Gun Control

Guns: Fading from National Conversation, But Still Generating Some Unpleasant Mania


As Reason 24/7 noted earlier today, guns and gun regulations are fading from the public conversation post-Sandy Hook a bit quicker than most would have predicted.

While I wrote this American Conservative article "Gun Control R.I.P." before Sandy Hook, I still think its prediction that American citizens or politicians are not going to be quick to support much in the way of increased gun control will likely hold up, though the future remains devilishly difficult to predict.

At any rate, a return to the gun control status quo of a decade ago via a revival of the pointless but somewhat popular "assault weapon ban," if that even ends up happening, is still not much in the way of advanced gun control on the march. I think the main reason for this is not that we are bloody-minded lunatics in thrall to the NRA, but that most people realize that no constitutional or effective gun control regulation would have stopped Sandy Hook or likely stop any future Sandy Hooks and are thus more an emotional reaction than a logical policy one, and one that will cause trouble for the innocent more than stop the would-be guilty.

As Emily Ekins pointed out here last week, majorities in Gallup Polls still are against bans of either handguns or semiautomatic rifles, though 58 percent post-Sandy Hook are generically in favor of "stricter gun laws," which is a huge rise from 43 percent in 2011.

But, as I discussed in "Gun Control R.I.P.," for most Americans its not such an important issue one way or the other, with the colorful, exciting parts of the gun control debate remaining on a fringe of people for whom the issue short circuits both logic and decency. For an example, see this op-ed [link fixed] in a respectable big-city daily, the Des Moines Register, from a back-from-retirement venerable columnist Donald Kaul, from last week:

Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It's badly written, confusing and more trouble than it's worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a "well-regulated militia." We don't make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn't have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that's optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And people wonder why those protective of their weapons or weapon-related rights don't entirely trust their fellow citizens who seem very excitable on the topic of increasing gun control.

Mr. Kaul does not represent a majority opinion among those calling for more gun regulations. Still, what other human or constitutional right would see calls for its complete abolition, its practitioners and believers declared criminals and, a little bit more than implicitly, killed ("'cold, dead hands' thing works for me…."), and at any rate its political supporters explicitly violently assaulted in a particularly bloody way ("drag them around the parking lot….") published blithely in a major newspaper?

Similarly, the sometimes perspicacious and usually hilarious Ruben Bolling seems to believe that the Second Amendment is far more stringently protected than the First. (If that's not what he means, can't really figure out the joke or the point of that strip.)

NEXT: The New York Times Loses Suit to Uncover Details of Drone War

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Poor lefty columnist whines: “What happened to our national conversation about gun control?”…..160045.php

    Well, for starters it wasn’t a ‘national’ conversation; it was lefties talking to each other.

    1. Hey, some of them were on the East Coast, and some on the West. Totes national.

      1. Yer right! I’ll bet there was at least one in fly-over country!

        1. I’m sure there were a bunch in Chicago, at least (not nicole, obviously).

        2. There’re at least a couple here:

          The pious, brain-dead do-goodery on that site would make Carrie A. Nation proud.

          1. Sure could use a time machine to go back and punch that bitch.

            1. I have yet to figure out how a rabble-rousing lunatic runs around turn of the century America smashing up private property without eventually eating a bullet.

              Maybe the old-timey drunks were more chivalrous.

              1. When the newspapers are in your pocket, you’re rarely out there smashing up private property without a gaggle of supporters there witnessing any action against you and reporting it in a way that fits the narrative they are selling.

                Think USS Maine on a domestic issue and you’re there.

                1. According to wiki, she often went in alone. Also according to wiki, “Nation paid her jail fines from lecture-tour fees and sales of souvenir hatchets,” which is, naturally, just what every adolescent prohibitionist needs.

                  Now that my fury meter is filled up, I’m off to the liquor store.

                2. sloopyinca| 1.2.13 @ 8:56PM |#
                  “Think USS Maine on a domestic issue and you’re there.”

                  Hearst wasn’t a cautionary tale; he was an instructional manual.

          2. Now that right there sure is a worthy cause, you know, since most folks carry AR-15s to dinner. It was making me more than a little leary that someone was going to accidentally shoot me while reaching for gravy at the buffet.

          3. There’s a place in town that serves guns lightly sauted in butter and garlic, with a white wine sauce.

            1. Ban Ssaulty weapons!

    2. True, it wasn’t a conversation.

      Even the conversations turned out be put-ons.

      They used words like “practical”, but when their proposals were pointed out to be wholly ineffective, they invariably get hostile and talk about banning all guns or entire classes of guns (all semiautomatics), which is a decidely impractical measure.

      They use words like “reasonable” to talk about banning large swaths of guns based on their unique status as “assault weapons”, a term they invented. Creating a distinction out of thin air, then claiming that you’re not banning all of a thing, merely those that fall within your absurdly defined and regularly revised category is not reasonable.

      They use words like “sensible” to describe any and every piece of legislation that restricts, bans, prohibits, or otherwise interferes with gun possession, ownership, purchase, etc. and never to describe legislation that in any way removes a regulation or ‘loosens’ up on gun ownership, purchase, possession, etc.
      Sensible should mean more than restrictions and more of them.

      Then we get the anti-gun commentators and tv personalities, mainly those on less ‘mainstream’ news programs, as well as shows with former comedians, where gun owners penis size is commented on and criticized as small, in need of compensation.

      Is it any wonder a lot of gun owners and gun rights supporters don’t feel like ‘talking’ about the issue with these people?

      1. “They used words like “practical”
        “They use words like “reasonable”
        “They use words like “sensible”

        They use words that are devoid of specific content for reasons of stupidity or cupidity.
        I tend to favor stupidity, but….

      2. Is it any wonder a lot of gun owners and gun rights supporters don’t feel like ‘talking’ about the issue with these people?

        Well, they’d be “unreasonable” even if they did, and treated like horrible diseased retards who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      3. Whenever a partisan hack says prefaces his screed with words like sensible, practical, or reasonable, you can almost guarantee the following diatribe will be very short on all three.

        1. Next time I get someone who makes the claim I might just have to ask what would be “unreasonable” in their opinion.

          1. Easy: anything other than their “reasonable” solutions.

            Most humans define almost every human trait by the same exact logic:

            For instance – the average person defines arrogance as “anyone who is more confident than I am”.

    3. In Oakland, you don’t even have to go to school to get shot. Just be in the wrong place at the wrong time – be in front of your house, or walking to the store, or talking with your friends. Bullets don’t have a conscience; they go anywhere and kill anyone.

      He’s right. Just the other day I saw a bullet following me home. I think I lost it somewhere on 279 but it’s probably out there waiting.

      1. “He’s right. Just the other day I saw a bullet following me home. I think I lost it somewhere on 279 but it’s probably out there waiting.”

        Consider yourself lucky, you have been warned and you’re on its shit list now…best take care… They never forgive, and never forget.

      2. At least we know Tulpa keeps it real and lives the thug life.

  2. guns and gun regulations are fading from the public conversation post-Sandy Hook a bit quicker than most would have predicted.

    Last Friday i went to a store and called up another one looking for a CZ 75B 9mm.

    Neither store could find anyone to sell them the gun to sell to me and the store I called said that all the manufacturers and wholesalers have shut their doors because of the school shootings.

    I don’t know about the “public conversation” but the market is speaking loud and clear on the issue.

    1. I do know that at least one gun manufacturer was on winter shut down for the past two weeks, for plant maintenance and inventory paperwork.

      1. They had also already made plans to cancel the summer shut down.

      2. They were probably just busy replacing their workers with dirty furriners.

    2. All the manufacturers? Doubtful, most places are backlogged out the wazoo.

      The market is speaking loudly, just not in favor of the gun control position.

      People are buying semi-auto rifles so quickly that stores can’t keep them on the shelves. Same with receivers, parts kits, magazines, etc.

      The two (nicely sized) stores I mainly go to will get a large shipment of scary looking guns and has sold them before the end of the day.

      1. Troy industries has a ton of ARs they need an outlet for after Dick’s shafted them.

        1. Gosh, they’ll probably never be able to sell those ARs. Not in this market. /sarc

          1. I bet they could sell their entire stock out the back door for 3x the price they were going to get from Dick’s.

    3. I made the mistake of deciding to wait until Christmas to buy that Springfield XDS I’ve had my eye on.

      Santa Clause did not visit the An0nb0t household with .45 in hand, sadly.

  3. I thought the prez was on Meet the Press just this past Sunday going on about it again? Does that count as fading? (I thought it was fading myself until I heard that, and got nervous.)

    1. It’s fading. You can’t keep up that kind of hysteria for long, and though they whipped it up good because they saw the chance to climb atop a mound of dead children, the timing was all wrong for them. I doubt they could have gotten anything real passed regardless, but it was the end of a lame-duck session with a supposed “fiscal cliff” looming, plus it was the holidays. Oops, sorry. Fuck you, gun grabbers.

      1. You know what? I don’t think you really are sorry.

        It seems somehow fitting that this was swept away by the excitement of a magical time of year that’s all about children and their joy.

        1. You think right.

          I thought this time of year was about getting smashed on eggnog and watching football. There are children involved?!?

          1. Well, for some people there are. For the rest of us there are benzos and costume dramas…I mean, eggnog and football. Yeah, eggnog and football.

            1. No one wants to hear about your Renaissance Fair and “non-violent” LARPing activities, nicole.

          2. I thought this time of year was about getting smashed on eggnog and watching football. There are children involved?!?

            Who the fuck do you think is gonna bring you an eggnog refill and Moar Chips?


          3. for some reason this time every year Ghosts arrive by my bed at night and show me moments from my past where i connived, cheated, exploited, abused people etc for my own benefit

            Then they show my future where i am filthy rich and reviled. and i’m like, “Fucking *sweet*!”

            1. Frylock: But I thought everyone back then was undeveloped? Couldn’t make machines with their crinkled hands.

              Cybernetic Ghost: Well the elves came from the red planet…and there was much defecation.

              Frylock: Yeah, yeah, you mentioned that. How long ago did you say this was?

              Cybernetic Ghost: [Fog rolls in] Thousands of years ago-

              Frylock: Oh shut up! You still haven’t explained why the pool is filled with elf blood!


              Like that ^^ ?

    2. More people watch the fish tank channel than MTP. So, yeah.

  4. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

    IDK about the whole “my cold, dead hands” thing, but if Donald Kaul cares to come for my guns I’ll do my best to give it to him empty. I’ll send him an invite.

    1. That line always struck me as stupid. The point of owning guns is so that you are able to retrieve your guns from their cold, dead hands.

      1. Fair point. I have to admit I never thought about that line that explicitly. Just never cared for it.

        1. Su-u-u-urrre you can have my gun. I’ll just give you the ammunition first, m’kay?

          1. X’zackitley!

        2. I’ll be generous. Mr. Karl can select one from my extensive collection. Then he can come around knocking.

          I highly doubt his career as a journalist has taught him how to use arms better than four years in the Marine Infantry taught me.

          Molon Labe mutha fucka!

    2. It’s easy for a dipshit like Kaul to hide behind the power of the police state when he argues for the execution of his fellow citizens. He certainly wouldn’t have the balls to storm their homes himself.

      1. It’s easy for a dipshit like Kaul to hide behind the power of the police state when he argues for the execution of his fellow citizens. He certainly wouldn’t have the balls to storm their homes himself.

        And yet they make the jokes about “compensation.” What the fuck are they compensating for? I’m not the one using THE WHOLE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT to enforce my position on others.

  5. Speaking of the “National Conversation on Gun Control” (as noted in PM links)…

    Bloomberg Retard Proposes DESTROYING Bushmaster in Zero Sum Universe

    Oh, and “Rich People” should pay for it. Because they’re dicks. Makes sense@~!…..aster.html

    1. this is more my style of “National Conversation”


      (insert evil laugh, squeaky monocle polishing sound)

      Disclosure: I am long RGR

      1. 51,000 gun stores? There’s something wrong with that number. I live in a relatively gun-friendly place and we have far more McNasty restaurants than gun shops.


          “”There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1) . Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.”

          1. GILMORE| 1.2.13 @ 9:14PM |#
            …”destructive devices.”…

            *That* is an editorial comment, not a statement of fact.

            1. “Destructive device” is a legal term in the NFA for explosives, grenades, etc, or a firearm with a bore larger than 0.5″ diameter.

              1. other than muzzleloaders which are exempt.

            2. “Destructive devices” is a category under the National Firearms Act, and includes any firearm with a bore diameter of larger than .50″ that hasn’t been exempted for sporting purposes (which, by the way, means they could ban virtually all shotguns by merely taking away their exemption), grenades, and other explosive devices.

              1. oops, forgot about the shotguns. Though they can’t just decide to remove the exemptions, the courts would have to agree that they don’t have legit sporting purposes.

                1. AFAIK there isn’t a provision for judicial review in the statute, though to be honest I haven’t read it all the way through. So basically, they could ban them and then make life hell for gun owners until the eventual constitutional challenge makes its way through the courts.

                2. And being that some of the Nazgul use shotguns for sporting purposes, I’d say that would be a hard sell.

                  I’m ot even sure that the Kagans and Wise Latinas of the world would try and make the argument that shotguns don’t have a legit sporting purpose.

        2. I wonder if they counted everyone with an FFL as a “gun store”?

          ‘Cause there’s a bunch of guys around here that do transfers out of their basements that I wouldn’t consider a store proper; some even have a small selection, but not much.

          1. I was wondering about exactly that. I have 9 McDonald’s within 10 miles of my house. There are 2 Wal-Marts and 2 sporting goods stores that sell guns in that same radius.

  6. As Reason 24/7 noted earlier today, guns and gun regulations are fading from the public conversation post-Sandy Hook a bit quicker than most would have predicted.

    The conversation was driven off the fiscal cliff.

  7. At any rate, a return to the gun control status quo of a decade ago via a revival of the pointless but somewhat popular “assault weapon ban

    That was before AR-15s and other so called ‘assault’ rifles became so wildly popular.

    And, IMHO, it’s because they look so fucking cool. Just like any other type of product, people want stuff that looks cool, you know, partly because they like to show it to other people and impress them.

    I have a rifle with a 30 round clip on it, but it doesn’t look as cool as an AR-15, although I am sure that it will fire just as many shells just as fast, and I am sure that if you are a raving lunatic that you could kill just as many people with it just as fast. Just that it doesn’t look as scary.

    Banning magazines with more than 10 rounds is a bunch of fucking bullshit, dreamed up by loonies like Feinstein. Fuck her, and the rest of her ilk.

    1. …”like Feinstein. Fuck her”…

      Ewwwwwwwwww! Bad choice of words. Ditto for Pelosi.

      1. Well, I have actually planning on having you do it, so it’s ok.

        1. was

          it was the squirrels

          1. What? No love for Pelousi galore?

    2. …”30 round clip”…

      NEIN!!! NEIN!!! Nict “clip”!!! MAGAZINE, DUMKOFF

      1. Calm down, man. Magazine.

      2. Yeah. I had no idea what he was talking about because clip hasn’t been interchangeable with magazine for at least the last 70 years. I was SO confused.


          1. So I was in the waiting room reading a clip, when this guy walks in with a flower magazined to his lapel.

            1. The military use of “magazine” as a term predates the literary. The first “magazine” was named such as it was supposed to provide “intellectual ammunition”.

              So, fuck waiting room magazines is what I’m saying.

              1. Outstanding history lesson.

          2. Actually, it isn’t about that at all.

            It’s about gun owners and shooters claiming the right to label the tools of their trade rather than those who revile them.

    3. And, IMHO, it’s because they look so fucking cool.

      Why the AR-15 is popular with me:
      With one lower receiver and one set of furniture, and 5 upper receivers, barrels and magazines, I can fire 5 unrelated calibers of ammunition, from .22LR to .50 Beowulf. All bought separately and with no gunsmith involved. When you can plink and rabbit hunt with the same rifle you can hunt big game with, it’s much easier to stay good with it.

  8. What if Odummy spends his entire poliitical capital for the remainder of his 2nd term, pushing gun control.

    1. The NRA grows to 15 million members? Whoever owns Colt retires to live in an island palace?

    2. Hyperion| 1.2.13 @ 7:07PM |#
      “What if Odummy spends his entire poliitical capital for the remainder of his 2nd term, pushing gun control.”

      Great! He and the congress-critters wouldn’t have time to screw up everything else!
      He might just as well spend the time trying to get it up to screw Feinstein or Pelosi (you can use his dick, not mine)

  9. We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles.

    That’s exactly what was expected at that time.

    And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights.

    And surely they couldn’t have envisioned stuff like TV, radio, and the Internet when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

    If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

    And I’m sure Mr. Kaul would gladly volunteer to be on point for any house-to-house gun-confiscation raids.

    Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

    This is almost as telling as a Freudian slip when it comes to understanding the leftist mindset.

    1. Almost? He let his mask slip because with everyone freaking out so much he felt he could. This is his fucking fantasy. Every time you give them an opportunity, so many statists reveal their inherent violence and desire for control. Shit, you don’t even have to give them an opportunity, they are happy to do it all on their own.

      1. Yup. I always thought it was funny how those most hateful of individual gun rights are the ones who’d most gladly turn them on others, given the opportunity.

        1. Once again, it always comes back to projection with these people. Always.

          1. Once again, it always comes back to projection with these people. Always.

            My first inclination is to get all worked up when I read that sort of tripe. But then I realize that guys like this are so far out on the fringe that there’s really no point. It would be like arguing with a flat-earther.

    2. They are hugely emboldened right now. They won. They can do anything.

      This is the point that people get to right before they often make a huge or even fatal miscalculation about their own limits.

      1. Yep. And they will screw themselves if they try any serious gun control. Outside of major urban areas, even most democratic districts are pretty pro-gun.

        1. I heard that. Being a shooting enthusiast and collector I can tell you that gun shows are the true American Melting pot. Blacks, Arabs, Asians, all Americans and they all love the smell of gun powder.

    3. “Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.”

      Which is *EXACTLY* the reason he won’t get ‘gun control’.
      Want to try that, Mr. Kaul? Guess who might be armed to keep you from doing so. Door one? Door two? Your choice; chose very carefully if you’re making threats like that.

  10. The thing missing from the debate so far is anger ? anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

    Change the facts without changing the outcome: If Adam Lanza had, instead of taking some guns to Sandy Hook Elementary school, brought a tray of delicious chocolate chip cookies laced with strychnine and given them to 26 people, including his mother, and had one for himself, would we still need ANGER in this debate?

    A sword by itself does not slay; it is merely the weapon used by the slayer.

    Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

    Eliminationist. Rhetoric.

    BTW, I do believe it is illegal to threaten legislators with violence. Somebody call the FBI so Donnie can get five years worth of the mental health care he so desperately needs.

    18 USC ?875

    1. He thought anger was missing? Ha. Now that is rich.

    2. Right after the DC cops introduce David Gregory to his new cellmates for possession of a hi-cap magazine in the District limits.

  11. Did you note some double-standards? The mayor of Marlboro, NJ, a Democrat put armed police in NJ schools…..NJ-Schools I guess the media will remain silent on the question.

    And the Journal News who showed a map and adress of gun owners in Westchester country got a little taste of their own…..mers-Outed

  12. Looks like Doherty SF’d the link to the op-ed; I’m going to go there and see if it’s still up and still open for comments.

  13. The character limit sucks
    Everyone like car analogies:
    Imagine that heavy duty diesel trucks, that is trucks like the Chevy HD, Ford F-350, Dodge RAM diesels like the 2500, etc. are involved in a small number of incidents, let’s say no more than 30, where the driver drove over a bunch of people in a crosswalk-let’s 5 or more, OR plowed his truck into cars at an intersection and pushed them into cross traffic.

    A group of politicians who have always been opposed to trucks in private hands OR all vehicles in private hands (one or the other for this example), coin the term ‘tractor truck’ which sounds a lot like tractor trailer.

    They go on TV talking about these “tractor trucks” and the menacing they cause. They hold press conferences talking about “Cummins killers” and “Duramax Death machines” and they show pictures of or point at the large trucks behind them and say things like “You don’t need something like this to go to the grocery store” or “You don’t need this to get your kids to school”, “You don’t need a 50 gallon fuel tank to commute to work”, etc.

    1. They introduce a ban on ‘tractor trucks’ in private hands. ‘tractor truck’ includes any truck with a diesel engine as well as any engine with a fuel injector in the cylinder head AND two or more of the following features:dual tires mounted side-by-side on an axle (dualie tires),locking front and/or rear axles, automatically shifting transmissions, sport seats, or automatic locking 4wd hubs. Separately, the bill bans diesel engines over 6.0L , fuel tanks over 20 gallons, etc.

      Cue the outrage-neither gasoline engines with direct injection nor diesel can’t be used in automatic transmission trucks, dualies aren’t allowed with 4wd diesel trucks, etc.

      Truck companies immediately comply and begin removing dualie tires from 4wd diesels with auto trans and only putting dualies on manual trans 4wd diesels. They begin equipping all trucks with dual and triple 19 gallon fuel tanks, 5.9L engines, manual locking hubs, etc.

      These compliance measures are called ‘skirting’ or exploiting ‘loopholes’ and immediately the truck control groups go to work on a stronger ban that languishes for 15+ years.

      in the meantime, a very small number of people engage in mass street slaughter with cars, small trucks, and post-ban ‘tractor trucks’ without any noticeable decline in mass slaughter or overall day-to-day traffic death.

    2. Reply #2
      10 years after implementation, the ban sunsets and ‘tractor trucks’ are available again. For 8 years, they’re widely available, and there’s no increase in mass street slaughter or overall traffic deaths. in fact, the latter declines.

      That year, a guy using a truck that would have been compliant with the now sunset ‘tractor truck’ ban kills his own mother, steals her truck and runs over a bunch of kindergartners with it. We hadn’t seen anyone kill large number of children like this before, so everyone’s quick to say things like “it feels different this time”.

      The same people who’ve been pushing a revised/renewed ‘tractor truck’ ban are right on time to push their proposal before those kids are all buried.

      So now car owners, truck owners, vehicle rights enthusiasts are dealing with people saying things like “that much torque capacity makes it easy to run people over” in response to points that far more people are killed with far less capable vehicles. Anti-vehicle or uninformed people talk about how a ford escort never killed 20 people at once while ignoring that much less capable vehicles kill tens of thousands while all trucks (rifle comparison) are only responsible for about 3% of vehicle deaths. They outright dismiss the idea that a small 4-cylinder truck could run over as many people if the driver made some small changes (at best) to their plans. They talk about how cars could get high centered running over that many people or driving on the sidewalk, etc.

    3. #3
      In discussions about ‘tractor truck’ bans, they put forward statistics for all vehicle deaths to make their case about narrow vehicle type bans.

      They talk about how large fuel tanks encourage long distance massacres and that forcing people to refuel will give the police a chance to stop them; to make that case, they talk about one of the few times a killer was stopped by someone other himself after his cheap aftermarket fuel tank partially dissolved and clogged the fuel lines. In this case, had he stuck with some 10 (or 19) gallon tanks, he wouldn’t have been stopped so easily. [As I recall, the Aurora shooter had some crappy aftermarket mag that jammed his gun forcing him to spend time trying to unjam it rather then reload] (Back to ‘tractor trucks’)In nearly all other cases, the driver stopped when he encountered resistance or apparently decided to end and ran himself over (comical to think about). To make it worse, nearly every single mass vehicle slaughter, with a slim handful of exceptions has happened in an area already closed to vehicles.

      1. “decided to end and ran himself over (comical to think about)”

        See also Monty Pythons upper class twit of the year.

      2. Brendon, Great analogy, if a bit lengthy. Do you have it posted somewhere for an easy link to spread it around?

  14. This is prety much what I expected. The people who really were freaking out about it are the peopel who were already convinced that guns are bad and should be forbidden. I don’t think that there was any real lasting change in general public opinion, and legislators are at least not completely stupid when it comes to knowing how to stay in office.

  15. dont know if people saw this already..

    NYT Op/ed proposes “ditching the constitution”…..anted=all&

    its awesome, in a demented sort of way. forget ‘mask slipping’… this shit is full-frontal-statist wet-dream=

    AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions….

    1. I wonder how many people were thinking that after Brown v. Board of Education was decided.

      1. Brown v Board had nothing to do with the constitution.

        1. Ruling that segregation was a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with the Constitution?

          In what universe?

  16. my favorite bit =
    “…This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

    1. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

      (does double take, stares with astonishment)

    2. TRANSLATION: Certain parts of Constitutional law are supported by the intelligentsia, at least on a good day. However, even these parts can be a real pisser, like when we want to ban speech which we think is offensive to an ethnic minority whose members historically vote strongly in favor of Democrats. Accordingly, we’d like the whole thing turned into “guidelines,” giving the state maximum power while still preserving legally useless “rights” so that we don’t sound exactly like Stalinists.

    3. … get that? life liberty and property… should be granted no *formal* protections, but should rely on the “respect” of others.

      basically, “fuck you – everything belongs to The State”

    4. You yokeltarian morons act like you’ve never heard of respectological ethics before.

      1. “You yokeltarian morons act like you’ve never heard of respectological ethics before.”

        Neither has Google. Have you heard of Proctological Trolling?

        Fuck off, Anusbot.

        1. Methinks his comment was a tad of whimsey.

        2. On behalf of the free people of Earth, welcome!

    5. Louis Michael Seidman is what happens when Constitutional Law in the absence of political theory. 30 years teaching case law, probably without a mention of the excesses and abuses of power in Merry Olde Engleland that drove the anti-federalists to demand a Bill of Rights in the first place. Interestingly enough, Seidman sings paeans to the Crown and Parliament while England rapidly spirals towards a full-blown police state. But somehow, the citizen’s rights will be “respected” in his Constitution-free America. I’d sooner believe that Emperor Barry was willing to come to my house and scrub my toilet than the undiluted crap Seidman is peddling.

  17. It was all a conspiracy by Ruger, Bushmaster, and S&W to drum up gun sales.

    Of course, the failure of the AWB doesn’t really have any practical significance since they’re effectively banned until June since everyone’s out of stock of ARs and hi-cap mags.

  18. Mr. Kaul does not represent a majority opinion among those calling for more gun regulations.

    Citation please.

    After all your time here, and you still insist on making skull-crushingly naive comments like this?

  19. Killazontherun: Sure could use a time machine to go back and punch that bitch.

    This got me thinking. Would the NAP keep someone from going back in time and punching someone in the face that was a total asshole? Since time travel is involved and the person would be long-dead before you make the trip back, would it violate the NAP or would it be OK?

    1. Libertarianism doesn’t apply to children, immigration, or time travel.

    2. Apologies for not seeing this earlier. Probably would be a violation. Hard to justify her actions had an affect or an effect on me given Prohibition was nullified. However, it did change the climate in which it became much more permissible to ban things for social utility. In that regard you could rationalize assassinating the broad as self defense. She was a violent asshole, after all.

      I’m probably over thinking it. Smack the bitch up, accept that I am violating the NAP principle, run like hell back to the time machine to escape the justice I’m due. It still not okay when I do it, so kids don’t try this at home.

      1. Now, if you went back in time and bought a bar that you knew she would be in at some point and shot her in her fucking troll face as she attempted to destroy your property, that wouldn’t violate the NAP at all.

    3. Wait until she’s destroying property, then smack her. Defending the property or persons of other people is not initiating force, and hence isn’t a violation of the NAP.

  20. Well, the recent ruckus finally got me to join the NRA. Tour year tour – $50. Although I’ve not been a supporter of the NRA for a variety of reasons, the absolute retardation of my own “friends” (I’m wondering about that) convinced me I’d rather spend my money on the chance they’d support my rights as not. I’ll put up with the other quibbles I’ve had.

    That and the massive increase in gun sales = good job, gun-fear-tards!

    1. I rejoined as well. After they threw the Fudds to the dogs with their “More guns, not less guns” speechifying, I decide to sign up.

    2. Almanian: this is pretty much why I’ve been a member for years. I could draw up a long list of gripes about this or that position, but the NRA is in the trenches, so I toss them a few bucks.

      I might join the GOA. That Pratt fellow seems reasonable. If I were rich I’d donate ton of money to them in Piers Morgan’s name.

    3. “That and the massive increase in gun sales = good job, gun-fear-tards!”

      And I’m pretty sure lefty retirement funds are bailing on profitable companies. Why, look here:
      “CALSTERS (California State Teachers Retirement System) exerted pressure on Cerberus to divest itself of its investment in Freedom Group. Cerberus obliged, promising to hold an auction sometime next year to find a buyer to take over its investment in Freedom Group. […]The decision by Cerberus shows how investments in gun manufacturing companies might become quickly unattractive, at least in perception.”

      That would be the “perception” of idiots. And those idiots get to charge the taxpayer for their stupidity when the retirement funds fail.
      No one with legal fiduciary duty would do so.

    4. I’m already a lifetime member. But I think LaPierre’s suggestion of armed guards was risible. He would have been better off saying nothing.

      1. “I think LaPierre’s suggestion of armed guards was risible”

        Boxer thought it was a good idea, and to be honest, it was one of the few times when Boxer’s staff gave her something to read that wasn’t totally laughable.
        If you are going to run public schools, and they become targets for idiots wishing attention by killing kids, well, it’s a good idea to stop them.
        Given public schools and idiots, what would you prefer?

        1. The term “armed guard” is what gets people. Honestly, I thought most, if not every, elementary school had a School Resource Officer (aka school cop) stationed at them already. This tragedy disabused me of that notion, however.

          1. There was a SRO at Columbine who ran away once he realized he was outgunned.

            All officers made it home safe to their families, nothing else happened, etc.

            1. All officers made it home safe to their families

              Well, that’s a relief!

            2. Ah fuck. Believing H&R statements burns me again. The SRO was on lunch break, but actually did return to engage in two exchanges of fire with Harris but forgot his eyeglasses so he couldn’t aim properly.

              1. Even if he could aim, it’s hard to fault him for failing to run toward a hail of bullets after he’s already traded fire with the kids.

                And that’s the absurd part of the armed-guard/police in every school idea: on top of the ridiculous cost his employment would entail, a cop on the other side of the campus has far less incentive to confront an armed killer than the staff who are in the line of fire.

      2. All LaPierre had to do was get up there an not give in to the grabbers, all else is fluff. Let the hacks in the media argue over the wisdom of armed guards while no ban is ever passed and I’m happy.

      3. Bureaucratic, big-government and less effective than allowing staff with CCW permits to carry in school.

        1. A curious kid getting a hold of the firearm a teacher is carrying would be pretty unlikely, but it would be orders of magnitude more likely than that teacher successfully defending the school against a skilled wielder of an AR-15, using a firearm concealable in ordinary indoor clothes.

          We’re talking about something that happens once every decade or so among the tens of thousands of schools in the US. Sweeping policy decisions of any sort should not be based on this.

          1. You might be surprised by what people with a CC license carry, as anyone who takes the time to jump through the hoops to get the license generally recognizes that he shouldn’t be carrying a pea shooter for personal defense.

            The limiting factors on CC are weight and size, but there are loads of

            1. Squirrels.

              under 2 lb .45s, .40s, .357s, and 9mms on the market today. They’re not much fun to shoot due to recoil and small magazine size, but they’re as deadly as any weapon at close range. Most CC holsters also go inside the waistband and are easily concealed under a shirt or polo. Students would have no way of knowing that their teacher was armed, much less an opportunity to take his gun.

          2. There’s a lot of presumption in that statement, there, Tulpa.

  21. I knew the gun control frenzy would die off quickly, like it always does. The gun control fascists didn’t take the time to properly engineer the narrative, so you had people going off half-cocked about banning semi-autos, which begs the question: Ban the 10/22? Are we going to repeal the industrial revolution next?

    But at least I’m reasonably sure that no one will come after my precious leverguns. “Back to the 18th century we go!”

    1. I’m just hoping for some good deals from panic buyers in March. The only thing I bought was 2 pmags for 12 bucks apiece (got lucky with that).

      1. I was looking through my sad little arsenal with the same thing in mind. Unfortunately, the only pieces that have some relation to the AWB are things I want to keep.

        Maybe someone will get so sick of not being able to get an AR that they’ll settle for a bolt-action Yugo Mauser?

        1. I’m just pissed that I didn’t get to start my planned AR build.

          What I wanted to do was buy a couple of lowers and slowly build the rifles, then sell one, but those plans were scuttled for obvious reasons. Guess I’ll wait for the lowers to hit the market when the panic is over and guys need fishing boat money.

    2. I started doing my panic buying about 17 years ago – slowly picking up at least one of just every handgun and evil black rifle I had any interest in.

      Now is time to focus on lever guns and bolt actions. I think a nice reproduction Winchester 1873 in 50-90 would be cool.

  22. Al Sharpton: Follow gun control with knife control.


    1. Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
      Smash the bottles and burn the corks!
      Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
      That’s what Albert Sharpton hates

  23. Watch out, a million moms are coming for your guns!

    Horrified and heartbroken by the events in Sandy Hook, mothers of the United States are coming together to fight for tougher gun control measures. The group’s founder is Indiana mother of five Shannon Watts. Now thousands of moms have joined her. We’re growing by the day with more members and dozens of state and local chapters.

    Sounds like thousands of moms need tougher math training first.

  24. Has anyone tried to buy bulk .22 lately? Those little bricks of Winchester Super X have Gone Galt!

    1. My gun guy was able to get 4 bricks….only four. One is on hold for me and should be arriving tomorrow. 30 bucks.

  25. When will they realize that silly laws are for honest folk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.