    "Somehow?" Somehow! Taylor Berman needs to go back to poop stories. (Write what you know.)

  • SIV||

    I'll be on the Tom Sullivan Show tonight on Fox News, talking gun control

    So who will be arguing the case for gun rights ?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    NPR reporter decries the credulity of current mainstream journalism, the inbred sourcing where reporters simply quote each other rather than doing the work of verification, and the unwillingness of reporters to question the official line they get when it's something they want to believe is true. Which two scandals does he offer as examples of this concerning trend?

    (a) Fast and Furious and Solyndra
    (b) The Geithner Leak and Corzine misplacing a billion dollars
    (c) The Benghazi embassy fiasco and Secret Service's prostitution solicitation
    (d) Lance Armstrong and Manti Te'o lying about drugs and girls.

  • ||

    The otherwise healthy fourth estate dropped the ball on---duh duh duhn---an imaginary girlfriend.

    I blame the decline in revenue that these giant, intellectually proud institutions like NYT and NPR itself have suffered. Obviously the government needs to step in a pick up the slack so that no more imaginary girlfriends and doping scandals go under-investigated.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 1.4 million active duty US military personnel. Most of those never see a war zone, although certainly many do. In the terrible event that Things Get Really Bad, how many active duty will actually follow orders to attack US citizens en masse? US population is 315 million. A little less than half the households in the US have guns, supposedly, which is something around 50 million households. That's a shit ton of people with guns. In round numbers, assuming 1 million soldiers willing to attack their fellow citizens, the soldiers are on the downside 50 to 1. Yes, they have much better weaponry, but those are still terrible odds.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    That's only allowing one person per household to use a weapon. If it's more like 2 weapon users per household, the situation is even worse for our would-be overlords. I have not given up on the Second Amendment yet.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Last (conservative) estimates I saw were 80 million gun owners owning 290 million firearms. The 80 million estimate is pretty old, though, and has likely grown by a great deal during the Great National Gunsalesman's time in office.

    So, even going with the conservative estimates, that's 80 million gun owners who can arm pretty much anyone else who shows up to help out. Also consider that the US military is unlikely to use heavy weapons on their fellow citizens, which means most likely nukes, chemical weapons, large bombing runs, etc. are out of the picture.

    I don't see the military winning that even if the rebels were morons and tried to fight the military straight up instead of using guerrilla tactics. The military would have to go nuclear to win, and that's like shooting yourself in the head to spite your face.

    Even if you figure that only a fraction of gun owners would actually fight, let's say...3%, that's still 2.4 million people, assuming no non-gun owners show up to help out. Fighting a guerrilla war, that's still doable.

    Factor in the likely defections, possibly by entire units or maybe even divisions if such a situation were to come to pass, and it's not looking good for the statists.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Guerilla tactics are not as effective against a military with drones, satellites, and night vision. The USAF would OWN the night.

  • BigT||

    Yeah, just ask Iraq and Afghan... Oh, wait...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I missed where the US was being forced out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    We're only "losing" because our goal was to make everyone play nice and go along with democracy. If we wanted to rule Afghanistan we could.

  • Redmanfms||

    Reading you on military/war-making matters is always amusing Tulpa. You literally have no fucking clue what you are talking about, but you surely don't let it stop you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Do you have an argument why I'm wrong or do you only do insults?

  • Redmanfms||

    Do you have an argument why I'm wrong or do you only do insults?

    I've bothered to spend the time correcting you in the past and rather than simply admitting you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, you devolve into a never ending spiral of goalpost shifting and redefintion of words to suit your argument.

    It's a pointless endeavor on my part.

    But I will leave you with this:

    The Viet Cong were extremely successful in waging a campaign of terror and selective assassination in South Vietnam right up until being placed in a set-piece battle as a part of Tet '68. All of the U.S. military and ARVN's actions to try reigning in the influence and violence the VC were capable of using were largely, if not entirely, unsuccessful until the VC's Northern handlers pushed them into a battle they were not organized or equipped to fight, against forces that were at their best in such a scenario.

    Afghanistan and Iraq really aren't great examples of U.S. military prowess dominating a resisting population because the actual number of resistors is so ridiculously small and geographically isolated. At any given time the Taliban has only a couple thousand fighters in country.

    A guerilla war against the U.S. military (assuming there were no defections, and the Feds could mobilize and maintain control of National Guard assets), would be difficult for the rebellion, but hardly the impossibility you believe it to be.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So IRQ and AFG have no relevance to this discussion. I'll agree on that.

    Nam was over 40 years ago when we had much less military technology. I don't pretend to be an expert on it so I'll take your word on the initial tactics of the VC, but I seriously don't think those would work in the US itself. The American people would not accept a campaign of targeted assassinations against American officials.

    Plus of course the VC had support and safe harbor from neighboring countries which I doubt the American rebels would have.

  • Redmanfms||

    So IRQ and AFG have no relevance to this discussion.

    In so far as providing evidence of your claims re: the U.S. military's ability to "own" territory, yes.

    Nam was over 40 years ago when we had much less military technology.

    Most of the technology in use today was developed in Vietnam. The U.S. had a tremendous technological advantage in that war as well but lost anyway.

    Tactics can negate technological advantage, just as the VC showed in Vietnam. Since a large number of those who would be inclined to armed rebellion are veterans, who have in depth knowledge of the capabilities and (more importantly) the weaknesses of the fielded technology and training, developing those tactics would be relatively easy.

    I don't pretend to be an expert on it so I'll take your word on the initial tactics of the VC, but I seriously don't think those would work in the US itself.

    I never said anything about identical tactics. It is revealing that you think technology marches on, but tactics remain stagnant.

  • Redmanfms||

    The American people would not accept a campaign of targeted assassinations against American officials.

    So what?

    The majority of the population didn't openly support the Revolution. Loyalists represented a nearly identical portion of the population as did the Patriots. The silent plurality sitting in the middle leaned in one direction or the other nearly equally.

    And really, who are you to be arbiter of what the American people would or would not accept?

    Plus of course the VC had support and safe harbor from neighboring countries which I doubt the American rebels would have.

    Red herring. Neither one of us could know if or who would support a rebellion and to what degree or manner that support would be provided.

  • KPres||

    "Factor in the likely defections, possibly by entire units or maybe even divisions if such a situation were to come to pass, and it's not looking good for the statists."

    Yep, the military is generally right-leaning, so I'd imagine the defections would be legion.

  • Virginian||

    You also have to remember that the military has lots of soldiers who are really commo techs, logistics, etc. Vital support functions to be sure, and they will have to be done in the hypothetical scenario of a large scale rebellion, but that means that the actual number of combat troops the US government would have to call on is lower than that 1.4 million number. Depending on how you calculate it, it could be quite a bit lower.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You do realize this isn't the 1700s where you figure out who wins by comparing the number of troops on each side.

  • Virginian||

    You also realize any kind of insurrection isn't going to come out into the open to be massacred by airpower right? That if and when people begin to revolt against the Federal government that they aren't going to be marching on DC with banners waving and pipes skirling?

    Oh someone will probably try that. They'll either be massacred by regulars or perhaps drones will be used. Then the videos of American's own Tiananmen Square will push millions of fence sitters over to the rebel side.

    Look, being generous there are 500,000 servicemembers of all branches that are suitable for COIN. Because the other stuff still needs to get done. Even assuming that every single servicemember decides to follow the orders of the government, they're still outnumbered 10 to 1 at least.

    My objection to kicking off a revolt right now is not that I think the rebels will lose. It's my concern that instead of George Washington, the rebels will be Kerensky, with a Lenin waiting to make things even worse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're going to have to come out into the open at some point, unless this is a purely intellectual/verbal rebellion (which the govt probably wouldn't give a rat's ass about). They have to destroy govt assets, prevent govt from exercising authority, or kill/wound govt military at some point. Otherwise it's not much of a rebellion.

  • Virginian||

    Who said anything about killing the military? They're the fists and feet. You don't win by going after fists and feet. Especially when killing soldiers will just piss off other soldiers. Men who might not fight for their government will fight for their comrades. Look at the German military on the Western Front in 44 and 45. They weren't fighting for Hitler and his cronies, they were fighting for their brothers in arms.

    If, and I emphasize the if, I ever feel that the time has come to kick off a rebellion, I won't be killing soldiers. You don't cut off hands, you cut out hearts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not sure how you intend to "cut out hearts" without fighting against military first, but I'll do you a favor and not make you explain what I think you have in mind in a public forum. Needless to say guerilla tactics won't work for that.

  • An0nB0t||

    We just need to hold out against the fascists for another few years. Once the digital revolution permits home manufacture (by whatever means), that will spell the end of gun control in the modern era.

    As always, technology, time, and the market are on our side. Guess reality has a (classically) liberal bias after all.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Once the digital revolution permits home manufacture (by whatever means),

    "High-tech zip guns!" (Just wait, someone will say it.)

    Is that why they're introducing the idea of ammunition control? Not that I think that will be effective either, but it might be a sign of them casting about for alternatives.

  • KPres||

    It's more likely to spell the beginning of periodic and random personal inspections of your hard drive. After all, what would any law-abiding citizen have to hide?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, they have much better weaponry, but those are still terrible odds.

    Better weaponry, better training, air support, cruise missiles, drones, tanks, naval support...

    and a lot of those households with guns have shotguns and bolt-action rifles as their most advanced weaponry. Throw in the fact that a lot of people will not be against the government and even those that are have never fought together before, and it's going to be very very hard on the rebel scum.

  • KPres||

    The evidence seems to me to show that our military isn't all that effective against guerrilla warfare. See Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, etc. In none of those places were the citizens any where near as well armed or numerous as we are in the US. And just think about what the soldiers' moral would be like if they were shooting their own people.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Our military is extremely effective in IRQ and AFG. The problem is the RoE and the lofty goals of spreading democracy, which no military can do. If we wanted to rule both places with an iron fist we could easily do so.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    BRILLIANT

    Border Patrol agents say they've arrested a Canadian man who paddled into the United States in a canoe.
    The 38-year-old man is now in custody after being picked up early Thursday walking out of Fort Niagara State Park in Youngstown, north of Buffalo.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    A stolen canoe.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We need another fence? Gorram it.

  • waaminn||

    Well its not like anyone with an ounce of common sense watches faux news.

    www.AnonBoss.tk

  • ||

    Well! Pedo-Bot has learnt to spell! Looks you have competition from the arithmetically challenged horde of Spam-Bots...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement