Democratic Convention 2012

Democrats Have (Nominally) Changed Their Tune on Gun Rights

|

Shooting

While political party platforms usually mean little or nothing when it comes to the actual policies proposed and rammed down our throats by real-life lawmakers, they are an important indicator of what party apparatchiks think the public — the persuadable part of the public, anyway — wants to hear. And so it's interesting to track changes in tone and content over the years. For instance, to compare the Democratic platform's treatment of firearms in 1980 vs. 2012 is to see how the political center of gravity has shifted in those years. Back in 1980, banning handguns was considered a crowd-pleaser. Now, down-playing restrictions is the way to go.

The Democratic Party Platform of 1980 (with guns filed under "Law Enforcement"):

The Democratic Party affirms the right of sports-men to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes. However, handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party supports enactment of federal legislation to strengthen the presently inadequate regulations over the manufacture, assembly, distribution, and possession of handguns and to ban "Saturday night specials."

The Democratic Party Platform of 2012 (with guns filed under "Protecting Rights and Freedoms":

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Yes, it's all marketing-speak, but it tells you how the Democrats have changed their perception of what the customers want, and how those customers should be reached. Politicians and political parties may still be selling us the smothering embrace of the not-so-competent state, but what nice, new packaging they put on it for our benefit.

NEXT: Gays, Lesbians Take Center Stage at DNC

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.

  1. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

    Don’t you believe it!

    They also recognize the right of individuals to be forced to buy broccoli under the threat of harassment from the IRS.

    1. Dems supporting the RKBA is more plausible than “Republicans will cut spending”.

      1. So what?

      2. The “Republicans will cut spending” is more plausible than “ObamaCare will reduce the deficit”.

        Look a squirrel!

        1. And Bushpig!! Christfag!!!

      3. Awe, Partisan Butthole is butthurt when his team gets bad-mouthed.

      4. Jesus turdpolisher, you cant possibly believe the shit that comes out of your mouth. Everything you say is such over-the-top bullshit that everyone has to do a double-take to make sure they are reading correctly.

        God, you are such a douche.

        I dont believe the Rs are going to cut spending substantially, but nothing is more unbelievable than the dems supporting the 2nd. Tyrants must disarm those they wish to rule, no two ways about it.

  2. I personally know several liberal Democrats, most of them women, who are actually very pro-Second Amendment. But I consider them the exception that proves the rule.

    1. Are they from Texas too? I know women who describe themselves as “Marxist” and voted Green in 2000 who are relatively pro-gun. They are mostly native-born Southerners and have many friends who own firearms.

  3. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements?like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole?so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

    Commonsense to whom?

    I fail to see how denying a law abiding citizen access to an “assault rifle” will help keep them out of the “hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.”

    All bans (of any kind) do it penalize those who operate within the confines of the law and moral responsibility.

    1. Yeah, this is the exact same fucking line the Dems have taken for a while now. They’re just trying to walk as fine a line as possible by promising some jargon-worded meat to gun banners (“gun show LOOPHOOOLLEEEEE!!!”), while not saying anything too controversial that might get pro-gun people really riled up or make the NRA go apeshit.

    2. Yeah, I absolutely love that the nonsensical pile of legislative gibberish that was the “assault weapons ban” is always now referred to as “commonsense”.

  4. …and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

    So long as you don’t live in the confines of one of our strongholds. (I’m looking at you, Chicago.)

  5. By seizing the moral and legal high ground and enforcing discipline within the GOP, gun freedom advocates won. It’s not perfect now but it was so much worse. If it can be done for guns, it can be done for anything.

    1. Uh no. In fact it’s the exact opposite. The NRA backs the most pro-gun candidate. They don’t care if you’re a ‘bortion till birth, public option supporting, tax raising liberal. If you’re 2nd Amendment bona fides check out, the NRA will endorse you. See people like Harry Reid or Jim Webb or Mark Warner or any of the Blue Dogs.

      That’s why they’re so damn effective: they reward people who vote their way on their one issue. They are a single issue pressure group, the model for it. Someone who could definitely copy the the NRA method, IMO, would be the legalize marijuana crowd. If NORML had 2 million people willing to vote (and more importantly, donate money) for the most pro weed politician in every election, no matter what party the politician was from, weed would be legalized in 30 years.

      I mean shit, it was 20 years ago they were banning semiauto rifles because they had scary military features. 30 years ago concealed carry permits did not exist. Now I can see in my lifetime the possibility of repealing the National Firearms Act in its entirety.

      1. A few years ago at least, the NRA’s policy was to always endorse any incumbent who met a certain threshold of gun rights support. But yeah, they do endorse people from both parties which is smart.

        1. That’s still their policy. I’m a member, and one of the most infuriating things is fighting to keep the focus on gun rights. Obviously most NRA members are conservative, and a lot of them will often ask why the NRA isn’t counting votes on some legislation that can only be tangentially related to RKBA when they make the score*. There’s a small clique that constantly tries to get the NRA to become a Team Red support organ, rather then a single issue pressure group. It’s rather annoying.

          Especially annoying is when the NRA gets involved in a Dem primary, boosting the pro gun candidate, so that in the general no matter who wins, the NRA has a friend in power. Then the Team Red’s are all “Why are you spending money and time on a Democrat?!?!! Why not the Republican?!?!?” Never mind that someone like Brian Schweitzer or Jim Webb is ten times the Second Amendment friend that Scott Brown or Olympia Snow is.

          1. Too bad there isn’t an NRA type group for the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I suppose the ACLU fights for some of them, but they are selective.

            1. Yeah! Where are the motherfuckas standin’ up for the third?!

              You can quarter in my house when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

            2. Well I think the reason for that is that the second is a very narrowly focused amendment.

              Defending the 1st, for example, means defending various religion’s right to practice, from the Catholic Church to the Westboro Baptist Church. It means defending hardcore porn and political speech funded by corporations. It means defending the publishing of newsletters of groups like the American Nazi Party or the KKK. It means defending the Occuppy Wall Street crowd and the TEA Party assembling peacefully. It means being ok with both Dan Savage and the CEO of Chik-Fil-A speaking their minds. Most people can’t get there. Something speech related is going to make them go “They’re oughta be a law!!!”

              The NRA has spread a message of liberty, that’s true. But it’s a narrowly focused one. Their success is wonderful for the 2nd Amendment, but one of the drawbacks is the agreement that as long as politicians toe the line on the 2nd, they won’t make any noise about other statism.

              That’s why there are so many new shooters today. It’s not a rural culture thing, or a right wing thing. It’s just the gun thing. And while there’s a lot more hard nosed libertarians in the gun culture, not everyone in the gun culture is hard nosed libertarian. Hopefully getting into gun rights will lead to people flexing more of their rights, but tons of people are perfectly content with having their guns and their socialism.

        2. John Dingell was an NRA board member for years, as was Harold Volkmer.

      2. Why do you want terrorist child pornographers to own machine guns VA?

        1. Hahaaha

          Talking gun control is really fun right now. The reason is simple. Shooting guns is fun. Everyone I’ve ever taken shooting has enjoyed it or at least said it was an interesting experience that they’re glad they tried.

          That’s why the antigun crowd is losing really. You can’t go to the notshooting range. You can’t show off the gun you didn’t buy because you don’t believe in it. You can’t sit around talking about notshooting. FPSRussia doesn’t make awesome videos about standing around and explaining why guns are bad.

          Just like any other kind of prohibitionist, the gun banner is a buzzkill. He just needs to shut up and pass the ammo so we can blow up some more old cans and bottles.

          1. Bingo!

            The anti-gun crowd has to be gloom and doomey all the time. Gun-rights folks take new friends to the range and have fun.

            The NRA is winning the war not with legislation or litigation, but by fielding tens of thousands of certified firearm instructors.

            1. And the number of new shooters continues to rise every year. Which is freakin awesome. When I was a kid, not too long ago, going to the gun shop or range with my dad you’d see the same people every time, and they all fit the stereotype of a firearm enthusiast: male, working class, counrtyfied, hunters (like us).

              Now you go the range and there are soccer moms, accountants, teachers, and people from all walks of life. And they all got one thing in common; they’re all passionate about firearms and gun rights. Hell, some of ’em are left wingers, but after getting involved in shooting they stand up for the 2nd.

              1. Precisely. Can you imagine an org like the Pink Pistols existing in 1985?

      3. Er…I think we’re in violent agreement, I just have lousy writing skills I guess.

  6. And so it’s interesting to track changes in tone and content over the years. For instance, to compare the Democratic platform’s treatment of firearms in 1980 vs. 2012 is to see how the political center of gravity has shifted in those years

    Um…. Ok. From, “Your going to suck my cock,” to “Your going to suck my cock, pretty please.”

    1. More specifically, it went from “swallow” to “I absolutely will not cum in your mouth I promise”.

    2. And so it’s interesting to track changes in tone and content over the years. For instance, to compare the Democratic platform’s treatment of firearms in 1980 vs. 2012 is to see how the political center of gravity has shifted in those years

      Um…. Ok. From, “Your going to suck my cock,” to “Your going to suck my cock, pretty please. Our candidate has a better track record concerning gun rights”

  7. We may joke, but RKBA is one liberty-oriented issue where the forces of liberty have been wildly successful. It would be wise to learn from this success, in the hopes of emulating it in different areas.

  8. How the hell do you ban Saturday night specials? Forbid anyone to sell a gun for under $300?

    1. I wonder if my P3AT would be considered a “Saturday Night Special”? Or a P32? They cost under $300, take smaller caliber ammo, and weigh nothing.

      1. It really depends less on what gun it is than whom is carrying it. And since you are a greasy New York dago polluting the beautiful cascade mountains with your snail-trail of olive oil and foul language, then yes, it is most definitely a saturday night special.

        hth

        1. Ah, it all makes sense now. So I guess that makes my CZ 97B a Saturday Night Special too?

          Snail-trail?!?

          1. Snail-trail?!?

            Yeah, that shit that leaks outta yer alligator skinned shoes. Jeeze, sometimes I think the wops might be more stoopid than the micks.

            The local place had a super-duper cheap cz 7.62×25 that was really tempting, but they had no ammo for it, sooo…

            I have hear that they are reliable guns and shoot well for the price. How’s yours treated you?

            1. I absolutely love that gun. It’s huge, so no carrying concealed, but it is a dream to shoot, is super accurate, and has never given me any trouble. If it’s indicative of all of CZ’s products, then they are awesome. And that’s what I’ve heard.

              I have a Sig Mosquito on order right now.

              1. I almost got the Mosquito as my first gun. It had rep of being extremely picky with the ammo at the time. Hopefully they’ve remedied that over the past few years.

              2. Lotta shit been talked about the skeeter, but I can say from personal experience that they are a joy too shoot.

                The people that have problems evidently don’t clean the gun when they get it, don’t oil it, never test different ammo brands, put the goddamn recoil spring in the wrong way, or expect perfection from an auto .22 pistol. EVERY dang .22 auto pistol has problems with occasional ftf fte, but that is to be expected with a less energetic cartridge.

                Have fun cheap shooting.

                1. My friend got a SW 22A, which was fun to shoot (he put a holographic sight on it) but I cannot stand ugly guns and refuse to own any. I went down to the store thinking I was going to pick up a Walther P22, but it’s a little small and the Mosquito was very comfortable. And it’s a Sig. And I always run all kinds of different brands of ammo through my .22s to see what they “like”, so I doubt I’ll have problems.

                  1. I had no idea you were so superficial, Epi. One day you may gain the wisdom to look on the inside, and fall in love with the Ruger Charger as I have.

          2. “….my CZ 97B…”

            Ewwwww….NICE. You have good taste Epi.

    2. You can take my Hi-Point 45… out of my gnarled, shrapnel-filled hands.

      1. If you search for “Hi-Point Pistols: The Ultimate Test” you’ll see multiple videos of rednecks trying to destroy a hi-point. To actually blow the gun up, they had to fill the barrel with gunpowder and hammer a bolt down the barrel. They might be ugly and poorly made, but they aren’t going to blow up in your hand.

        1. Saw that.

          They tortured that poor gun and it still performed. The Hi-Point may look like a cheap piece of shit, but it works. And price ain’t everything. Hell, I’ve heard people bitchin’ about finicky Kimber 1911s.

          1. There have been some negative YT video demos of the HP guns too (mostly the 9mm). It might be a quality control issue where most of them are rock solid but 10% are lemons. HP’s lifetime warranty is suspicious, that’s for sure…they may be planning to produce a large percentage of crap guns and if anyone complains they just replace it with a good gun. Since most people buying a $150 gun aren’t enthusiasts, a lot of customers won’t find out there’s a problem until they’re in a SD situation.

            1. That sounds reasonable. I’ve actually heard that their customer service is pretty good. You just have to hope that you don’t have a shitty one when you really really need it.

              I have nothing against inexpensive firearm, I just have the opinion that if you’re doing things right you’ll put way more money in ammo through the gun than the actual gun costs, so why skimp on the gun?

        2. Yes, I own one. Just playing into the narrative.

          When I first brought it home from the FFL it scared the shit out of me to see the firing pin protruding into the chamber when I racked the slide, but it turned out that’s normal because the firing pin doubles as an ejector.

          It is a real PITA to reassemble after cleaning, though.

  9. we can work together to enact commonsense improvements?like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

    Their definition of “commonsense” and “improvement” differs wildly from mine.

  10. I don’t mean to single you out, but can you guys have some sort of policy in place to catch spelling errors. When I was in college, we used to have to go through at least one paper in a week and select an entire section, proofread it, and then send the corrections to the individual reporter or editor.

    Because of all that training, I cannot help but stop and take note regarding any spelling, punctuation, or syntax error without my brain having a conniption fit.

    This seems to have increasingly become the SOP for all articles here in the Hit Run section. Please, please, please, for the love of God check your article before you publish it.

    Here is the problem on this particular article:
    “rammed down or throats”
    Should be:
    “rammed down our throats”

    1. Don’t be that guy.

    2. They haz a polciy in place four catching speeling air ors. Its culled commentators, n there free.

  11. Nice to see some trigger control.

    “Saturday Night Special”? Puleeze. They were waving that tired old canard around in the 1970’s.

    … Hobbit

  12. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements?like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole?so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

    “Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta muh hat!”

  13. Now if only we can convince them that the free trade, balanced budgets, entitlement reform, and “the era of big governmetn is over” and are all still just as big of crowd pleasers as they were when Clinton was president we would be golden.

    Yeah it ain’t my libertopia…still looking at how shitty it is today, 1995 was some sort of utopia.

  14. What “gun show loophole?” Are gunshows some magical place where laws don’t apply?

    1. In this day and age, individuals conducting business with one another without government intervention sounds magical to me. I’m really surprised that private gun transactions have held up this long without onerous background checks and such.

      *knocks on wood*

    2. They mean private sales. All of them. They just couch it in the “gun show loophole” language to sneak it by the less aware.

      1. Yup, and you know that there are some ffl holders out there creaming their jeans over the thought of mandated background checks. Sickening.

      2. If it’s not banned and we don’t like it, it’s a loophole.

        If it’s not subsidized and we do like it, it’s a donut hole.

        1. the pro gun community, and iirc the NRA genereally supports allowing private sellers access to databases to check on prospective buyers (convicted felon, etc.) . setting up a system where average joes (not just gun dealers and the cops) have access to the databases would not be difficult and it’s doable in a way that would not be privacy violative.

          it would help keep guns out of the hands of those who are lawfully prohibited from same, help private sellers know that they aren’t selling to a disqualified person, etc.

          it’s just win/win/win all the way around.

          and of course anti-gunners haven’t done jackshit (and jack left town) to facilitate citizen access to these databases for limited purposes

          1. it’s just win/win/win all the way around.

            Unless yer pro second.

            1. unless, i am misunderstanding you, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

              i think, as does dr paul, the NRA, and most RKBA advocates (volokh, etc.) that certain things should vitiate RKBA .

              for example, a murder conviction? no RKBA imo

              a nonviolent felony, which DOES erase RKBA, for example, i don’t think should be lost just because you commit a nonviolent felony. e.g. mark furhman (note for a good example of a double standard, look at that case. he took a perjury plea for a NONmaterial (imo) false statement (perjury only applies to material knowing false statements). clinton otoh, got a mere contempt of court for a BLATANT perjurios statement. few things were more MATERIAL in a sex harassment case than his lying about having sex with an intern

              if you disagree vis a vis the threshold for RKBA, do you think anything should be disqualifying? murder conviction for example?

              i can certainly respectfully disagree on where the threshold is, and i am aware that some people think NOTHING should erase the RKBA, even if a person is clinically insane and/or a multiple violent convicted felon

              1. I understand, even as a 2nd purist, that some people will be forbidden from owning firearms. Just that fact doesn’t alone upset me too much; it’s more that I think that the ease our lawmakers make felonies out of just about any human interaction is worrisome in regards to gun rights.

                In a country where one’s constitutional rights are at the mercy of the legislature we should be hyper-vigilant when enacting laws in the name of safety, which is th e situation presently regarding the 2nd and fifteenth. Reading something like “Three Felonies a Day” one would be justified in thinking that our rights hinge on the mercy of the authorities. If a person of authority, such as a a judge or district attourney, wants to fuck you over for life there is probably a law out there to assist them in their mission.

                I just don’t think that the commission of a felony should forfeit one’s constitutional rights forever.

                Regarding the mental illness statutes being proposed:

                I cannot abide the destruction of one’s rights by a psychiatrist. First of all, there are due process concerns, and more importantly: how many times in the past have the mental health sciences been horribly and sadistically wrong? Should a gay person not be able to own a firearm because some asshole says he’s mentally ill because of his orientation? My feelings about the terror watch list fall along the same lines. Where is the due process and how incompetent have they been in the past?

                1. fwiw, i generally agree with you. there are WAY too many crimes that are felonies… that shouldn’t be

                  when it comes to FILING standards, they are generally prosecuted as misdemeanors, but still

                  if i catch a 20 yr old kid with a forged driver’s license, that is TECHNICALLY felony for him to possess or use (possession or uttering a forged govt. document/instrument)

                  i mean, cmon

                  fwiw, our county prosecutor (felonies are filed at county level) have expedited misdemeanors even for “hard drugs” like meth, cocaine etc

                  iow, get caught with mere possession, don’t have a bunch of priors and it is AUTOMATICALLY diverted to misdemeanor court.

                  usual sentence: probation

                  however, we ARREST for the felony, and it is technically a felony

                  if you get trespassed from a store, then you return and steal a stick of gun. felony. burglary

                  etc.

                  fwiw, imo the MOST egregious due process violations hapeen in domestic violence cases

                  all that is needed is a domestic violence protection order.

                  NO crime needs to even be proved, let alone in a criminal court. all that has to be proved is that the petitioner reasonably fears for her safety, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, and it’s a civil hearing. there is no right to an attorney and ime most order respondents dont hire an attorney

                  iow, we can both agree that the line is set too loosely, but we probably disagree to some extent on where it can be set. fair enuf

                  cheers

                  1. Oh shit, I forgot the PFA bullshit. Dang, now I’m mad all over again.

                    Here’s what I say: publicly be against anybody having their 2nd revoked, then when the anti-gunners go nuts throw the murderers to ’em or something.

                    The question that these laws raise is, is commission of any felony grounds for revocation of one’s constitutional rights for life? That’s what the laws now essentially do, and I don’t think it’s right.

            2. Unless yer pro second.

              I am a bit confused as to why non-violent released convicts should not be allowed to own fire arms.

              Also i am a bit confused as to why I should be inconvenienced because some asshole (violent criminal) out of jail might buy a gun. It is not as if he is going to have problem getting the gun anyway if he really wants it.

              When did we say background checks were OK?

              Dunphy is just a pig who wants his way and to control other people. It has nothing to do with safety.

              1. Though I disagree with Dunphy on lots of things, I think you’re being uncharitable with your characterization of him. I do though share your concern with the casual dismissal of fundamental rights that’s all too common.

                Most of us don’t have to really worry about defending ourselves realistically from a statistical standpoint, however if you as an individual perceive the need to arm yourself for your own protection, I have a real hard time accepting our corrupt and incompetent legal system denying you this right, regardless of “due process.”

  15. Libertarians should start an organization to arm black Americans.

    Once law biding blacks are armed (the only real group dems want to disarm) the whole “debate” over gun rights goes away.

    1. You ever see this dude?

      One of my favorite youtube gun channels, after hickok45 and fpsrussia that is.

      1. hickok45 is dead to me after he dissed the 10/22.

        1. When was that? I watched him plinkin’ hardcore with one and lovin’ it.

          I was just shootin’ one this weekend with Pa and havin’ a blast. One thirty round mag after another with nary a problem. With cheap ammo too.

          1. Yeah, I have a 10/22 carbine and it’s an absolute blast. I had the usual trigger job and stop and slide lockback job done on it that I assume everyone has done, and it works great.

            Just throw a tennis ball out into a field and fucking go to town on it.

            1. I need a new trigger on mine. It’s got one of the shitty plastic jobs. I think even the old aluminum ones would be better.

              The costs for a decent trigger group is freaking rediculous, though. Almost as much as a new 10/22.

              1. They don’t get you on the frame, they get you on the accessories.

              2. I just got a new automatic bolt release plate the other day. No more pushing that annoying switch up and left (not up!) to release the bolt after it runs out of ammo. I just hope I don’t screw up the trigger group installing it.

                1. I installed one of those in mine. It’s pretty easy, so long as you pay attention to how everything fits together.

                  I also replaced the bolt stop pin with Volquartsen recoil buffer. It’s supposed to reduce battering on the frame bolt.

                  Those are the only two mods I’ve done so far.

                  1. Damn squirrels. Should be frame AMPERSAND bolt.

          2. In his video on that firearm he said he didn’t like it because it was “weird” compared to other rifles. Apparently he’s not a “let a thousand rifles bloom” kind of guy.

            He seemed to have fun during the video though. Even if he didn’t admit it.

            1. I’ve had my 10/22 forever. No modifications and it works great. Not sure what the issue would be. I’m dead on with it.

              1. @JB

                Yeah, my dad has two of ’em and they both have worked without any problems for 20+ years. So much fun takin’ out terroristin’ beer cans.

                ———————-
                Anyone ever try out the 10/22 take down model? I’m considering getting one for hiking.

                Notes on reliability, weight, accuracy, etc would be appreciated.

        2. hickok45 is dead to me after he dissed the 10/22.

          You mean he dissed the toy gun your pa bought for $50 and gave you when you on your 14th b-day..

          The horror.

          1. Oh no you didn’t just go there. People have shown the lethality of the 10/22 to ~400yds with cci velocitors.

            Just cause everyone’s dad gave them one at fourteen don’t mean it won’t fuck you up.

            1. A 50cc Honda dirt bike (another common gift for a 14 yer old) can fuck you up as well.

              It is still a toy.

              1. I didn’t mean to sound all serious; it’s a remnant of my childhood.

                The only thing my parents were strict about was firearm safety. If I would of called a .22 a toy out on the range this weekend with my dad, he most likely would have smacked me.

      2. That was hilarious. I probably fit about half of them.

    2. ARM THE HOMELESS

      1. So when you think about black Americans you think about the homeless?

        RACIST! (No, seriously, WTF?)

    3. We already know how liberals will react since they proceeded to hate Clarance Thomas even more after he noted in his opinion on Heller the racist history of gun control. How dare a black man question the benevolence of the state!?

    4. You mean, like the NRA?

    5. How this would happen is eventually one of the hundreds of thousands of people that got guns this way would use it in a crime. Then gun control would come roaring back.

  16. i know the reason meme is .. . “it’s getting worse” bla bla, but on a # of fronts it’s getting demonstrably, undeniably better, and god knows gun rights are one such example.

    check out the open carry forum(s) sometime. very encouraging. lots of stories of guys cruising around open carrying (in states that allow that) and getting tons of positive feedback from the public, storeowners, etc. and very rarely encountering problems.

    in many jurisdictions, including my own, it’s taken some edumacation of the cops, and the public (and even the prosecutors), but so it goes.

    companies like starbux, hardly thought of as conservative, have also set corporate policy to allow open carry in their stores in jurisdictions that allow it.

    liberal anti-gunner starbux customers threw a hissy fit, but so be it.

    hey, just the other day, the soccer mom that killed the motorcyclist in the fatal collision i went to (motorcyclist literally vaporized on impact – bone shards everywhere, pieces of flesh in trees. pretty wild shit), had a “i love gun and coffee” starbux sticker, and she was a classic soccer mom. this is the kind of person we need to win over to legalizing mj and i think we eventually will .

    by the way she was completely not at fault in the collision

    1. motorcyclist crossed into her lane, and i’ll bet $$$, his toxicology will come back positive. kind of like the seth adams shooting, where i was confident he’d come back positive drugs or alcohol and of course he was dui (.131)

      driving a donorcycle is dangerous enough. doing so impaired by liquor is hella stupid. motorcycle vs. car.. mcycle usually loses

      1. Ugh ‘donorcycle’? Was that intentional?

          1. I believe that the majority of organ donations come from young, male motorcycle riders. Don’t remember where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.

      2. How do you do toxicology on a vaporized body?

        1. Sprinkle that shit on some weed, smoke up, and note any unusual effects.

      3. where i was confident he’d come back positive drugs or alcohol and of course he was dui (.131)

        I love how you think that bolsters the case for his execution, wiped surveillance tapes and purposely delayed medical response being totally legit.

        1. For those keeping track, now both enforcing your property rights while having legal chemical in your bloodstream, -and- answering your door with a gun are things that dunphy feels you deserve to die for. Are the any other perfectly legal things which cops feel justified for killing us we should know about?

          1. It seems to boil down to things they consider “being disrespectful” or “being a moron”. Regardless of whether or not what you are doing is legal, if the odds are that the cop will kill you for it, and you do it, they think you deserve it.

            1. It seems to boil down to things they consider “being disrespectful”

              I’m glad you put that in quotes. I’m beginning to think that “being disrespectful” has a different definition in a cops mind. I suspect they actually mean “not showing abject servility”.

          2. which is utter rubbish, and competely disregards the fact pattern

            read the investigators report, which i cited.

            and i never said he DESERVED to die. that’s reasonoid crap

            i said the shoot was JUSTIFIED.

            deserved implies a moral element

            it has nothing to do with morality. it has to do with justification

            also, before seth adams was even brought up, i explained that when a BUSINESS person has a trespass call, they don’t and shouldn’t assault the person. if the person refuses to leave, they call police AND we enforce the statute.

            again BEFORE seth was brought up

            this cop saw an impaired by liquor guy drive up to him, and CLAIM to be the property owner, (which the cop could not confirm at that point). what did the cop do? CALL the police, iow backup.

            adams was the one who escalated, who assaulted the cop, and who ignored multiple orders NOT to return to and reach back into his vehicle

            he got justifiably shot

            if you can read the investigative report, which i cited, wherein AMPLE physical evidence completely corroborates the cop account, and still think it’s not justified, then fine. you have a bizarro world interpretation of force justification metrics, but i already knew that.

            the cop was in a parking lot, not the guy’s LIVING room, and it is not in dispute that adams KNEW he was a cop, since he called family members and after he got shot, eh SAID (witness corroborated) that he got shot BY A COP

            1. he could have called 911. he DID make phone calls. to family members.

              he made an immensely poor decision to drive in the first place. his BAC was a .131. that also corroborates the idea that he was making bad decisions in general

              fuck seth adams. he got justifiably shot. i feel badly for the officer, forced to fire on a guy SOLELY based on the guy’s behavior escalating the situation

              for fuck’s sake, they found adam’s DNA ON THE OFFICER’S NECK, again corroborating his account of how adams assaulted him

              in 20+ yrs of law enforcement i have responded to well over a hundred trespass details involving business people call on trespassers. if they leave upon police arrival/demand, we document a report and there is no crime unless they return. if the continue to refuse to leave, we arrest them (maybe 2 % of cases this happens)

              most business owners are REASONABLE . adams wasn’t. he was impaired by liquor and he wasn’t willing to simply call 911 and get the issue revolved responsibly.

              fuck him. like many other people, he completely brought about his own demise

              if it had been a bounty hunter, repo man, private investigator etc. in the parking lot, and this nimrod drove up and did the same thing, they likely would have called 911 too and let the cops sort it out

              that’s what adams should have waited for. there was NO exigency and he KNEW the sgt. was a cop , per HIS statements

              1. again, it’s an exceedingly obviously justified case.

                read the investigators report. i could only pray that if i have to shoot somebody, there is that amount of forensic evidence supporting my account of the incident.

                i’ve had, fwiw, two incidents where i had assaultive violent subject try to go back to their car, and in both cases i had guns drawn and made it VERY clear if they reached into the car, they would be shot

                both of them did the right thing and ceased and desisted

                the sgt. acted nearly perfectly. adams fucked up

                1. i’ve had, fwiw, two incidents where i had assaultive violent subject try to go back to their car, and in both cases i had guns drawn and made it VERY clear if they reached into the car, they would be shot

                  both of them did the right thing and ceased and desisted

                  Were you trespassing on their property after being repeatedly told to leave?

                2. Legally “justified,” not morally. I know that’s all that matters in a practical sense, but I think the distinction is important.

                  Also, the forensic report is not conclusive. The police had control of the scene, and it would be trivially easy to plant the guys DNA on the officer’s neck postmortem. Also, most forensic labs are corrupt, as you well know, so their results should be taken with a boulder of salt.

                  In addition, you are stating as indisputable fact the shooting officers account of what happened, as if there’s no possibility of a self serving account of the incident. Then there’s the mysterious “missing” security footage. It’s not even remotely the “justified” shooting you make it out to be.

              2. he could have called 911. he DID make phone calls. to family members.

                How dare he not trust the police!!!

                most business owners are REASONABLE . adams wasn’t. he was impaired by liquor and he wasn’t willing to simply call 911 and get the issue revolved responsibly.

                So he was required by law to call the cops? He could not legally throw the guy off of his property?

                if it had been a bounty hunter, repo man, private investigator etc. in the parking lot, and this nimrod drove up and did the same thing, they likely would have called 911 too and let the cops sort it out

                Would those people be legally justified in shooting him?

                KNEW the sgt. was a cop , per HIS statements

                Sure, after he shot him. Who else would shoot a property owner who told him to leave after he was informed there was surveillance? No one else would be able to get away with it.

                We know what he did wrong. The sheriff already told us:

                “It was just very bad from the outset with Seth Adams’ demeanor towards the deputy,” Bradshaw said. “

                1. I think Adams caught the deputy stealin’ his shit and swore to tell. The deputy saw only one way out.

                  1. I think Adams caught the deputy stealin’ his shit and swore to tell. The deputy saw only one way out.

                    The locals think he was cheating on his wife with his girlfriend and got caught. That would explain both the missing surveillance tapes and the tire squeal that witness reported hearing after the gunshots. It would also explain why he was conducting surveillance on ATM thefts in a parking lot that was more than 10 miles from any ATMs.

                    Deputy gets angry at being interupted, realizes that his marriage might be over, and starts threatening Adams in order to keep him quiet.

                    Adams, being drunk, gets pissed off that the guy who’s trespassing is getting aggro and isn’t leaving, and stupidly attacks someone who’s above the law.

                    The cop, realizing that adams won’t be intimidated into silence, and that he’s now bitten off more than he can chew, shoots Adams. The girlfriend is told to leave and not say a word.

                    Adams, meanwhile, is left to bleed to death while the cops try to find the surveillance footage.

                    1. Yeah, letting the dude crawl 300 ft and die raises a lot of questions. If it were a civilian in the same position they’d be up for murder 1.

                2. i’ll try one more time, but explainign UOF issues to people who clearly have NO knowledge of case law, a false belief that there is this double standard where cops can do whatever they want vis a vis force (and i have provided a metric assload of examples where cops are held to a higher standard of force e.g. the kelso bow and arrow case)

                  the cop was present in a business parking lot. those are geneally speaking open to the public as invitees or licensees. iow, access permission is presumed UNTIL it is revoked by a qualified agent, e.g property owner/security guard etc.

                  we routinely park in private business parking lots, after hours. and of course most businesses welcome that.

                  but a business owner is free to walk up to a cop, identifiy himself and request the cop leave. ONCE the cop VERIFIES the guy is the property owner (and not some loon), he IS obligated to leave, with certain exceptions (is he there pursuant to certain types of active investigation of in progress crimes or warrant etc.)

                  in this case, the cop, and there is AMPLE evidence that adams believed the cop was a cop once he identified himself (refer to the report – RTR) was presented with a guy , impaired by liquor with no identification on his vehicle that showed he WAS the property owner (and i am not sure if this private lot was solely ownedd by him, or easement/shared by multiple businesses or even that he might have been a renter of the property ont he lot, etc.)

                  1. but assume arguendo, he did have absolute authority to eject the officer from the property, then he absolutely had the right to do so.

                    and the cop is ABSOLUTELY ***REASONABLE*** in calling for backup – and CONFIRMING this guy IS WHO HE SAID HE IS.

                    this is completely unlike where a store manager, who is UNIFORMED in most cases, has store ID placard etc. walks up to a customer during business hours and demands he leaves

                    and EVNE IN THOSE CASES, it is NOT reasonable for the employee to go habeas grabbus on a nonviolent mere “i’m not leaving until the police arrive” trespasser in a BUSINESS setting like that (again, we aren’t talking inside a residence etc. where the situation is very different)

                    there is NO reason for adams to believe there is any exigency, etc. and if FL is anything like WA, this wouldn’t even be a gross misdemeanor, it would be a petty one, and a nonviolent one. the guy was acting erratic and belligerent (and that claim IS his supported by the fact that we KNOW he chose to drive drunk…)

                    1. any RATIONAL/REASONABLE business owner says “fine. i’ll wait for police” and he is free to make a complaint as well to IIU etc. or file a civil suit etc. after the fact, but it is NOT reasonable for him to attack the cop and that would be equally true if it was a bounty hunter, private investigator etc. who identified himself and said he wanted to wait for the police (and if you want to talk about a group that has generally WAY more power in some respects than cops, it’s bounty hunters).

                      and when you are presented with a violent assaultive (against supported by DNA evidence) subject, impaired by liquor fwiw, and he runs back towards his car, it’s a reasonable inference that he is doing so to arm himself.

                      the cop issued multiple orders, did everything he could to prevent a necessity of shooting, but adams, who was the hallmark of UNREASONABLE brought the shit down on himself

                      i have yet to confirm if yoy read the investigation, but SO much evidence, etc. was obtained after the shooting and NONE of it disputed the officer’s account and a heck of a lot supported it. that’s partially luck, but it’s typical, becausethe vast majority of officers tell the truth the vast majority of the time

                      this was a decorated conscientious man who had worked a long career and never had to shoot a man and i feel for HIM for having to do so because this assmunch escalated the situation, something drunk assmunches sometimes do

                    2. Agreed.

                      One, cops are held to a higher standard. Imagine if one of the little people shot a man on his own property for being an ‘assmunch’; hell, they’d give him the key to the city. But, this poor cop has to put up with an investigation and all types of questions. Jeeze, can’t a guy catch a break. Dang.

                      Secondly, this cop was obviously afraid for his safety. It’s the only explanation as to why he’d shoot the guy four times and let him crawl to his death 300 feet away.

                    3. again, read the investigation. this is just a CRYSTAL fucking clear case.

                      it is WHOLLY distinguishable, based on the TOTALITY of the circs, from a case like the oregon coffe shop incident, which i mentioned, where the business was open, and a person who the officer had no reason to doubt was the store owner/manager, who was working within the store a the time, etc. demanded he leave. in THAT case, yes the officer should do so immediately.

                      but *if* he said he wanted to wait for the cops and said he was calling 911/for backup, it would NOT have been REASONABLE for that person to try ot forcibly eject him either.

                      again, distinguish from, for example, a guy in a bar CAUSING A disturbance, who is forcefully ejected (after being asked to leave and refusing).

                      THAT is a situation with exigency and a completely different fact pattern. bouncers etc. ROUTINELY do so, and yes – even to cops – i have friends with SPD who have been ejected from a bar. and they left because they knew they had to.

                      i’ve seen some unjustified shootings, or some where it can’t be proven to be unjustified, but at least a lot of questions are open, and this case is not like them

                      this case is OPEN AND SHUT

                    4. seriously, i would suggest that even if you showed the investigative report to a foaming at the mouth cop hater BUT one who knew the law, he’d admit the shooting was tragic, but justified

                      some people just SCREAM out shoot me, officers do a lot to try to prevent it, but adams took it to the point where the officer would have been negligent in protecting himself if he didn’t
                      again, fuck seth adams. don’t get drunk, drive, assault cops, and disobey lawful orders if you are reasonable

                      or do whatever the fuck you want, but don’t go whinging to me if you have bad results

                      and you rarely identify whether you are making a normative argument or not, and i am not sure if you are in this case.

                      i am commenting on a use of force case bASED ON THE LAW.

                      i think that GENERALLY SPEAKING the case law for UOF’s is reasonable. there are minor points i disagree with, but whether we are talking a cop shooting or a noncop shooting, i think the law ESPECIALLY in states like FLA and WA is reasonable and i will analyze UOF’s based on the law as it is , not how i want it to be

                    5. i have NO idea how you want it to be.

                      i am making an assumption, that (and feel free to correct me), that you think that when the cop, who was there on an assigned surveillance detail based on ATM thefts in that location, was approached by a guy who claimed (but the cop could not IMMEDIATELY verify) that he was the property owner, that the cop should have had the immediate legal duty ot leave. that you think it is not reasonable for the cop to at least try to confirm the guy’s claim, that there is no burden, considering the non-exigency and nondisruptive nature of the officer;’s conduct, and the fact we are talking an open parking lot NOT a residence, etc. for the property owner to reasonably wait for cop arrival so the situation can be fleshed out, and i have ZERO doubt btw it would have been resolved thusly (and he probably would have been arrested for DUI too, but that’s his fucking fault),

                      that you think that if the person/cop in this case refuses to immediately leave the pARKING LOT, that the nonidentifiable (no business affiliated uniform,etc.) property owner would be ENTIRELY reasonable in going habeas grabbus on the “trespasser” at that point, especially when it’s clear from evidence that adams KNEW/BELIEVED the guy was in fact a cop (and feel free to substitute bounty hunter or private investigator)

                    6. again, imo that;s ABSURD.

                      and fwiw, business owners etc. KNOW it’s absurd because in 20 yrs of police work, i have NEVER seen a business owner/agent go habeas grabbus on a NONviolent nondisruptive simple trespass (simple trespass is a legal term).

                      never.

                      not in 20 yrs have i seen a business owner/agent do that. not a storee security officer, not a store owner, not a property owner . and note, this is DISTINGUISHABLE from a trespasser inside a RESIDENCE, where an entirely different force metric applies.

                      adams had absolutely NO reason, considering he believed and knew the guy was a cop to believe there was any exigency or any need to use physical force, that he HAD a cell phone and could call 911 if he doubted that (but called family members instead.

                    7. again, i don’t care if you think this is an appeal to authoritah or whatever…

                      i have taught use of force. i have testified in death investigations. i have investigated SCORES of CITIZEN uses of force, and many of them you would claim were blatantly excessive if a cop did them, but of course they were NOT.

                      i have presented examples, (for example the kelso shooting) that shows that GENERALLY speaking, citizens protecting property have MORE latitude than cops vis a vis force, ESPECIALLY in texas 🙂

                      but when you are impaired by liquor, NOT easily identifiable as having “apparent authority” (again a legal term relevant ot this instance) and you have a trespasser who is CLEARLY not in the process of committing some other inchoate defense, who is not causing a disturbance or property damage, you CALL 911 and you WAIT

                      PER-I-OD

                    8. again, maybe one day you could outline what the UOF guidelines would be in your fantasy funhouse mirror preferred world vs. the one we have.

                      it might be interesting

                      this case is , again, SO obviously justified and again i say that with my bona fides, because frankly they ARE relevant, just like it would be with anybody else who had extensive knowledge and experience, it just gets boring

                      again, i KNOW that you will ignore the relevant facts that make up the bulk of the totality of the circs and you will reduce it to some hack analysis, and you will of course assume the cop was lying about this and that (although at least in this case, there is a metric assload of EVIDENCE that supports his claims ), and you will look at it like

                    9. “this poor hapless business owner approached a trespasser who REFUSED TO LEAVE. and when he tried to make him leave , by using such BRILLIANT force maneuvers as grabbing the guy’s NECK, and even though h KNEW the guy was a cop the guy was making no disturbance, he had a cell phone and had ample opportunity to use it, and despite the fact he was impaired by liquor and already clearly making bad decisions (such as driving), etc. etc. IT”S ALL THE COP’S FAULT because immediately upon being approached at oh dark thirty by a guy who had know identifying apparel, etc. who was impaired by liquor and who was claiming “i own this parking ” lot and telling the cop to leave, that the cop should have just said “ok. ” and left

                      i guess that’s the funhouse world you want to live in

                      im glad i live in a world where cops ARE held accountable for following a set of rules, and that those set of rules are called LAW and Case Law and the constitution

                    10. sure, injustices happen. there;’s a celebrated case right now(zimmerman) where i think a guy was wrongly charged for force, just like two of my buddies were wrongly charged for assault (they were both acquitted) for on duty uses of force.

                      there are also cases where imo juries make the wrong decision about cops, e g paul schene in the jailhouse beating case, but consider that he was charged TWICE, iow recharged after the first hun jury, which is a stiff double standcard, because NONCOPS are almost never recharge3d for gross misdemeanors after a hung jury, but whatever

                      you will continue to believe cops are running around apace egregiously using force and not being held accountable for it

                      and all i can say is if you think THIS case is such a case, then there really is no room for discussion, because the case law, the facts etc. say one thing and you say another.

                    11. again, i realize you want THE RULES to be different, but the rules are VERY reasonable and they are what they are.

                      and you will continue to bring specious double standard claims and i will continue to counter them with ACTUAL analogous incidents , such as the kelso case. most citizen UOF’s are never reported on in the media though whereas i have dealt with SCORES and i KNOW the prosecutors give BROADER latitudes to citizen arresters than cop arresters because they have less training, are not expected to be professionals, do not have backup, a belt of tools to help the, etc etc

                      if you could have seen the guy who tried to lure a kid into a car, and was detained by two dads in a neighborhood- well if cops had detained the guy by slamming his forehead into the pavement and turning his face into a bloody pulp, well you would be SCREAMING double standard when the cops weren;’t charged, but neither were the citizens when they arrested this child predator.

                      he was trying to get away, had apparently been trying to either kidnap or lure, and these men were not going to get micro analyzed for jumping on his ass as he tried to run away and pummeling his face into the pavement

                      charges? ZERO. arrests? ZERO

                  2. (and i have provided a metric assload of examples where cops are held to a higher standard of force e.g. the kelso bow and arrow case)

                    For the last fucking time:

                    The judge said that if he had been wrong about the guy, the case would have gone very differently. This is an obvious double standard, as we all know that cops aren’t liable if they get the wrong guy. If cops were held to the standard the bow and arrow guy was, we would have no problem with it.

                    1. it doesn’t matter what you would have a probkem with, the pOINT is that cops CANNOT shoot fleeing nonviolent (possible) felons with no reason to believe they are a danger.

                      this guy DID. he used a bow and arrow, which is deadly force.

                      and find me ONE case where a cop had NO reason to believe a crime involving violent force was used, and no reason to believe there was a legitimate danger if he got away, and he shot the guy as he ran from the scene and wasn’t punished.

                      find me one. *i* can’t find one. i can find plenty of cases of cops shootign fleeing felons, but they have all been violent crimes. this WAS NOT, and he had NO reason to suspect so, nor did he even claim so.

                      he saw the guy break into his neighbor’s unoccupied house, then run out

                      that’s IT

                      and it’s a looser standard

                    2. find me one. *i* can’t find one. i can find plenty of cases of cops shootign fleeing felons, but they have all been violent crimes. this WAS NOT, and he had NO reason to suspect so, nor did he even claim so.

                      he saw the guy break into his neighbor’s unoccupied house, then run out

                      that’s IT

                      and it’s a looser standard

                      It’s a looser standard in that direction because he has to be right. The cop just has to give any bullshit excuse as to why he thought the guy might be someone bad.

                      Try to understand something. No one here cares if someone gets shot while committing a property crime. They (and, according to the judge, the law as well) cares if someone not committing a crime is shot (real crime, not bullshit crimes against the state).

                      Cops shoot the wrong people all the fucking time. That is a fact. They can give any reason they want, and most of the time it just gets accepted. You’re demanding that I find a cop who didn’t have an excuse? What would that prove? That they’re even dumber than I thought? Don’t think that’s what you’re going for here.

            2. and i never said he DESERVED to die. that’s reasonoid crap

              My bad, this guy just got “justifiably” murdered. It was the guy who answered his door armed at 2 a.m. when unannounced cops were pounding on it that “deserved” to be murdered.

              also, before seth adams was even brought up, i explained that when a BUSINESS person has a trespass call, they don’t and shouldn’t assault the person. if the person refuses to leave, they call police AND we enforce the statute.

              I know a few bouncers who will be very confused by that informed legal knowledge you just served up.

              1. I understand your POV, dunphy, but they have meds for hypergraphia these days… you giving my scroll wheel a workout man.

                1. you giving my scroll wheel a workout man.

                  He didn’t quote anything he was responding to, and I have no idea where to start.

                  1. Since this is a mishmash and impossible to follow since dunphy won’t quote what he’s responding to, I’ll simply finish with this:

                    1. Sheriff Bradshaw has covered for his officer’s misconduct before.

                    2. Though he briefly admitted that Adams was legally in the right to extricate the trespasser from his property, dunphy persists in describing the resulting actions in terms of what he considers reasonable conduct.

                    3. There is no mention in the report as to why he was conducting surveillance on an unidentified ATM theft ring more than 10 miles away from any ATMs.

                    4. The final report conflicts in numerous ways with the police’s initial statement (Adams reached into the cops car, etc.)

                    5. The cop had no legal reason to be there, yet the fact that he was a cop indicates to dunphy that Adams should have acted differently (I agree with this assessment in survival terms, but it has no bearing on the legal situation).

                    6. He keeps going on about how this guy escalated the encounter, while ignoring how easy it would have been for the cop to drive out of the parking lot and park on the road until backup arrived. By exiting his vehicle, the cop escalated the situation (cops apparently aren’t ever required to back down when they might be wrong, but everyone else is?).

    2. Yes yes yes this is the Culture War which we must fight and win. Yes, culture matters.

      In Canada we’re better off than the states in some ways but sadly this isn’t one of them. At least the long gun registry is dead.

  17. Erm

    “We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms” equals gun control.

    Nothing has changed.

  18. The 1968 Democratic platform:

    The federal government has come swiftly to the aid of cities needing help to bring major disturbances under control, and Democratic leadership secured the enactment of a new gun control law as a step toward putting the weapons of wanton violence beyond the reach of criminal and irresponsible hands.

  19. Rather than come up with a long-winded clever critique of the dems position, I am just going to tellthem what everyone here expected me to.

    FUUUUUUCCCKK YOU dems. I say that with a vodka in one hand and a .45 in the other.

  20. Since gun rights are more of a social issue than an economic one, the “logic” of leftists being pro-liberty on social issues would indicate that they should be pro-RKBA. Unfortunately it’s more of a tribal thing than a logic thing.

    1. It’s becoming economic. This month Guns and Ammo reported on attempts by eastern/New England states (where many firearms are manufactured) to impose costly manufacturing guidelines on companies. Specifically, they want microstamped ID marks on guns and ammunition. The gun companies are actually standing up for themselves and promising to move to western states where their tax dollars and jobs will be more appreciated.

      It’s flying under the radar right now with the economy as it is, but if things get better look for this issue to move to the forefront.

      1. I couldn’t believe that firearms were still being made in the northeast, but then I looked at two of my guns: Newport NH and Houlton ME. Wow.

        At least my HD shotgun is made in a nice conservative jurisdiction, Istanbul.

          1. Most of those places opened up long before gun control was applied to anyone besides immigrants and black people. The others probably opened up there because that’s where all the other big manufacturers were. They’re still there mostly due to tradition.

    2. What has “logic” got to do with any part of politics?

  21. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

    So you’ll be proposing a Constitutional amendment soon, right?

  22. @Tulpa or any other P-burgh Official Crew Member/Registered Commenter

    Where do you shoot?

    In the past I have use the state game land range in fayette county, or someone’s private farm/wood land. Recently I have gone to anthony arms indoor pistol range and that was fine if pricey. Last week I went to the state game land range at Wexford, which I have heard horror stories of, but the people around me were respectful, knowledgeable, and most of all safe shooters. I’ll be going again soon. Just wonderin’ if you guys shoot at a club and if it’s a better time.

    I’ve been to clubs down where I’m from, and they’re alright, but not worth the cost in my opinion.

    1. C’mon guys!

      Geeze, who wouldn’t want to shoot with a real life GENERAL?1! I only shoot naked on weekdays.

    2. Anthony Arms is actually not that bad imho (as far as the range goes – the salespeople are A-holes). They do make you buy ammo there but the prices aren’t too much more than you’d be paying for ammo at Walmart. With the exception of 22lr; they do force you to pay for the nice CCI stuff rather than getting a 550 round brick.

      There’s another open-to-the-public indoor pistol range in Youngwood (near Greensburg) where you can use your own ammo. AS is the name I believe.

      Pitcairn-Monroeville SC is the crown jewel — very nice range, good people, and fairly lax rules — but you have to know a member to get in (and iirc they’re full). Millvale SC is another friendly place and a good range, up by the Game Lands in Wexford, but I think they’re full too. They have weekend/weeknight pistol shoots open to the public every month, where they shoot at bottles and cans and holiday-themed items, which are pretty fun.

      I’m at a different club in the southern half of Allegheny County myself, which is just OK. There are quite a few odd and drunk people there and they close down huge swaths of the club for no apparent reason occasionaly. But it’s cheap and it’s not full. They also have a lot of league activity, which I have zero interest in, but others might like it.

      1. A “ampersand” S is the name of the range in Youngwood.

      2. I have heard good things of PMSC, but don’t have the time or money for that right now. Mostly time, I’d probably make it out once a month maybe which would make the $100+ membership fee worth it. From what I have heard they have open meetings where it’s easy to find a sponsor(just hang out and talk to people), but they have a membership cap so you may wait a long time to hear back.

        I hate to even say it on the internet at all, but there is a range that is real nice in fayette county. It’s the game land one. There are a few 100yd and 50 yd target and it’s run down, but in all the many times I have been there I have been alone(excepting right before hunting season). We take our own target stands, melons, leftover haloween pumpkins, cans bottles, whatever and have a blast, literally.

        I went a few weeks ago on a saturday for about 8 hrs and no one showed up until after 6. It was one guy shooting a muzzle loader and I was leaving anyways.

        You can find the range through the state’s site.

        Yeah, what is up with the anthony’s people, they’re dickish as all hell? Like they’re doing you some kinda big favor by takin yer money.

        1. From what I hear, Mr. Anthony is wealthy from some other area business and doesn’t give a care about making customers happy. Plus they make shitloads of money off the range, I’m sure, since AFAIK it’s the only public range within 45 minutes drive of Pittsburgh.

          Every time I’ve gone there the range is well-populated, but there’s never been more than 2-3 people in the store itself. They have to be hemorrhaging customers to Gander Mtn and Dick’s right down the road. Gander is always packed on the weekends.

  23. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

    Cleverly worded. If called on it, Dems will insist that “the individual right to bear arms” is referring to service in the National Guard. Likewise, they will say that “Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms” is a “collective right”.

    And since “collective right” is a ridiculous fucking oxymoron, the phrase means that in their eyes there is no right to own a gun.

    1. But corporations aren’t people so Citizens United was evil!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.