Second Amendment

How Stupid Must a Gun Law Be to Get Struck Down by the Courts?

|

New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak argues that D.C. v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, "appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn." I'm not so sure about that, especially with reference to renewing the federal ban on "assault weapons," the most popular response so far.

As Liptak notes, the Court did suggest in Heller that the Second Amendment permits laws "prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" But since the features that legally define an "assault weapon" have little or no functional significance in the context of violent crime, it is hard to argue that such firearms are any more "dangerous" than models that do not fall into this arbitrary category. When it comes to mass shootings or more common forms of gun crime, does it matter whether a gun has, say, a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor? Furthermore, the guns that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and President Obama want to ban are not exactly "unusual." As I note in my column today, AR-15-style rifles like the one used by Adam Lanza—which does not qualify as an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law or under the federal ban that expired in 2004 but could under Feinstein's bill if she broadens the definition—are among the most popular rifles in America, with something like 3.5 million sold since 1986. Very few of those guns are used to commit crimes, let alone mass shootings. And according to Heller, the Second Amendment clearly applies to guns "in common use for lawful purposes." 

Heller did not say what level of scrutiny should apply to restrictions on gun ownership. But with a piece of legislation as frivolous as an "assault weapon" ban, it really shouldn't matter. You might say that such laws leave people with plenty of choices for self-defense and other legal uses. But by the same token, "assault weapon" bans leave mass murderers and ordinary criminals with plenty of perfectly serviceable alternatives, which calls into question the basic premise of such legislation. Where are the benefits—even theoretical ones—to weigh against the burdens of enforcing these silly distinctions? The lack of logical support for an "assault weapon" ban certainly should mean it would fail strict scrutiny, the standard generally applied to content-based restrictions on speech, or intermediate scrutiny, the test used in equal protection cases that do not involve a "suspect class." It even should fail the "rational basis" test, if that standard meant what it sounds like.

Imagine that Congress banned the use of certain words, asserting that they were especially conducive to defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and incitement. Could it defend such an absurd edict by pointing to all the other words that people were still allowed to use, arguing that freedom of speech remained essentially intact? Not a chance. The courts would say you need a really good reason to restrict First Amendment rights, not just any excuse that pops into a legislator's head. Why shouldn't the same expectation apply to Second Amendment rights? 

Advertisement

NEXT: Still Unclear if Cigarette Producers Will Move into Pot Market

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. I am gonna nag you motherfuckers relentlessly over this.
    From the teacher’s union thread:

    Please take ten minutes today to send your senators and representatives a missive to express your displeasure at the upcoming assault on the second amendment. Make it short, well written and spell-checked. Copy and paste for ease and as a time saver. If you have more time, then actually call.

    I did this and it took, literally, ten minutes. If you can spend hours debating on Reason, then you can do this.

    A squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

    1. Also, use a throw-away email address unless you want to be solicited for donations from here to eternity.

    2. There is really nothing in the universe squeakier, as well as whinier, than a progessive. They get lots of grease.

      That’s why Debbie Wasserman Schultz looks like she has never washed her hair.

  2. The courts would say you need a really good reason to restrict First Amendment rights, not just any excuse that pops into a legislator’s head. Why shouldn’t the same expectation apply to Second Amendment rights?

    Abuse of the stuff protected by the second amendment is far more likely to endanger the public safety than abuse of the stuff protected by the first. So, there will be a lot more reasonable restrictions on bearing arms than there would be on speech.

    That said, the assault weapons ban is a piece of theater that doesn’t help public safety one bit, so it should be struck down if passed.

    1. The courts would say you need a really good reason to restrict First Amendment rights, not just any excuse that pops into a legislator’s head. Why shouldn’t the same expectation apply to Second Amendment rights?

      Here’s the real answer:”Fuck you, that’s why.”

      1. I think it more likely that a ban on so called ‘assault weapons’, which I guess means a weapon that looks scarier, would be a penaltax, since that is all the rage these days for SCOTUS. Not sure how that works, but Roberts will figure it out in his unrivaled powers to twist logic.

        And also, look out for this, if that fails initially.

        They will include it as a part of a ‘mental health’ amendment to Obamacare. Own an ‘assault weapon’ , PENALTAX! Becauase NEED MOAR REVENUE!

        1. Make sure to detail all the firearms you own on the patient information form when Obamacare forces you to buy insurance next year.

        2. The NFA $200 tax stamp, instituted in 1934, was the original “penaltax”. It’s not a new concept.

          You guys’ obsession with that ruling continues to astound me.

          1. Your failure to understand the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of that opinion, well, I’m going to say that it continues to astound me, as well.

            1. I’m more concerned with the effects than the honesty. The effects of the ruling (as opposed to Obamacare itself) are just that SCOTUS will not use the choice of words in a law to determine constitutionality, if a slightly different choice of words would produce effectively the same law and make it constitutional. I don’t really like that, but it’s not a huge problem. Nothing compared to what the liberals on the court wanted to do.

              1. I don’t really like that, but it’s not a huge problem.

                That’s where we differ. I think that the doctrine of extreme deference that Roberts cited in making that little tweak is very disturbing.

                Not to mention that, by making that little tweak, he created a law that could not have passed Congress. Congress went to a lot of trouble to say “this is not a tax”, and Roberts completely disregarded crystal-clear Congressional intent to make it a tax.

                As a Commerce Clause law, it was Constitutionally impossible. As a tax, it was politically impossible. Roberts, while blathering on about the political restraints on Congress as the true source of limitation on Congressional action, did literally everything he could to undermine those retraints.

                Maybe it doesn’t bother you for SCOTUS and Congress to effectively conspire to evade any and all limitations, but it bothers the hell out of me.

                1. Not only that, but what, exactly is Obamacare taxing, Tulpa?

                  1. Not only that, but what, exactly is Obamacare taxing, Tulpa?

                    Breathing.

                  2. I’m not clear on Randian’s question. Fixed-amount taxes are quite common historically. Nowadays in America, most taxes are calculated as a percentage of something else, but that’s not inherent in the nature of a tax. I know I pay an EMS tax of $50 because I work in Pittsburgh. Even if I made $100 a year I would still have to pay the same tax.

                2. What RC Dean said, exactly.

                3. Yes, RC, I understand your opinion. But this is a relatively minor thing. Read the Ginsburg concurrence if you want to see some really scary jurisprudence.

                  I’m not going to throw Roberts under the bus for this. He’s been a good Chief-J as far as liberty goes, and the fact that the chicken littles around here are claiming that he will obliterate the bill of rights with “penaltax” are totally silly since the BoR didn’t even factor into the case one way or the other.

          2. That’s only because you fail to understand the possible implications of it. Sort of sheep like, you sound like a liberal.

    2. I don’t know about that, didn’t some Youtube video kill 4 americans and some random rioters?

      1. It’s been very, very hard for me not to use this in a nasty response to/general lashing out at liberal friends.

      2. If I were a BO devotee, that would be a great response.

      3. I dunno, all my liberal friends were talking about “reasonable” (drink!) restrictions on free speech after they were told by their Lord & Savior that the Benghazi attack was because of that video.

        1. Of course they can put restrictions on free speech and the 2nd amendment. I’m sure someone’s working on a commerce clause argument for it right now.

    3. Communism and Nazism, two ideas that people are allowed to hold and agitate for under the 1st Amendment, resulted in nearly a quarter billion dead in the 20th and 21st centuries.

      If those two ideas are protected under the first amendment, which requires strict scrutiny, then surely strict scrutiny should be the determining factor for the 2nd amendment as well.

      1. Nice answer, GS. This didn’t show on my screen when I gave my similar answer, below.

      2. So the position that the people who pull the trigger bear sole responsibility for their murders has, uh, softened over the past few days.

        Or does that only apply when libertarians want to blame someone else?

        1. Well if you bitter clingers want to continue to blame inanimate objects I guess we’ll have do something similar!

          1. I like to maintain the high ground there. It’s really all we’ve got sometimes.

        2. So the position that the people who pull the trigger bear sole responsibility for their murders has, uh, softened over the past few days.

          I didn’t see that here.

          1. He’s blaming an idea for the things that proponents of the idea did (at most — many of the murderers were probably committed by random thugs who didn’t give a shit about the idea). A leftist could use the exact same argument to blame the SH murders on the idea of prepping.

        3. I didn’t say anything about that, nor does my post even imply it. I take it that throwing up that strawman is your only response?

    4. Abuse of the stuff protected by the second amendment is far more likely to endanger the public safety than abuse of the stuff protected by the first.

      Experience compels me to disagree. Liars must be debunked over and over, sometimes for decades or even centuries. A killer need be shot on only one occasion.

      Karl Marx has caused the deaths of (how many?) millions. John Wesley Hardin and his 40-something victims are barely remembered by comparison.

      1. And look at all the Pakistani children that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson caused the deaths of.

        1. And look at how retarded you’re being.

        2. Tulpa, have you actually read Marx? Not what others claim about him, but what he wrote? He was a snarling, angry man who raged against the middle class at every opportunity. His anti-semitism was beyond any reason. And he was in the position to know better; he was born a Jew.

          From Nazis to Marxists, to Communists, to Socialists, to Maoists, the people who took his ideas seriously have covered the Earth in the blood of trying to enact their so-called “idealism.”

          1. If we’re going to ad hominem, do recall that Thomas Jefferson owned (and probably raped) slaves and refused to release them upon his death.

            And people who took Jefferson’s ideas seriously have committed horrible atrocities too. The point is, you can’t blame ideas for things that people do.

            1. If we’re going to ad hominem

              Ad hominem would indicate an irrelevant argument made personally against you, the opponent.

              You want to defend or ignore the gargantuan evil done under the direct application of socialist-spectrum ideas? Feel free to be a boot-licker, but don’t expect real men do likewise.

              1. I’m not ignoring the evil, just questioning whether you can really blame the idea, particularly when the connection is very distant. Stalin was not a Marxist true believer, the Soviets of the 1970s even less so, so blaming Marx or Marxism for what they did seems off base.

      2. I don’t accept that writing down your ideas and exposing others to them (no matter how wrong those ideas are) makes you culpable for what other people do with those ideas.

        1. I don’t accept that writing down your ideas owning a gun and exposing others to them (no matter how wrong those ideas are scary it looks) makes you culpable for what other people do with those ideas that gun.

          FIFY

        2. I don’t accept that writing down your ideas and exposing others to them (no matter how wrong those ideas are) makes you culpable for what other people do with those ideas.

          I didn’t say that. I disagreed that abuse of firearms is more likely to endanger public safety than having an established religion, or oppressing religion, speech, press, free association or make a complaint to the government without reprisal from it. Then I gave an example of how bad ideas lead to bad results. I could write 10,000 words on the subject as fast as I can type, but I figured you’d prefer brevity.

    5. So, there will be a lot more reasonable restrictions on bearing arms than there would be on speech.

      You will note that the 1A refers to “abridge” and the 2A to “infringe”. I’d be hard pressed to say which verb allows more legislation. IOW, I’m not sure there’s any textual support for the idea that you can place reasonable restrictions on gun rights, but not on free expression rights.

      The idea that there is much more scope for legislation restricting gun rights must be based on the assumption that a “reasonable restriction” does not “infringe”.

      Even though that’s not what the words really mean. At first blush, a reasonable restriction is merely a reasonable infringement, and the 2A doesn’t say “shall not be unreasonably infringed.”

      Of course, my copy of the Constitution is apparently out of date, a people are constantly finding things in their copies that aren’t in mine.

      1. Yes, about that Counselor…

        (Yes, I am going to keep pestering you about that. It’s almost bedtime. -)

        1. Little help here? Pestering me about what?

          1. Follow the link.

            Am I correct in my interpretation? Also, how, if at all, would this have any bearing on Hazel’s cockamamie Individual Gun Insurance Mandate scheme?

            1. Got it. Finally scrolled down far enough. Quick reaction posted where it belongs.

          2. More specifically, from 08.11 to 08.27 comments. Apologies for not specifying my request, as you can’t read minds. -D

      2. The only problem with what you say (and IANAL while of course you are) is one I know folks around here often ignore: it begs the question of what “the freedom of speech” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” are. Is “the freedom of speech” an absolute freedom? What does “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” encompass? I think that based on the text of the amendments these are valid questions. As written, the amendments presuppose that you know what such “freedoms” and “rights” are or include. You could, and many here often do, simply assume that they are absolute, but based on common law that doesn’t seem right. Unfortunately, that leaves these things to be interpreted by the courts (even in a much better world where the courts are much stricter interpreters of the law), which is where the idea of “reasonable restrictions” comes in, right? It’s not that they are restricting your rights, they are laying out the preexisting restrictions on those rights as a matter of law. Your rights aren’t being infringed or abridged, they just never extended that far to begin with.

        None of the above should be construed as an endorsement of any state action, natch.

        1. That’s a good point.

          I think that there aren’t many who would say that there should be no restrictions at all on who can own or carry a gun. I think that even most people on here agree that convicted violent criminals shouldn’t be allowed (I’m not quite sure what I think about that. My inclination is that anyone that dangerous should probably just be shot or locked up forever anyway; if you are fit to reenter society, you should have all of your rights).

        2. It’s not that they are restricting your rights, they are laying out the preexisting restrictions on those rights as a matter of law.

          Well, among the other infirmities of this approach, is the utter absurdity of the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is limited in the state of nature, as it were, to weapons that do not meet the highly arbitrary and technical definition of “assault rifles”.

          This is essentially an argument that the “natural” right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, that it is inherently limited to only certain kinds of arms by certain persons in certain situations. Good luck with proving up those limitations.

          As far as minors go, I’m no natural rights scholar, but I think there are at least plausible arguments that minors are not vested with at least some natural rights until they achieve majority.

          On weapons, I think it is very hard to argue that, for example, standard infantry gear isn’t covered by the RKBA. What the outer limits of the “natural” RKBA might be, I couldn’t say, but it certainly encompasses the kinds of weapons that a soldier in our army would carry into combat.

          1. Well, among the other infirmities of this approach, is the utter absurdity of the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is limited in the state of nature, as it were, to weapons that do not meet the highly arbitrary and technical definition of “assault rifles”.

            Right, and I’m not talking about any specific laws here, just the fact that there is some interpretation required. And you also have to assume, I think, that this is about “natural rights” and not just common law rights, right?

            And I agree completely with your last paragraph.

            1. And you also have to assume, I think, that this is about “natural rights” and not just common law rights, right?

              You could probably try to argue it either way, although I think it really sets up as more of a natural law argument (especially since ye olde common law was written in a natural rights jurisprudence, for the most part). The difficulty with saying that there were “common law” restrictions on gun rights that were intended to be incorporated into the 2A is that you have to produce case law predating the drafting of the Constitution that limited the RKBA. There may be some, but there can’t be much, and I don’t recall ever seeing it.

              1. especially since ye olde common law was written in a natural rights jurisprudence, for the most part

                No way. Common law is much older than natural rights philosophy and contains a ton of garbage that a natural rights advocate would fiercely oppose, like asset forfeiture, executive privilege, and fee simple.

          2. On weapons, I think it is very hard to argue that, for example, standard infantry gear isn’t covered by the RKBA. What the outer limits of the “natural” RKBA might be, I couldn’t say, but it certainly encompasses the kinds of weapons that a soldier in our army would carry into combat.

            I absolutely agree.

            If we’re to read the 2A in the absolute narrowest way possible, that it is designed for militia purposes, then how is it that we are supposed to perform a military function, in the event the militia were ever called up, if we don’t have ready access to military arms?

            As you said, I’m not firm on the outside edges, but anything your average infantryman carries into battle, I should be allowed to own. And yes, that includes various weapons our betters have forbidden us, like machine guns, grenade launchers, demolitions, etc.

            1. If we’re to read the 2A in the absolute narrowest way possible, that it is designed for militia purposes,

              So now the militia clause is important? Come on. Anything militia-related is subject to regulation by Congress, so you don’t want to go there.

      3. You can place reasonable restrictions on speech if there’s a strong public safety reason and the restrictions are as narrow as possible to accomplish it. For example, death threats and perjury are illegal, despite being pure speech acts.

    6. “Abuse of the stuff protected by the second amendment is far more likely to endanger the public safety than abuse of the stuff protected by the first”

      I can debunk this in just 1 word…

      Vaccines

    7. Abuse of the stuff protected by the second amendment is far more likely to endanger the public safety than abuse of the stuff protected by the first.

      Is that even true?

      The pen is mightier than the sword and all that. A firearm is more likely to directly injure someone, but at little change to overall public safety. Works, on the other hand….

      1. Words, not works. Argh.

        1. I liked works better.

      2. It’s not true.

        Someone skilled at manipulating mob dynamics can use words as weapons, quite literally. Those who killed so many millions through the 20th Century were all quite accomplished at this.

        1. Someone skilled at manipulating mob dynamics can use words as weapons, quite literally. Those who killed so many millions through the 20th Century were all quite accomplished at this.

          This.

          Hitler or Mao or Stalin certainly killed people with guns. But they killed far more with their words.

      3. Wow, that whole idea of violence being the sole responsibility of the one committing the violent act sure went out the window quick when it became inconvenient.

    8. That said, the assault weapons ban is a piece of theater that doesn’t help public safety one bit, so it should be struck down if passed.

      You underestimate the value of theater in the acquisition of power.

  3. The “assault” weapons ban is utter theater, based solely on emotion and stupidity. Which is why gun grabbers like it. They’re not the brightest people in the world.

    1. I got this bit of stupid emailed to me yesterday from Seattle Met (usually a good source of restaurant news and reviews). I emailed them and told them I was unsubscribing because I didn’t want my pretentious foodie gossip with a side of fucking idiotic and wrong political shit.

      1. Did you also tell them their restaurant reviews are weak as shit and that Emmer & Rye sucks, even though they seem to think it doesn’t?

        1. Oh good, it seems that place actually closed down a few weeks ago. Maybe make your restaurant better next time, and don’t name it after stupid grains, guy. Maybe try that.

          1. The Julia’s that was there before was so much better. Why, Julia’s, why? I don’t want to have to go to Wallingford to go to your place.

            1. You don’t want to go to Wallingford, period.

          2. that nixes my idea for “Barley & Oats”, a grain/Hall&Oates; themed eatery.

            1. I can’t go for that. No can do.

              Call it Flesh&Blood; and only serve meat instead, if you want it to be awesome.

              1. Call it Flesh&Blood; and only serve meat instead, if you want it to be awesome.

                For some reason, this makes me want to listen to Dying Fetus. And so I will.

                1. Dying Fetus – remember when I first heard them on the Sirius Radio.

                  Holy fuck – best band name ever. Well, next to Gwar…

              2. So I’m going to admit to my trashy reading habits and say that Kevin Hearne’s made up restaurant where you select a bunch of small edible but gross sounding or feeling entrees for your partner sounds like a great idea. I can’t find a web link or be arsed to go find the name in the book.

              3. “only serve meat”

                Sounds like a Colombian restaurant I went to. The only item on teh menu that wasn’t a big pile of fried meat was a “salad” which appeared to be two avocados sliced and put on a plate.

                1. Try a Brazilian steakhouse sometime, where they keep bringing out meat until you say “stop”. Awesome. Make sure you lift a ton of weights beforehand, that makes it all the better.

                  1. Oh, you think you’re strong, do you? Feel weak, weakie.

                  2. Rodizios are great.

                    But they are better in Brazil where you get the same quality of food for $6 instead of $50+.

      2. I didn’t want my pretentious [insert nonpolitical topic of choice here] gossip with a side of fucking idiotic and wrong political shit

        Don’t you fucking hate that shit?

        1. Can’t we have pretentious things without making them all leftist and horrible? McSweeney’s with that vile 90 Reasons garbage, the whole Gawker suite with the gun control (and everything else). Sure, people will say those places always sucked, but sometimes I like reading pretentious fluff and I’d rather do so in a clean, safe environment, you know?

          1. Dags, I would love to see you write a piece about this for Jezebel.

            1. She’s wandered off the intellectual reservation Hugh and disqualified herself as a woman.

            2. Oh my god, if I could get a gig as their in-house troll I would jump at it. Is “Your Politics Are Stupid” too obvious as a weekly column title?

              1. Jezebel never talks politics. They don’t have to. That’s just what all right-thinking people already believe. The only discussion is about all the various ways that Republicans [dun-dun-DUN!] are thwarting the obvious. That’s not politics; that’s just common sense.

          2. I do, I really really do. McSweeney’s lost me forever with that shit, although I did have to give in last week and buy this because that is one of my favorite lines ever and I am a slut for mugs/teacups. I’m still ashamed. And then the rest of my life has to be polluted with bullshit like this and I just can’t quit them because the Art of the Novella is a fucking necessity at this point.

            1. nicole, I knew there was a reason we were destined to be sisterwives. I was going to buy that mug too, no lie.

              In other publishing house blog related stuff, what do you think of Hazlitt so far?

              1. You people frighten me. Thank Jeebus I have the patriarchy to shield me.

                1. Thank Jeebus I have the patriarchy to shield me.

                  I thought that was your ‘Merkin, Epispadias. -))))

                  1. That just keeps my dick warm.

              2. Ooh, I’m slipping, I haven’t read it yet at all. How is it?

                1. It is comfortingly Canadian, if a little Toronto-centric. Some fun essays, musings on the broader cultural implications of the Queen’s Christmas Message in 3D and Honey Boo Boo and the like.

          3. Is the monocle culture here not pretentious enough for you?

    2. It’s really all about keeping the gun grabber lobby money coming to the campaign coffers. If the pols are not able to deliver anti-gun legislation every so often, than the idiot suckers who donate to the lobby groups start to question their ability and therefore their value. If the money stops than not only do the people who have turned this into full time well paying job for themselves have to get a real job, but people like Schuner and Feinstein stop getting that cash. None of these battles are ever about principle or integrity to these people. As far as the people who support them. They are lied to, misled, and missinformed. Looks more dangerous, therefore must be more dangerous.

  4. Gun control itself is what cleared the way for evil men to commit exactly the kind of horror that has propelled us into this discussion.

  5. We say: “does it matter whether a gun has, say, a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor?”

    They hear: “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah”

    They think: Oh, I’m sorry, no they don’t. They just parrot and cower in fear of the scary things they don’t understand.

  6. But by the same token, “assault weapon” bans leave mass murderers and ordinary criminals with plenty of perfectly serviceable alternatives, which calls into question the basic premise of such legislation.

    The actual reason for the legislation is consider the feelings of the anti-gun nuts and pacify them. And, of course, to encroach as much as possible on the Bill of Rights while they have a tragedy still fresh enough to exploit.

    1. It has the extra feature of giving their political enemies sore bungholes.

    2. They’re so excited over this particular tragedy, since it involves children, that they’re extra ghoulish. They’re going to stand on those corpses even if they have to rape them first.

    3. Hilariously, the rifle used at Sandy Hook was perfectly legal under the assault weapon ban that was sunsetted.

      Unless they are planning to expand it, this will be yet another solution that, even if you take all their premises at face value, doesn’t solve the problem they say they are trying to solve.

      1. Somehow, the ban on shooting kids at a school didn’t stop him either.

        1. ^^^THIS x1000

          You mean there’s not some sort of bullet-deflecting forcefield around schools and other “gun-free zones” just because you put up a sign???

          Bad people do shitty things in the world. Why give them more places to easily do those shitty things?

  7. “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”

    I thought that weapons by their very nature are suppose to be dangerous and whether or not they are unusual is not important compared to the fact that they are dangerous.

    If I was to carry around a medieval knights lance that would be dangerous and unusual but not as dangerous as if I carried around a knife with a six inch blade.

    1. The 2nd Amentment was written so that we would always be able to protect our selves from tyranny, which is wht the statist hate it. Is there such a thing as a weapon that is not dangerous? And unusual is perfect for them because it’s vauge. That’s one of there best tools, especially when they can get every media person and pop culture figure to repeat a million times that assault weapons are unusual.

      1. get every media person and pop culture figure to repeat a million times that assault weapons are unusual.

        “We prohibit unusual punishments, don’t we?”

        1. Locking people in a cage and taking years of their life away while subjecting them to random beatings and acts of sodomy isn’t unusual?

          1. Apparently only when Bush does it.

          2. That’s the beauty of these sementics agruments using vauge terms like. Terror is another great example. When I was a chid I was accused or terrorizing my sister. I’ve heard sheriffs refer to the antics of teen pranksters as terrorizing the neighborhood. The more vauge you can make the terminology in your legislation, the easy you can sell it (because you only focus on the extremely bad examples when debating), and the easy you can abuse it once it’s passed because it can mean alost whatever you want it to mean. Once you start looking for that tactic, you’ll see see it everywhere.

          3. “Locking people in a cage and taking years of their life away while subjecting them to random beatings and acts of sodomy isn’t unusual?”

            No, sadly it is quite routine.

            That’s the other problem with “unusual”. It depends on current norms and will change. If sawed off shotguns are banned for 80 years (or whatever it is), they will become unusual.

            1. I would say it is cruel, though.

      2. This is what liberals think of the whole “The People vs. Tyranny” argument.

        1. Luckily, I don’t give a fuck what they think.

          1. You should, because they’re going to do their damnedest to force it on you. And also that anyone trying to make the “Tyranny” argument to a liberal is really barking up the wrong tree.

            1. You misunderstand me. I don’t give a fuck about their diseased rationalizations. I only care what they do. And I have no interest in trying to make the tyranny argument because, again, I don’t give a fuck what they think, only that they be prevented from doing anything about it.

        2. DOGMA

          Is that the latest Progressive dipshit buzzword or something?

        3. Wouldn’t the lack of tyrants overthrown indicate the 2nd amendment’s success?

          1. That’s what I was thinking too.

        4. Not even accurate, I dont see Lincoln counted on the left.

    2. What about a gun that shoots medieval knights lances?

      1. The ammunition is a little expensive. Only those of us in the Top Hat and Monocle set could ever hope to afford it!

  8. I have a .45 semi-auto uzi as well as a .45 officers special. I’ve had on several occasions people be very very confused that these two weapons shot the same round. From all of the media panty bunching I guess they assumed the uzi fired super bullets or something. It’s funny because after I explain it to them they’ll repeat it one or two more times like they must of not heard me right. It was completetly unbelivable to them because of how they have been brainwashed.

    1. Well, to some extent the confusion is understandable, since if the Uzi packs the same power as a handgun, why would anyone bother with the Uzi?

      1. Same reason a sniper picks a longer heavier barrel. Accuracy. There’s definately a place for a .45 caliber carbine. The Thompson was used in wwII for house clearing, and certainly the Israels who use the 9mm uzi know one or two things about proper weapon selection. I actually have been considering trading it in for a .30 carbine though. The uzi very reliable and accurate so I don’t know.

        1. Ah, yes. I didn’t think about that. And you can bet your friends who have no experience with firearms didn’t either.

      2. Barrel length matters too.

        1. That’s unpossible. I’ve been told repeatedly, and by reliable sources, that the way the barrel is wielded is far more important than its size. And I refuse to believe otherwise.

        2. Not a huge amount for .45 ACP. It’s a fairly slow round to begin with.

          OTOH, certain .357 loads can get up to .30-30 territory when shot out of a carbine.

    2. As a kid, I assumed uzis shot tiny bullets, since the gun and mag look so small on TV, and how else can they fire a 10min sustained stream unless the bullets are really small?

      Perfectly logical idiocy.

      1. *ignorancy (no, not plain ignorance)

    3. People just don’t know what they are talking about with this stuff. I wish people could just refrain from having an opinion on things they are completely ignorant of. I’ve heard several people on the news in the last few days say that they thought the assault weapons ban would be reasonable because people don’t need “higher caliber” weapons like that. High caliber like those huge .223 bullets.

      They don’t even know what the words they are using mean, yet they insist on having an opinion on the subject.

      1. Ignorance is bliss. Seriously.

        1. Yeah. Sometimes I envy idiots.

      2. I’m nearly 100% ignorant of guns (I know the very, very general differences between shotguns, rifles and handguns, and that’s about it). I also think guns are scary. But I have principles, and just because I don’t currently own a gun and just because I kind of shrink when I see them in person, doesn’t mean I don’t think anyone else should be engaged in a gun hobby or gun collection.

        Principle. That’s the difference between me and an anti-gun nut.

      3. They don’t even know what the words they are using mean, yet they insist on having an opinion on the subject creating legislation which controls those who do.

  9. I think any weapon that can reasonably be used for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and sporting should be constitutionally protected. The assault weapon ban fails this standard since it is nebulous and arbitrary.

    I was arguing with a gun control freak yesterday and he was basically saying that the government is allowed to take away rights if the social cost of having that right is too great.

    And if the forum wasn’t moderated I would have “said no it doesn’t you mendacious twat because the whole fucking purpose of writing down these rights on paper and telling the government to fuck off is to prevent pinkos like you from bullshitting people out of their natural rights.”

    1. Pinkos don’t believe in natural rights. They believe in ‘might makes right.’
      Thus they worship government because it is the last word in violence, and thus right even when it is wrong because might makes right.
      Otherwise known as “fuck you, that’s why.”

    2. Yeah, someone I was arguing with yesterday tried to call “bullshit” on me when I said guns are as important now as almost any other time in U.S. history because of the rolling back of our rights in the the ever-increasing police state we live.

      His reply: “What rights are being rolled back?”

      I guess he’s never tried to contribute to a political campaign, been pulled over by the cops, flown on an airplane in the last decade, or done any of a hundred other day-to-day tasks that are weighed down with bureaucracy and worse.

      1. The argument usually goes like this (and is usually because someone refuses to believe Obama/Democrats would ever violate a person’s rights):

        A: What rights have been rolled back?
        B: Long list.
        A: Those aren’t rights. You don’t have the right to abddef any time you want. Also, just because you have to get a permit or a license and be put on a watch list and pay a hefty fee and maybe not get to do what you want to do or need to do doesn’t mean your rights are being rolled back.

        It’s always a huge exercise in moving goalposts.

  10. Imagine that Congress banned the use of certain words, asserting that they were especially conducive to defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and incitement.

    Dammit, Jacob, don’t give them ideas!

  11. But by the same token, “assault weapon” bans leave mass murderers and ordinary criminals with plenty of perfectly serviceable alternatives

    Oh, but a harmless rifle like an M1 Garand couldn’t ever really hurt that many people~! It doesn’t even have a pistol grip!

    ….but wait – it has a scaarwwy bayonet lug! aaaahhhh!!! run! run! death-machine!

    1. Somebody needs to do a side by side comparison of a bare-bones 10/22 with two rotary magazines next to it, vs a 10/22 with extended magazine, pistol grip, flash suppressor, barrel shroud, etc., and ask people which one is more dangerous. And then inform them that they are the same gun.

      1. It’s been done. I want to say there are posts floating around the webs where images of those two rifles are shown to people like you suggest.

        1. Is it more or less scary if it’s something in between?

        2. Oh and .22 is supposedly the deadliest caliber in the US (as in has caused the most deaths). So, obviously it must be banned altogether.

          1. Depends on how you define deadliest. 22 is by far the most common caliber, so just by random chance you would expect it to be involved in the most deaths.

  12. People should be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want, but should be held liable for damages if it ends up being used as a murder weapon. 🙂

    1. No, I’m NOT wasting another day on this, Hazel. Damn you.

    2. So if someone breaks into your house, steals your weapon and uses it to commit murder, you should be held liable?

      1. She was on and on about this the other night. Somehow, forcing you to buy an insurance policy against actions your possessions may be made to commit under someone else’s direction in order to exercise your rights is perfectly A-OK.

        1. Don’t understand this recent tack by Hazel. Her head was always so symmetrical for a white girl. What happened?

          1. All I know is that yesterday I was rooting through the neighbor’s garbage and I came across a chicken bone that had’t been picked clean. So I fed it to a homeless guy and he choked to death on it. I sure hope my neighbors have insurance!

          2. She’s having her period?

            1. She’s having her period?

              This is why there are no menstruating libertarians. Except for Tulpa.

              1. Permanenstruation?

              2. He has permanenstruation?

                1. Or weeping testicle sores.

                  1. Not everyone has your maladies, NutraSweet.

                  2. Must be the angle grinder.

                    1. It has been know to chafe.

              3. No fair. I expressly disavowed getting involved in this discussion after the last one led to my laundry being left in the dryer for an hour and they smelled like old potato peels.

          3. I get the basic gist Saccharin Man. What Hazel is proposing is basically being over-insured to mitigate for every possible risk factor, which is what the Individual Mandate and Insurance Mandate is designed, in theory, to do. However, in the arena of medical care, it’s impossible to insure for every discrete DX in the actuarial matrix.

            This is further compounded as there is no “MEDICAL IS A RIGHT” in the Constitution (Tony sexually molesting The General Welfare Clause aside.)

            There is a specific guarantee for the RTKBA, but nowhere is FedGov compelled to buy one or provide a weapon for you.

            That’s where her idea falls apart, the monstrous implications from whence it comes aside.

            I think she has the equivalent of CJ John Roberts puerperal fever.

            1. It’s not a right in the positive sense..it may be covered by the preamble or the 9th ammendment….but it’s still not a prescribed benefit to be provided by the government at the expense of society…and it’s certainly not an enumerated power to the GOV to wiegh in on the matter at all…of course, like they care.

          4. I decided that the whole “Dead children are the price of freedom” line was a horrible argument. Most people want freedom so they can make a better life for their kids. If letting their kids get killed is the price, then most people are (justifiably) going to say it’s not worth it.

            The right to posess firearms imposes costs upon other people. Sometimes, very horrible, very high costs. The people who want to posess guns should be responsible for shouldering those costs instead of just foisting them unwillingly upon the rest of society.

            And making people responsible for keeping track of their weapons would vastly reduce the ability of criminals to get guns. The simplest and least restrictive way to do this is to make you liable if your gun is stolen and used to commit a crime. Not liable for the ENTIRE restitution, mind you, just potentially liable for an amount as determined by a civil court.

            And that would create a huge incentive for people to secure their firearms and take every possible measure to avoid them being stolen.

            If you want to own a gun, it’s your fucking responsibility to make sure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.

            1. TEH EXTERNALITIES!!1 So has Chad hacked your account?

              Fuck people who want a police state to keep their children safe.

              1. I’m internalizing the externalities. That’s the point. And I’m doing it in exactly the way libertarian political philosophy advocates.

                1. Guns don’t have externalities. Do you know the definition of an externality?

                  1. I think Hazel may have suffered a mild brain aneurysm. She should get checked out.

                  2. Yes, I do. And it include risks your imposing on others.

                    The difference between a 0.1% probability of imposing a cost on someone and 100% chance is just a matter of mathematics.

                    1. Yes, I do. And it include risks your imposing on others.

                      No, it doesn’t. It’s an actual spillover from a transaction.

                      The difference between a 0.1% probability of imposing a cost on someone and 100% chance is just a matter of mathematics.

                      Even though your definition of externalities is dead wrong, I’ll play this game: what about the compensation gun owners should get for positive externalities?

                    2. what about the compensation gun owners should get for positive externalities

                      If the gun owner wants to charge people for the service of protecting them from crime, then I’m ok with that.

                    3. So if I make a “Piss Mohammed” cartoon which causes Muslims to go apeshit, I should be held liable?

                    4. Yes, I do. And it include risks your imposing on others.

                      The difference between a 0.1% probability of imposing a cost on someone and 100% chance is just a matter of mathematics.

                      Shorter Hazel Meade:

                      “FREEDOM == FREEDOM FROM RISK!”

                    5. Shorter Groovus:

                      Freedom means never having to take responsibility for any risks I create for other people. If I want to build a bomb factory in my yard, dang-nam-it that’s my business. And if someone jumps over the fence and blows it up, that’s not my problem.

                2. I’m internalizing the externalities. That’s the point. And I’m doing it in exactly the way libertarian political philosophy advocates.

                  Bullshit, Hazel. You jumped the shark and you know it. What you did, and I saw this as the ObamneyCare thing wore on, is to internalize the collective aspects of ObamneyCare since you saw areas where if risk is eliminated, such as preventing births, (NO THIS IS NOT AN ABORTION THREAD), then there are less people to develop disease. You want to collectivize risk, just like Tony, Chad and every other Centralized Medical Care daemon, just now with firearms.

                  What you are basically advocating is keeping guns out of the hands of poor people, plain and simple. Like you don’t want poor people reproducing.

                  You should go back to Canada if you like that type of medical care, Hazel.

                  1. You literally have never read anything I have written about ObamaCare, have you?

                    1. You literally have never read anything I have written about ObamaCare, have you?

                      Yes, I have, actually, and followed it quite closely over the years, and never once did you advocate, IIRC, that medical care is a right.

                      You have, however, shown a tendency towards, “Well, if we can’t beat it, work within it.”

                      You are showing the same tendency here, and trying to solve a problem that is in no need of a “solution”.

                3. COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
                  COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

                  I didnt expect to use it on this thread.

                  1. COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

                    See. robc gets it.

                    1. No, you are the one not getting it.

                      Clearly you dont understand Coase.

                    2. So you’re saying that the gun owner should compensate people if the gun is used to kill their children.

                      Ok, then we agree.

                      Oh, Wait, you mean it should only go the OTHER WAY? The gun non-owners should pay the gun owners to not own guns, but the gun owner should be protected from responsibility for what his gun gets used for?

                      You know, in Coase, it’s usually a two-way street.

                    3. The shooter should pay to compensate, I dont have a problem with that. Collect the money from Lanza’s estate to compensate the families of the dead.

                      OR, they should pay the shooter to not shoot.

                      Either way is fine.

                      Gun owner has nothing to do with it. And insurance policies in advance are stupid. The courts can handle it after the shooting.

                      You know, in Coase, it’s usually a two-way street.

                      Nope. Its one way, depending how the property rights are defined.

                    4. And if Lanza’s estate doesn’t have enough money to pay for the damages (which of course it won’t)? Sucks you be you? Really?

                      Gun owner has nothing to do with it.

                      The gun owner isn’t FULLY responsible. But the gun owner, in this case Lanza’s mother, sure as hell created this possibility. (And I’m not talking about her giving birth to him). Hell yes, she was partially responsible for this.

                      She owned the guns. Maybe if she had been held legally responsible she would have locked them up better.
                      Maybe if she had to carry liability insurance, the insurance company would have decided that she was too high a risk.

                    5. And if Lanza’s estate doesn’t have enough money to pay for the damages (which of course it won’t)? Sucks you be you? Really?

                      Yep. Thats the way the law works. Its quite common that people are judgement proof. Sucks, but it happens.

                      The gun owner isn’t FULLY responsible.

                      The gun owner isnt at all responsible. For one thing, she was dead, so she wasnt the gun owner any more.

                      Two, barring actual negligence, no one is responsible for stolen property.

                      Three. If someone thinks their was negligence on the owners part, they can sue now, nothing stopping it, so no need to change anything.

                    6. Yep. Thats the way the law works. Its quite common that people are judgement proof. Sucks, but it happens.

                      See? When you have 20 dead 6-year olds, that is a pretty fucking glib, bullshit answer. The reason for the liability insurance is to ensure that the money WILL be there.

                      The reason doctors are required to have malpractice liability insurance is basically the same thing. The damages are potentially so large that there is no way the doctor himself could pay them. So the doctors has to carry liability insurance so that the patient gets the compensation.

                      Two, barring actual negligence, no one is responsible for stolen property.

                      So what counts as negligence in the case of a stolen gun?

                    7. So what counts as negligence in the case of a stolen gun?

                      Beyond actually providing the weapon knowing that the weapon will be used to commit a crime with it, there is no negligence.

            2. No it isn’t. You are not responsible for someone else’s thievery. If I leave my car in my driveway am I responsible if someone steals it? I may have been stupid, but in no way am I responsible for their actions.

              Your line of reasoning here is morally repulsive and utterly collectivist. I’m disappointed to see it coming from you.

            3. And that would create a huge incentive for people to secure their firearms and take every possible measure to avoid them being stolen.

              Because most gun owners don’t mind if their guns are stolen, so there’s no incentive now?

              And if someone steals your car and uses it to commit vehicular manslaughter, or even deliberate mass murder by mowing down a crowd of kids, should you be held liable because your car was stolen?

              Holy shit, this is idiotic.

              1. The car manufacturer should be responsible because they should have known they were selling the car to a dealer who would sell it to you without first determining if there were thieves in your neighborhood who might use it to rob the 7-11.

                1. Cars and guns just aren’t the same thing. Guns enable ciminal activity, especially murder, in a way that cars just do not.

                  1. You continue to get even more retarded. You have been informed that you never go FULL RETARD, right?

                  2. Are you actually trying to imply that the only use for a gun is criminal activity?

                  3. Ever heard of a “get-away-car”? God damn some people are fucking stupid. FULL RETARD.

                2. It’s liability all the way down!

              2. And if someone steals your car and uses it to commit vehicular manslaughter, or even deliberate mass murder by mowing down a crowd of kids, should you be held liable because your car was stolen?

                Guns pose a greater risk according to silly cunt. Why? Well, because it’s like if you own a gun then clearly FUCK YOU THAT’S WHY!!!!!!

                NOZICK!!!!

                HERITAGE FOUNDATION!!!!!

                /SlaverMeade

                1. Pipe down there, junior.

            4. Oh for fuck’s sake.

              I’m going to just link to my last three replies to you from the other thread. I don’t feel like typing all of that out again.

              Expanding and inventing new causes of liability; is there any problem they can’t solve? Is your last name Warren or something?

              1. Expanding and inventing new causes of liability; is there any problem they can’t solve?

                It’s a simple, minimal, universal rule.
                All you really need is liability plus insurance, and then you let the insurance market work it out.

                No need for any other regulations.

                1. There isn’t any fucking liability now for a gun owner who gets burglarized. For common law reasons, ably described by Counselor Dean, below. You are inventing it. And then coming up with insurance to defray it. Go read the MA opinion I linked to. Even they aren’t extending liability to a burglarized gun owner.

                  This would be academic, were it not for the other case I cited in that link, that had to go to the 1st Circuit, which affirmed the District Court holding that there wasn’t any liability. Even if you win, this shit costs money, and it shouldn’t even get to this point. Absent cases of gross negligence—I believed I used the example of leaving your loaded Glock unattended on the coffee table in front of a bunch of 5 year olds—there shouldn’t be liability for a gun owner getting their weapons taken from them. And in gross negligence, amounting to recklessness, we already find those actors liable. That MA even went so far as extending liability to a homeowner for letting their adult invitee get at their unloaded weapons, is a fucking travesty, but what do you expect from that U.K.-wannabe, craphole?

                  Your academic navel-gazing horseshit, and McClurg’s too, is costing people money, who had nothing to do with the crime. Unless you’d like to toss out the idea of the intervening cause, and about several hundred year’s worth of negligence law. Is a car rental company liable for renting a car that’s subsequently used in crime? Why not, under your logic?

                  1. Absent cases of gross negligence—I believed I used the example of leaving your loaded Glock unattended on the coffee table in front of a bunch of 5 year olds—there shouldn’t be liability for a gun owner getting their weapons taken from them.

                    Why not? I’m talking about how things SHOULD be. Not how they ARE.

      2. So if someone breaks into your house, steals your weapon and uses it to commit murder, you should be held liable?

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

        And so it begins.

      3. If you own a nuclear power plant, and someone breaks in and uses it to cause a nuclear meltdown, should you be held liable?

        But you say, that’s not your fault. After all, you’re just a VICTIM of the crime of break-and-enter!

        1. If you own a nuclear power plant, and someone breaks in and uses it to cause a nuclear meltdown, should you be held liable?

          Since you didn’t cause the nuclear meltdown, then no, you are not liable. Shouldn’t this be screamingly obvious?

          1. You’re retarded.

            1. You’re retarded.

              Cogent argument, well thought-out. I’m convinced.

              You’re a towel.

            2. I don’t recall Hazel being this ridiculous in the past – what the hell happened? Did someone jump the real Hazel’s handle?

              1. Surely you realize that ther’es no fucking way that any jury in the universe would find you not liable if someone broke in and caused a nuclear meltdown at your plant.

                You’re legally responsible for security.

                If you don’t know that you’re dumb as a post.

                1. Holy shit you’re dumb.

                  Except in extremely limited situations, all tort liability is contingent on fault and causation: the actor had a duty to act but his conduct fell below some standard of care; and his conduct actually and proximately resulted in compensable injury.

                  The nuke plant owner doesn’t have a freestanding and open-ended obligation to provide security. He has an obligation to provide security commensurate with the risk, and likely consequences, of break-ins. If he does so, and some asshole still manages to break in and cause a meltdown, he’s not legally responsible.

                  Try learning something about the law rather than flapping your gash.

                  1. He has an obligation to provide security commensurate with the risk, and likely consequences, of break-ins.

                    So why don’t gun owners have an obligation to secure their gun in a way that is commensurate with the risk, and likely consequences of theft?

        2. Ok, that was just bonecrushingly stupid, Hazel.

    3. Oh Hazel, you never did answer my question about an innocent doctor practicing medicine abroad being expendable…

    4. What Hazel is proposing, of course, requires the repudiation of centuries old doctrine on “intervening cause”; namely, you can’t be held liable for someone else’s crime.

      I suppose there’s no reason to hold somebody liable if anything of theirs is stolen and used to commit a crime. Your car gets stolen, and while being used escape the robbery scene runs over a toddler, you should be on the hook?

      1. I am morally responsible for my actions only. No one else’s. Fuck Hazel’s idea, it is morally reprehensible.

        1. You should examine the parsing of your statement. I initially read “I am morally reprehensible” and knew, without looking, who posted the statement.

          1. I can be both!

      2. What Hazel is proposing, of course, requires the repudiation of centuries old doctrine on “intervening cause”; namely, you can’t be held liable for someone else’s crime.

        Well England’s already jumped that shark… I wish I could remember the exact story I just saw.

        1. Wasn’t there someone who got in trouble for putting bars on their windows because a burglar injured himself on them?

      3. You can be held liable for negligence if your negligence allows someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not be able to perform.

        1. So now we’ve gone from strict liability to negligence, have we?

          And, actually, no, “intervening cause” is still a perfectly good defense to a negligence claim, unless the plaintiff makes a strong case that the commission of the crime was a foreseeable result of your negligence.

          I eagerly await your explanation of how having your house broken into, your gun stolen, and subsequently used to commit murder, is “foreseeable” result of owning a gun.

          1. I’d let a civil trial jury decide if you’re liable or not and set the damages. If your peers think you did enough to secure the gun, and don’t hold you responsible, then what’s the problem?

            I eagerly await your explanation of how having your house broken into, your gun stolen, and subsequently used to commit murder, is “foreseeable” result of owning a gun.

            Seriously? Most murders are commited with stolen guns. Burglary is not an unforseeable event.

            Point is the posession of a firearm imposes risks upon others. Risks they would often rather not have forced upon them. If you’re going to own a weapon, you should take responsibility for the risk that creates.

            1. I’d let a civil jury trial decide if you’re liable or not [because your video may or may not have sparked Muslim riots]. If your peers think you did enough to cater to Muslim sensibilities, and don’t hold you responsible, then what’s the problem?

              1. Creating the possibility for a murderer to obtain posession of an object that is physically used to kill people is not the same thing as saying something that pisses the murderer off.

                1. Creating the possibility for a murderer to obtain posession of an object that is physically used to kill people is not the same thing as saying something that pisses the murderer off.

                  Does that apply to knives? Swords? Frying pans? Chainsaws?

                  You do understand that guns have other functions other than ‘killing people’, correct?

                  And my donation to the NRA may have created the possibility that someone somewhere got a gun. Am I now liable? I did ‘create the possibility’.

                  1. Suppose that you have an unsecured Katana lying around and you have a big party and show it off to people. Then you make a big point about how you leave your door unlocked because the neighborhood is so safe.
                    Later, one of the people at the party, walks into your house, takes the sword, and kills his girlfriend with it.

                    Wouldn’t you feel just a little bit responsible?

                    1. Suppose that you have an unsecured Katana lying around and you have a big party and show it off to people. Then you make a big point about how you leave your door unlocked because the neighborhood is so safe.
                      Later, one of the people at the party, walks into your house, takes the sword, and kills his girlfriend with it.

                      Are you fucking serious with this shit?

                2. But it is entirely foreseeable, given the events of the last decade. By your own definition, making films imposes risks on others, because some nut might misuse it as propaganda to move others to violence.

            2. A couple of problems with arguing that because having a gun stolen is “foreseeable” the robbery victim should be held liable for all crimes committed with the stolen gun:

              (1) I see no reason to limit it to guns, without falling into magical thinking about how guns, unlike other inanimate objects, are somehow inherently bad.

              (2) The courts have been perfectly clear on this point as it has been applied to all sorts of things, including guns: The intervening cause of the criminal committing a crime cuts off all liability of the robbery victim.

              (3) Just because an event is possible does not make it foreseeable. Foreseeability requires a certain likelihood (good luck with that) beyond mere possibility.

              (4) There’s also a causation issue, which in this context requires the chain of events between what the gun owner did (own a gun) and the crime to be quite short. Good luck with that, as well.

              1. (1) I see no reason to limit it to guns, without falling into magical thinking about how guns, unlike other inanimate objects, are somehow inherently bad.

                It’s not limited to guns. I’d apply it to posession of any object or property, that can potentially be used in a way that imposes a very high cost on others (i.e. death, mass destruction). Certain classes of objects are restricted for this reason and their owners assume responsibility for securing them. I’m proposing moving guns into this category. Yes, it’s kind of arbitrary. Yes, there might be a better way of defining the borders of it.

                (2) The courts have been perfectly clear on this point as it has been applied to all sorts of things, including guns: The intervening cause of the criminal committing a crime cuts off all liability of the robbery victim.

                Not for every kind of object. If you’re legally responsible for making sure an object does not get stolen, and you fail in that duty, then you can be held liable.

                I’d be fine with setting some standards for what counts as negligence if you’re not happy with the civil court approach. I just think that’s the simplest way of doing it.

                For the record, United Airlines was sued for negligence for 9/11, although a judge declared them not liable. Opinions may differ on that. Arguably, if the airlines were liable for damages for 9/11 we’d see a much saner approach to airline security than the TSA.

            3. COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
              COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

              1. This was meant to go below. I screwed it up. Will try again.

    5. I can imagine a circumstance where it may rise to the level of neglect but those are not common occurrences. Having your weapon stolen, however, happens a lot. No one but the perpetrators of the crimes are responsible. The gun owner is also, by any reasonable classification, a victim. My brother some years back left his gun in his utility van (he was a computer tech at the time, probably doing maintenance on servers) in an office park just outside Atlanta. The van was broken into and his gun stolen. Later he was questioned by cops because it was used in a bank robbery in New Jersey. This is a pretty common occurrence where a weapon is stolen. If a locked van is not assumed to be a reasonably secure location for the purpose of liability then we have a problem because the function of the gun to be useful for the purpose of self preservation in entirely undermined. I suspect the liability requirement idea floating around is nothing more than a proglodyte gunbanner scheme to thin out the ranks of gun owners, and will be used to further abuse victims of criminal misbehavior.

      1. I suspect the liability requirement idea floating around is nothing more than a proglodyte gunbanner scheme to thin out the ranks of gun owners, and will be used to further abuse victims of criminal misbehavior.

        That’s exactly what it is. They want to either scare you out of exercising your rights or make it prohibitively expensive.

        1. Ding, ding, ding.

          How does Hazel plan on enforcing this, anyway? Any scheme like this will have to involve, at a minimum, the insurance company (and therefore, the Gov’t) knowing the exact number and type of firearms you own, along with all of the accouterments of your storage situation. Plus inspection to verify same.

          So gun owners are now going to be in the same category as explosives plants or the nuclear power plant example you brought up above? You think those activities, on an individual basis, are even in the same galaxy as regards either frequency or magnitude of harm?

          I don’t like registration schemes; what on Earth makes you think this is a reasonable thing for gun owners? To hell with Nozick if he can’t see how head-splittingly stupid this idea is. Since when was he the last statement on Pure Libertarianism anyway? And to hell with you for throwing up yet another obstacle towards poor people being able to defend themselves.

      2. I can imagine a circumstance where it may rise to the level of neglect but those are not common occurrences. Having your weapon stolen, however, happens a lot. No one but the perpetrators of the crimes are responsible.

        See, this just seems crazy to me. If theft of guns is so rampant, then it seems totally reasonable to me to require gun owners to secure their weapons more effectively.

        The least restrictive way to do this is to assign liability back to them so they have a direct incentive to take extra precautions against theft.

        That’s literally how libertarian theory deals with every other case where some activity of an individual creates risks for others. If you pollute your neighbors water supply, you’re liable for the damages. if you want to set up a bomb factory in a residential neighborhood, you’re liable for any damages that might happen. That’s how you internalize costs. Then you let the market sort it out.

        Why are guns different?

        It seems to me that in this case, people who like guns are going “Oh but the costs would be SO HIGH that I wouldn’t be able to own guns!”

        Which is both (A) a tacit admission that you’re imposing costs upon other people and (B) a gross sign of a hypocritical irresponsibility. You want to have guns but you don’t want to take any responsibility for the costs that imposes upon other people.

        1. See, this just seems crazy to me. If theft of guns is so rampant, then it seems totally reasonable to me to require gun owners to secure their weapons more effectively.

          Yup, using government inducement to “require” people to do things is the pro-liberty position.

          Then you let the market sort it out.

          By forcing people people to buy insurance.

          Right.

        2. COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
          COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

        3. If you pollute your neighbors water supply, you’re liable for the damages.

          Nope. You pay them to allow you to damage them, or they pay you to not damage them.

          As I said above, clearly you dont understand Coase.

          And in the case of firearms, the person paying the damages (or being paid not to damage, depending on how the property rights are determined) is the person firing the weapon.

          1. You pay them to allow you to damage them

            So gun-owners should pay the rest of society for the right to own guns?
            Seems like my liability insurance scheme would accomplish that feat rather neatly. And in a way that is directly tuned to actuarial risk.

            And in the case of firearms, the person paying the damages (or being paid not to damage, depending on how the property rights are determined) is the person firing the weapon.

            That’s rather arbitrary. Why ONLY the person who fired the weapon, and not the person who provided it?
            Obviously we prosecute the guy who hired the hit man, not just the hit man. Why limit liability to only the person who steals the gun?

            1. steals != provides.

              Having something stolen is not equivalent to hiring a hit man.

              1. No, but a civil trial isn’t the equivalent of a jury trial either.

                The distinction is arbitrary. Why limit liability only to the shooter? If you can be sued for not shovelling your sidewalk, why can’t you be sued for not securing your gun?

            2. You are too fucking stupid to live.

        4. See, this just seems crazy to me. If theft of guns is so rampant, then it seems totally reasonable to me to require gun owners to secure their weapons more effectively.

          Aside from a steel vault*, there is no means of keeping a gun in a vehicle secure that would pass your muster for purposes of liability. As I laid out after the part you quoted, such extraordinaire means to take to secure that gun would render it useless. The criminals win, and society is even less safe. Is that what you want?

          And, I assure you, I know crazy, you’re crazy.

          * that would detour an ordinary unskilled criminal, but there is absolutely nothing you could do to prevent me from stealing absolutely anything I wanted to steal from your own vehicle if I wanted to. I’m good with an arc.

          1. Aside from a steel vault*, there is no means of keeping a gun in a vehicle secure that would pass your muster for purposes of liability. As I laid out after the part you quoted, such extraordinaire means to take to secure that gun would render it useless. The criminals win, and society is even less safe. Is that what you want?

            Sure. That makes the insurance cost non-zero. But I’m saying let a civil jury decide. So if the civil jury says “ok, we think this person did enough to secure the gun” and doesn’t find you liable, then there’s no problem. Let the courts and juries decide what level of security passes the test. Say if you left your car unlocked with a gun in it – ok they might award some damages. If you had it parked in a garage with a security guard, probably not.

            I’d be ok with setting some sort of standards for minimal gun security, but IMO, the civil court method would end up being WAY less restrictive.

            1. So if the civil jury says “ok, we think this person did enough to secure the gun” and doesn’t find you liable, then there’s no problem. Let the courts and juries decide what level of security passes the test.

              You are placing liability on the victim of one crime to compensate the victims of another. Thankfully, that does not meet the threshold of a non frivolous lawsuit in our current system.

              This should help illustrate how terrible your reasoning is here. Suppose in the commencement of that bank robbery due to an error my brother made in the upkeep of that gun, the gun exploded in the robber’s hand and crippled him for life. Does he have a viable lawsuit against my brother? If not then why not? In my scenario, my brother is directly responsible for the damage caused, in yours he is at best indirectly, and I’m not really even given you that much of a claim. You say, it is the fault of the robber because it was his actions that lead to his injury so therefore he has no claim whereas the robbery victims are innocent. Why yes, you are right, he is guilty and they are innocent in both situations.

              1. In the one case, the only damages are done to the robber, who is the guilty party.

                In the other case, the damages are done to innocent parties.

                That is the distinction.
                If you are a victim of crime you should be able to pursue liability back to all the people who are responsible. There shouldn’t be any arbitrary walls defining who is or isn’t liable.

            2. You have absolutely no fucking clue how litigation in this society works, how much it costs, or what a gigantic pain in the ass for non lawyers it is, when you make blithe statements like, “let a civil jury decide,” or “the civil court method would end up being WAY less restrictive.” Do you have any idea how expensive, and more importantly, how random in its findings a jury trial is? By comparison, you are making DanT look like a genius when it comes to pistol design and safety.

              Others and I have explained to you, repeatedly, why your scheme would be: a giant violation of privacy; a tremendous expansion of liability for people who aren’t currently at fault; and a large, unjustifiable economic burden on the ordinary person. Much in the spirit of that “innovator” Justice Warren, which point sailed right over your head, you are trying to find any deep pockets you can, regardless of whether it’s just for you to stick your hands in them. If you don’t want to read all of those already-stated arguments against your idea, then I’m through trying to explain it to your willfully ignorant ass.

              Go read a copy of the Restatement of Torts (better yet, hand a copy to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and make them re-read it) and stop embarrassing yourself further.

              I always wanted to end a post with that. Wonder what Gunnels, et al, is doing now?

              1. a giant violation of privacy; a tremendous expansion of liability for people who aren’t currently at fault; and a large, unjustifiable economic burden on the ordinary person.

                Why is an “expansion of liability” a bad thing? And why is an “economic burden” bad, if it assigns the costs of an activity back to the original actor?

                Your logic would exempt oil companies from liability for explosions at refineries on the grounds that making them liable would be “an economic burden” to them.

                Furthermore, the people getting this money isn’t the government. It’s going to compensate victims of gun crimes. It’s civil restitution.
                The insurance is just to make sure that restitution money is available.

                1. The insurance is just to make sure that restitution money is available.

                  Restitution for WHAT?

                  The gun owner is not an acting member of a criminal conspiracy for having been a victim of a crime.

  13. Food for thought:

    A home invasion robbery suspect died overnight when he jumped out a second-floor apartment window, apparently after his intended victims opened fire on the alleged intruders.

    The incident happened at an apartment complex on Lancashire Circle near Stone Mountain.

    Channel 2 Action News reported that a couple with two small children live in the apartment, and exchanged gunfire with the suspects.

    One of the suspects jumped out a second-story window to escape the gunfire, and hit a tree before falling to the ground and dying, according to Channel 2.

    A second suspect was found several miles away in the parking lot of a shopping center on East Park Place in Gwinnett County, and was taken to a local hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/l…..alb/nTZnJ/

    1. If that had happened in England, the homeowner would be under arrest for murder.

    2. Good. Anyone who breaks into an occupied house deserves to die.

    3. Lancashire

      When I first read that, I thought you meant in Britain.

      Of course if it had of been there, the home owner wouldn’t have had a gun, and if he did and shot the intruder, he would be in prison, since there is no right for Limeys to defend their home. I think they are supposed to help the robber carry the stuff out of their house, or they can be sued. That is exactly what libs here want.

    4. Per Hazel, those two dead criminals are externalities of gun ownership, and their families should thus be entitled to compensation from the gun owner.

      Didn’t that gun owner just impose costs on the two robbers? I believe he did, and he should have to pay those costs.

  14. Since “scary” seems to be the one quality that people have identified as bad, I’m developing a Teddy Bear Gun, a weapon so cute that you want to cuddle it, yet so deadly that with it’s 30 round Lollipop shaped magazine it can cut a burglar in half.

  15. From the “intellectual wing of TEAM BLUE:

    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

    “I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

    1. That’s fucking gold.

    2. What did Dick’s do?

      1. They stopped selling ARs, apparently.

        Also,

        they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.

        OTHERING

      2. Didn’t they sell guns at a discount after the shooting?

        1. I need to stop into my local one here in commie MD, to see what abominations they may have committed. Come to think of it, I don’t know if they had any guns in that store to start with since I was looking for shoes…

          But I see that Cabelas still sell an AR-15.

          I bought my last pair of asics at Dicks but if they do a nationwide pull on firearms to appease a minority of whiney ass libs, they aren’t getting any more biz from me.

          1. Their selection and prices blow anyway. Gun shows are the way to go.

            1. Fuck gun shows. The best places to get guns are scary gun stores in depressed mill towns that are run by racist conspiracy theorist Pollacks who make you look into a camera before he buzzes you into the store so that he can make sure you’re not black.

              1. I once bought a shotgun in the Hannaford’s parking lot in Augusta, Maine. That was more fun than some stupid gun store. Incidentally, there were no black people to be found.

                1. Uncle Henry’s is the way to go.

                  1. I also bought a .22 rifle at Kennebec Guns in Augusta. Nice store.

              2. John Stark Bellamy couldn’t have done a better job at describing Cleveland’s bleakness. Well done.

            2. Last time I went to a gun show the majority of the tables were beef jerky and knives.

          2. i there were selling in Montgomery county, MD. little shop that has model trains upstairs, guns downstairs.

            it’s one of my favorite places.

      3. I think they stopped selling ARs and pulled all guns from the Danbury store (the one nearest Newtown, and the one where Lanza went to try to buy his own gun, if that’s still part of the story).

    3. ” maybe you want to turn in your guns”

      And maybe you want to disembowel yourself on the House floor, but neither is very likely.

    4. Doesn’t she have a CHL? Or, doesn’t she go everywhere with a police escort? (That knows not to get between her and a camera.)

      So, you first, Sheila.

      So glad I don’t live in her district. Sucks to be the Heights.

  16. Whys should anyone fear for their safety? If Diane Feinstein feels the least tremor of concern she just has the Director of the FBI over to her office to reassure her.

    1. Or proposes even crazier shite like this:

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..7566.story

      1. Got to love them CA Senatorial pair!

        1. I hear there’s a movie in the works about Babs and Di….working title; “Dumb and Dumber.”

          1. They had a copyright problem with that.

            Now they’re going with Dumbass and Dumberass.

  17. People simply can’t accept that Shit Happens. No one has a plan to prevent this. They are just looking to make particular methods harder, which will have a near zero impact on frequency/bodycount and a tremendous impact on liberty.

  18. Since I find myself back in the market for guns, I remembered my longstanding desire for a decent .45 carbine that would take extended mags.

    And lo! The market has delivered such a thing:

    http://www.kriss-usa.com/carbines/crb-45-acp

    Be still, my heart! They even make a silencer for it!

    http://www.kriss-usa.com/defia…..-cal-45acp

    Please, Santa. Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease.

    1. Fuck that. Buy a gun company. Investors are getting antsy. Sell offs to appease the public sector pension holders. Play your cards right, you could be the next great merchant of death.

    2. I don’t know if you have (I think) Outdoor Network, but MidwayUSA’s Rapid Fire did a comparison of the Thompson and the Kriss.

      http://www.downrange.tv/blog/m…..iss/18187/

      has a clip [not a magazine 😉 ] from the show.

    3. The gun range near me has a full-auto version of it. They denounce it as a piece of shit. And delighted in telling me how they had to stand directly behind the clowns who otherwise would blow up half their ceiling.

      Your mileage may vary, and it could be that the semi-auto version of it runs happily. Or that they have a lemon—it’s a new design, after all. Looking up .45 carbines, there don’t seem to be many. I guess for the price of the Kriss, you could get the HK USC, and enjoy the reported fruits of HK customer service.

      I have no idea why Kel-Tec doesn’t make their Sub 2000 in .45

    4. Or if you’re really cheap and adventurous, there’s always the Hi-Point entry into the field. You might want to get a blast suit first though.

      (I shouldn’t talk shit, my Hi Point 45 pistol is awesome)

  19. I think Shriek will be entertained to learn that the brilliant strategists of the Democratic Party, who were “slow-walking” gun control with Joe Manchin (D-WV), are now watching Senator Slow Walker beat a not-so-slow retreat as his constituents give him an earful about his previous vow to look at tightening gun laws.

    1. Awesome.

      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who suggested earlier in the week that the time had come for some gun control restrictions, said on Wednesday that he’s “not supporting a ban on anything” and he repeatedly defended and praised the NRA.

      I bet he got a bunch of angry emails, like the ones I advocate sending(nag), from his constituents.

      1. I can’t believe a Senator from fricken West Virginia thought it would be wise to talk gun control. Is he a retarded Senator, or the most retarded Senator?

        1. Maybe he thought the few thousand academics around Morgantown would dig the new anti-2nd look so fashionable among legislators.

        2. Well, it’s probably not as bad as if he’d favored alcohol control or incest control.

  20. I posted this question yesterday but never saw a response. Has the DiFi proposed renewal of the….I even hate typing it…….Assault Weapons Ban changed from prospective to retroactive?

    There was some chatter to this effect yesterday.

  21. I read an anti-gun rant somewhere online yesterday that stated as a fact, that these ‘assault weapons’ are capable of firing 100s of rounds in a minute. I don’t own an AR-15 or anything like that, which is what they appear to be talking about, but I would think that either they are grossly exaggerating or someone must have an awfully fast finger to accomplish that.

    Anyway, someone with just a pistol and 6 rounds, having to reload, would likely be able to take out as many unarmed teachers and small children as they wanted to until someone armed intervened or they got tired of it and offed themself.

    I guess I am just trying to figure out another way to make the same point most here are trying to make. Banning ‘scary looking’ weapons that fire the same ammunition as less scarier looking weapons, is really pointless.

    We all know that the progressives just want to ban all weapons so that their overlords in the government, which they worship, can round up all of rednecks and anarchists and put us in the gulag. Joke on them is that when that happens, they will be just as likely to wind up in the same place, they are just too naive to realize that. Sheep will be sheep.

    1. assault weapons’ are capable of firing 100s of rounds in a minute

      I’ve watched Predator 18 times and can assure you that’s true.

      1. “Come on in, you fuckers. Come on in. Ol’ Painless is waitin’.”

        1. “Yeah, scratch this on your sore ass!”

      2. I thought that was supposed to be a real automatic weapon, not a made to look scary weapon that you have to pull the trigger for each shot?

    2. We all know that the progressives just want to ban all weapons so that their overlords in the government, which they worship, can round up all of rednecks and anarchists and put us in the gulag

      Yeah, that’s like how it happened in the UK and Australia!

      Oh wait.

  22. If you’re gonig to hide behind the 2A, Stick to Muskets

    1. If you’re going to hide behind the 1A, stick to hand-cranked printing presses.

    2. Not the dumbest argument ever, but it’s getting there. Keep trying, little buddy.

    3. If you’re going to hide behind the 4th Amendment, stick to cavalry and foot soldiers.

    4. who’s hiding behind it? we’re standing in front of it.

    5. If you’re going to hide behind the 3A, stick to …. ugh …. non-flame-retardant building materials?

    6. Oh, look, a new troll.

      Yeah, the proggies have conveniently rediscovered The Founders and absent any actual writings by TF supporting current proggie viewpoints held a seance where the ghosts of Jefferson and Washington told them that they couldn’t envision guns ever being more efficient than a Brown Bess. Because none of TF were inventors or visionaries or technologists.

  23. While we’re at it does anyone have any objections to exhuming Larry King and putting him back behind the microphone? Once that’s done can we start the paperwork to have that limey asswipe Piers Morgan deported?!

    1. I hope Murdock scandal catches up with him. You just know by his personality he is a slimeball who went farther than what anyone is being accused of doing.

    2. What is it with the Limeys? Didn’t they get a good enough ass kicking the first time? Maybe they should just come on over and consifscate some guns.

      1. Violent actions here give them the false sense of comfort that the monarchy and welfare state their ancestors chose over finding a plot of land in an unsettled country were way better choices. Plus, we have bears!

        1. finding a plot of land in an unsettled country to call one’s own

          I suck at the editoring. But I deal with it with a flask from time to time.

          1. Well, I guess I can excuse that, since I type-o’d confiscate.

            And yeah, jealousy makes sense. I sense exactly the same thing in the Canuckistanis who for some reason love to prowl American political sites and make stupid statements about things that are essentially none of their business.

            1. My post just above is even worse. A missing ‘the’, and ‘farther’ for ‘further’, and I notice all of these errors just after hitting submit. Back to the flask. I need the juice before the twenty minute commute in a few minutes.

              1. It’s really nice having my kid kept just next door instead of spending another twenty minutes on the road to pick him up at a separate location. She just releases him at the front door and he comes running to me. Counting the blessings.

              2. It’s all Reasons fault for not giving us that fucking edit feature. I promise that I will NEVER bring this up again, until the next time that I bring it up.

  24. Here’s a little moral question: let’s say the shit hits the fan (Zombie Apocalypse, NorK invasion, what have you) that will really, seriously require an armed citizenry to defeat. Would you give aid and shelter to those who tried to take your guns away, even if they begged and pleaded and said they were sorry?

    Me? Probably not.

    1. Let me think…, ok, NO.

    2. Liberal at door of my super zombie resistant shelter:

      Liberal: Let me in, please!, there are zombies after me!

      Me: Better not, I have scary looking guns in here, guns kill people, you are better off out there.

    3. If by aid and shelter you mean “Would I have some newfound, docile slaves?”, the answer is “yes”

    4. Are they hot chicks? Because then: yes. Otherwise, no. I’d also let JJ in, but he captured my heart a long time ago.

    5. Would you give aid and shelter to those who tried to take your guns away, even if they begged and pleaded and said they were sorry?

      I would refuse medical care to anyone I knew that tried to enslave me to force me to treat them, and no, they are not welcome in my house.

    6. Well, there are a lot of factors to consider. First off, how do I know they’re not collaborating with the enemy or planning to steal from me? In a real SHTF situation you probably shouldn’t trust people you didn’t know and trust beforehand.

      Second, there’s probably only so much aid and shelter to go around. Unless the person in question is in a position to help me or my group, the answer is probably no. Sorry.

  25. But since the features that legally define an “assault weapon” have little functional significance in the context of violent crime, it is hard to argue that such firearms are any more “dangerous” than models that do not fall into this arbitrary category.

    Not to mention completely made up by the anti-gun lobby.

    1. Apparently you haven’t been paying attention….Americans are ready to embrace new gun control laws!

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..ge-on.html

      1. I read it.

        So it looks like what they are basically saying is:

        Guns are literally flying off shelves.

        And that proves that Americans are ready to embrace new gun control laws?

        You forgot the /sarcasm…

      2. People are losing their shit right now. I was thinking in buying some AR lowers after christmas, and if I ordered the lowers then I might get them by next christmas.

        Everything is backordered until forever. And stock prices for small arms manufacturers are falling. I wish I had a chunk of change to invest, because people are going to keep buying anything available for the foreseeable future.

        1. The web site for the range near me gave a “bandwidth exceeded” error message the other day.

        2. I was in Gander Mountain yesterday and it was packed. I was there to look at the used handguns, which they usually have an entire display case of, and there were a grand total of three left! One of which was a P64 Makarov which I’ve always been interested in, and thought about picking up, but I’d imagine the 9×18 ammo is going to be a PITA to get if they ban mail order sales.

        3. But I’m definitely bringing in some of my less favorite guns to see what they offer for them.

      3. So the prices on guns and ammo are skyrocketing? Sounds like price gouging to me.

  26. It’s all Reasons fault for not giving us that fucking edit feature. I promise that I will NEVER bring this up again, until the next time that I bring it up.

    If only there were a way to “change” a posting after the fact. Hmmm…well I guess there’s nothing that can be done!

  27. But since the features that legally define an “assault weapon” have little functional significance in the context of violent crime, it is hard to argue that such firearms are any more “dangerous” than models that do not fall into this arbitrary category.

    Libertarians talking to libertarians. The stupidity of a law has little to no bearing on whether it will pass legislatively.

  28. US Courts are like US politicians, bought and paid for!

    http://www.PrivacyUSA.tk

  29. “Why shouldn’t the same expectation apply to Second Amendment rights?” The other day, I read a one-liner that really sums up the whole issue: “The 2nd Amendment protects ‘assault weapons’ the same way that the First Amendment protects the internet.” Hard to argue with that, though many will, of course, try.

  30. Dianne Feinstein’s political career is one of the best of examples of why Twinkies are so very bad for individuals and society.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.