Sandy Hook School Shooting

Have You Jumped on Assault Weapon Ban Wagon Yet?


Over at the Washington Times, Emily Miller—author of an excellent blog feature about legally buying a gun in Washington, D.C. after a home-invasion robbery—runs through Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest proposal to ban semiautomatic weapons. Miller says that Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) is fudging the facts when she says that "assault weapons" that are currently legal are actually "guns designed for military use": 

The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein's placing of the "Armalite M15 22LR Carbine" on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose "to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers." This particular weapon fires a .22 long rifle cartridge, which has one-tenth the power of the standard military round and is generally suited for plinking tin cans or hunting small varmints. It simply looks like a military rifle, which fits Mrs. Feinstein's effort to eliminate items that look scary to her.

It isn't difficult to both feel sickened by the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut and recognize that the new ban proposed by Feinstein will have no effect other than to punish law-abiding Americans. Miller again:

In the eight years Americans have been free to buy any semi-automatic rifles, gun ownership has gone up while crime has steadily declined.

According to a survey conducted in 2010 for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 90 percent of the owners of modern sporting rifles use them for target shooting, 80 percent for home defense and 60 percent for hunting.

About 44 percent of owners are former military or law enforcement, who enjoy using a familiar rifle. The typical owner is over 35 years old, married and has some college education. These good Americans are the ones who will be affected by a ban, not the criminals who will continue to use whatever they want.

Read the whole thing.

Miller is also the source for the Reason TV video "Girls, Guns, and The Problem with DC Firearms Laws." Watch it here.


"4 Awful Reactions to the Sandy Hook School Shooting."

"What the Hell Is an 'Assault Weapon'?"

"Why Does Anyone Need an Assault Weapon? Because The Want It."

Watch "5 Facts About Guns, Schools, and Violence":

NEXT: Britain Considering Same Sex Marriage

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. It is foolish to attempt to use logic to combat feelings.

    1. I have the feeling they’re going to have a tough time proving if I have any…

      1. Not if they *feel* you have some.

        1. I guess they’re going to hire a psychic to find them?

          1. Since aggressive interrogation is no longer used, I suppose they might call such a person a “psychic”.

    2. Fist of Etiquette| 1.25.13 @ 9:57AM |#

      It is foolish to attempt to use logic to combat feelings.

      Yes, yes…. give in to your anger. I can feel the rage flowing through you! Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

  2. Have You Jumped on Assault Weapon Ban Wagon Yet?

    To torch it!

  3. In reviewing her list, I noticed the Springfield M1A isn’t included. I’m willing to bet it’s because a google image search returned rifles with wooden stocks, which clearly means it is a hunting rifle.

    She claims to have been working on gun issues for 20+ years. She’s clearly never learned a thing in that time. Truly impressive.

    1. noticed the Springfield M1A isn’t included

      Its the first one I looked for.

      Its covered under the broader definition, though, as it has (1) detachable magazines and (2) a flash-hider. Of course, I expect you will be able to replace your flash-hider with a “dummy” shortly (if you can’t already).

      I’ve already tricked mine out with most of the other forbidden items, though.

      Amusingly, if I put the original stock back on and replaced the flash-hider with a silencer, it would no longer be considered an assault weapon.

      1. …and good god but prices are up!

        Is this just another ploy to goose the economy?

      2. The M1A was covered by the original assault weapons ban because it was derived from a military weapon that was capable of firing full automatic. I suspect that it wold be covered under this one for the same reason.

        Of course an M1 Garrand fits none of your criteria. It would presumably be legal. This a weapon that can kill at 500 yards or more, has an eight round clip that is easily replaced. I am quite sure the average second grader will know enough to charge when he hears the clip eject.

        1. Haven’t read this bill yet, but the M1A is definitely covered because it has detachable magazines and a flash hider. Don’t know if they have a separate definition for guns with a certain ancestry.

          Assuming they don’t, an M1A with the original stock becomes not-an-assault-weapon if you replace the flash hider with not-a-flash-hider. A silencer is not a flash hider. So my rifle stops being an evil tool of mass murder if I add a silencer.*

          *Its possible the way the statute is written this wouldn’t get me off the hook, but based on what I’ve read so far, I believe it would.

          1. It depends on whether they go back to the old language of the 1994 ban.

            1. Do you think they’ll even vote on this? I can’t see the house bringing it up, so why the Senate would bother doesn’t make any sense to me.

              1. Sacrificial lamb.

                The Repubs will “compromise” by killing the assault weapons ban, but passing a universal background check/proto-registration law.

                1. Nope. They won’t get that. They are not going to get anything. Any Republican in the House who votes for any measure is dead man walking in the next primary. And they know it.

                  1. that reminds me that I’ll have to put in a call to Frank Wolf.

                  2. Maybe not, John. I’d give it even odds.

                    All Boehner has to do is cut the Repubs loose to “vote their consciences” and I’m willing to bet the requisite 18 weak-kneed Repubs to jump ranks. As has been happening with the recent budget votes.

                    1. All Boehner has to do is cut the Repubs loose to “vote their consciences”

                      I’m with John. They wouldn’t be “voting their consciences”; they’d be voting their livelihoods. Not too many people base their votes on how their reps vote on budgetary issues, but whole shitloads will vote on guns.

                    2. The budget is not gun control. And some Dems are not going to vote for background checks. Unless Boehner wants a D controlled house in two years, he can’t do it.

                    3. Could be, could be. I’m just reluctant, for some reason, to place any faith in the Republicans to do the right thing for any reason (right or wrong).

                      Query: how many House Repubs are from districts that Obama won?

                    4. I think it’s about 10 … but that’s just recollection. don’t have the data handy.

                    5. You’re right; its ten.

        2. Unless the shooter uses the old army trick of having a spare empty to throw on the ground to get the target to pop up and show their postition.

        3. Isn’t there already a law that limits M1 Garand ownership?

          1. Limits how?

            1. I was under the impression that you had to obtain a special type of permit to own one. At least that’s what I think I read on wikipedia about it. I got to fire one at an old guys place. Thing was too damn heavy!

              1. Nope just an old semi-auto infantry rifle. One of the first if I’m not mistaken. You only need a restrictive federally issued permit to own full auto and other “destructive devices”.

                1. ah, thanks for clarifying

              2. You may be thinking of the Obama administration reversing course and forbidding South Korea from selling some 800K M-1s from the Korean War to american collectors/enthusiasts as a means of raising funds for its military.

    2. She claims to have been working on gun issues for 20+ years. She’s clearly never learned a thing in that time.

      At least she doesn’t have her finger wrapped around the trigger in the above photo, so maybe she did pick up a few pointers along the way.

      1. If only she’d surrounded herself with precious children for that photo op.

        1. She tried, but they ran away.

  4. ‘The best illustration of this deception is Mrs. Feinstein’s placing of the “Armalite M15 22LR Carbine” on her list of items that she claims have the sole purpose “to hold at the hip if possible, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.”‘

    Wait, what military style weapon is designed to be held at the hip if possible and to ‘spray fire?’ I’ve actually never shot a gun, but I can’t imagine a situation in which U.S. military personnel are going to be shooting from the hip. Liberals get their ideas of guns from Rambo, don’t they?

    1. “Liberals get their ideas of guns from Rambo, don’t they?”

      Yes they do.

      1. Which is fitting, because Rambo’s coolest gadget was a bow-and-arrow.

        1. Wrong. Rambo’s coolest gadget was his mind.

          1. Wrong- Knife with sewing kit.

            Rambo’s mind was a dark place with low ceilings and cobwebs

    2. This is a claim that irritates me to no end. When they speak of “spray firing from the hip”, they are speaking of ‘walking fire’ an infantry tactic tried by the US in WWI, where it was found to be ineffective. Come WWII, the only advocate for the tactic was Patton (he felt it boosted soldiers confidence to shoot their rifles every 2 or 3 paces) and employment of walking fire led to some very high casualty rates in the units that tried it (it works as suppressive fire up until the very moment an attacker really needs suppressive fire, the actual attack. The Germans simply stayed low in their fighting positions until the Americans walked right into their kill zones). The tactic was abandoned by 1944.…..q&f;=false

      1. Very few people were killed by rifle fire in either of the World Wars. Artillery and mortar fire has always and continues to be the biggest killer. It is just really fucking hard to shoot someone who doesn’t want to be shot.

        1. Field Artillery = King of Battle FTW

          1. “Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.”

            1. The precolonial cannons amd mortars at the Spanish fort her ein St. Augustine have Ultima Ratio Regum stamped into them. While I hate war, I willingly admit that’s a pretty fucking cool thing to stamp on your cannons.

              1. I have wondered if any witty ground crew has ever stenciled that on their drone?

                1. I have wondered if any witty ground crew has ever stenciled that on their drone?

                  More likely written in chalk on a bomb casing. There’s probably pretty strict rules about defacing a drone.

                2. I was ADA, Vulcan cannon and Stinger missile crew. On our Vulcan carriages we were encouraged to add a slogan. Amongst all the “Death from below”, “Rambo was an air defender”, “Hot steel”, etc., my slogan “Deus ex machina” caused no end of confusion amongst the other soldiers.

              2. How old are the cannons? I know that Louis XIV had that stamped onto all of his cannons, curious if they’re actually French in origin.

                1. How old are the cannons? I know that Louis XIV had that stamped onto all of his cannons, curious if they’re actually French in origin.

                  The fort is something like 300 years old, and I figure some of the cannons date at least to its origins.

                  Here are some pics.

                2. Cannons were more widely traded than venereal diseases in the New World.

                  1. Cannons were more widely traded than venereal diseases in the New World.

                    It’s a Spanish fort, but the frogs were among the first to explore there. The city was founded in the 1500’s and is actually to oldest continually inhabited city in North America. We live about 45 minutes away, and we like to get down there as often as possible. It’s a beautiful place.

                  2. You ever get up to Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain you’ll find French, British and Spanish guns.

                3. How old are the cannons?

                  They were invented in the 14th century. Hand held muskets and small cannon that fired stone balls were first. Both were used at Crecy in the early 14th Century. They really were not perfected and able to knock down walls and end the age of the castle until the 15th.

                  So, yes they well predate Louis XIV

                  1. John,

                    The fort was built in the late 1600’s by the Spanish, so I’m figuring the cannons are that old or newer. The British held the fort in the 1760’s, so I figure some of the stuff was left by them, as well.

                    1. They are much older than the 1600s.

                    2. Some of the cannons are not from the Spanish occupation of the fort. Some are marked as having been captured by American forces during the Mexican-American War. The Mexicans got those cannons when they won independence from Spain, and those cannons were never at Castillo de San Marcos.

        2. MG-42 came in third in WWII, if I recall the stats right. But rifles? Not so much.

    3. To get technical, they did (at least in 1989 they did) teach hip firing belt-fed weapons (M60’s) during an assault. The purpose was to force the enemy to keep their heads down while a squad advances.

      To fire the thing accurately, you had to be prone or mount it on a tripod.

      They NEVER taught us to fire rifles from the hip. Too damn wasteful.

      1. To get technical, they did (at least in 1989 they did) teach hip firing belt-fed weapons (M60’s) during an assault. The purpose was to force the enemy to keep their heads down while a squad advances.

        I was in the Marines at that time, and while we wren’t trained for fire the M-60 or the SAW from the hip, we’d do it sometimes to burn up surplus ammo once the official training exercise was over.

        (We couldn’t turn unused ammo back in)

        1. We could but you had to count the rounds, fill out paperwork, etc. Easier just to expend anything that’s opened. Also a good fam fire opportunity for those less familiar with a given weapon.

          1. Ah, the good old days. At the end of the FY we had to expend all our unit’s ammo allotment. It was 5 days down at Fort Hunter Liggett, dropping acid and trying to write our names in the sky with 20mm tracer rounds.

    4. “Liberals get their ideas of guns from Rambo, don’t they?”

      Are you suggesting Ms. Feinstein may not have actually consulted with the military about what constitutes a “military-style-weapon”?

      1. She could ask her gun-dealing hubby.

        1. Or Josh Sugarmann of the VPC as he has an FFL apparently.

  5. Seriously, a .22? That’s the first gun you teach your kid to shoot. She knows nothing.*

    *Why we would expect senators to know more about guns than they do economics, I have no idea.

    1. She knows nothing….

      Except how to keep getting Californians to send her saggy wrinkled ass back to DC every six years.

      1. All that requires is knowledge of how to spell the letter “D”.

        1. I just think that if they’re going to vote “TEAM D” it’s only fair to spell out the whole word.

          TEAM DIMWIT it is then!

    2. Couldn’t you swap out the upper on the .22 to shoot .223 or whatever?

      1. You can do the reverse, but no.

    3. I love her claim that she’s been “studying” this issue for 20 years. How? Well by “looking at pictures” of course. Infuriating.

    4. That’s the first gun you teach your kid to shoot

      No shit. My first firearm was a .22 given to me by my father for my 12th birthday. It also happened to be the same rifle his father gave him on his 12th birthday. It is a Western Auto brand (yes, the auto-parts store used to sell rifles) with an 18 round tubular magazine. I get shit about it every now and then from busy-body cops at the range because it predates the serial number requirement so it is unblemished by statism.

      1. Strangely, that’s why I think the 300 million firearms number is bunk. I’ve read the methodology on how they came up with the 300 million number and it just doesn’t account for anything which couldn’t be ‘officially’ counted in some fashion. I have in my possession a number of firearms which predate the GCA ’64. Those guns, for all practical purposes, don’t exist and can’t be counted.

        There is no paper trail whatsoever to connect me to them, either, since they’re primarily all inherited or gifts.

        Also, the serial number requirement is imposed on the manufacturer, not the end user. You are under no obligation to have a number on it until you try to transfer it on a 4473.

        1. So a question. If I buy a gun from a local store and they do a background check…do they reference the gun I’m buying during the background check? Or is it a ‘generic’ background check request? In other words, where is my relationship to the gun stored under current law?

          1. On the 4473 and in the bound book of the FFL. I believe teh dealer keeps teh 4473, but ATFE can request a copy during an investigation.

            1. Also, I believe if the FFL loses their license (goes out of business, etc.), the 4473 forms go to ATF. I may be wrong on that, though.

              1. No you’re correct, though the FFL only needs to keep the forms for twenty years.


          2. I believe the records of which gun was purchased are only kept with the dealer. (Legally anyhow, who knows…) This varies by state as well I believe. FFLs are of course obligated to share that info if asked by the man.

          3. As a further answer, when they do the NICS check, they’re simply checking to see if you are a prohibited person. They don’t reference the gun during the call.

            1. Is it likely that FBI would capture a database of people who are the subject of NICS checks and then be able to say ‘These are people who likely purchased firearms’? Or is the inquirer-type (i.e., a gun store) not captured?

          4. Yes, they do.

            It’s not part of the check itself, but it goes on the form.

  6. Someone’s in need of a Sumnering.

  7. She’s just being tolerant! I mean, gun owners (other than members of the government who of course are held to a higher standard) are all intolerant conservatives! Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance! So the more ignorant hate she throws at these intolerant gun owners (government employees exempted of course), the more tolerant she is!

  8. How about we just use the Words of Unmaking to eliminate the very concept of guns? Then we can go back to killing each other with swords, spears, and arrows like civilized people.

    1. We can also go back to armies having the prerogative to rape and loot upon taking a city. Not like there will be much danger in doing it if all the citizens are armed with are pitch forks.

      1. /sarc off

        I actually agree with the looting part. Not random theft by soldiers, but organized and systematic reclaiming of wealth to offset the cost of the invasion/occupation. Fuck this nation building crap. Kick their ass, steal their stuff, and go home.

        /sarc on

        1. I really can’t argue with you.

          1. Do we get a triumph parade? We can march our new slaves and plunder through the streets before the strangling their captured leaders.

            1. Take that, straw man! And that! And that too!

            2. I bet we wouldn’t have to invade many countries if we did such a thing.

              1. Not too mnetion that most of the countries we end up invading don’t actually have anything to freakin’ plunder.

                Look at the rocks we brought back from A-Stan! And this sand from Iraq!

                1. Iraq has a lot of oil. Afghanistan has a lot of minerals, they are just too backward and ignorant to mine them.

                  1. The Afghan “potential minerals they might have” keeps popping up, but beyond some semi-precious stones, it never seems to happen. Personally, I’d like some more Kuchi made camel hair or lambs wool rugs.

                    1. I’m thinking we can leave it to our Chinese friends to polish that turd.

                  2. Quit dancing around it. The only in Afghanistan worth taking is the opium.

                    1. Don’t they have good hash, too?

                    2. Never got around to the Afghani hash.

        2. Kick their ass, steal their stuff, and go home.

          Rinse and repeat as necessary. The beauty of it is that the people who pay the price aren’t the poor, but the rich (and, because Money and power always find each other) powerful.

        3. Sweet, then we can take over the whole world and you can get somebody else to pay for it.

          fuck off.

          1. Since we would leave and go home, how would we be taking over the world?

          2. What part of “fuck nation building” and “go home” did you fail to comprehend?

    2. I, for one, look forward to carrying a rapier and buckler as I stroll through Midtown.

      1. Or a good cane sword.

      2. I shall form a band of like-minded brothers and go a Viking. I may raid some Irish coastal towns, take their women and when I’m done with them, sell them in the Arab slave markets.

        1. So, sail up to southie, raid some bars and lofts, sail back to Jersey City to sell white women in Journal Square. Sounds like a plan to me, provided that the longboat is sufficiently terror inspiring.

          1. I am sailing up to Williamsburg hoping to do some hipster hunting.

          2. Plunder their I-pads and enslave their women.

              1. we don’t have or ideologically support air conditioning, so nights could get a little rough, especially when you don’t know what to expect when you lift the lid. I know ? it’s not necessarily for the squeamish, but we’ve been doing it for three years now, and it’s helped us feel closer to the building, to its history, and to each other.

                I hate everyone.

                1. No need to hate everyone, KDN, just idiot hipsters. I hope they enjoy their cholera outbreak. I know I will.

                2. They need to be killed and their women enslaved.

        2. i’m ethnically Ukrainian. Figure I’ll get a horse and bring back the Cossacks

          1. I’m ethnically Russian Jew and Irish. I’ll just cower in the root cellar, eating rotten potatoes, and wait for the fighting to end.

            1. That might be a few generations.

              1. Meh. What are you gonna’ do?

          2. It’d be fun to see what the steppe folk could do with compound bows fired on horseback.

        3. I think I would go with a good Swiss pike square, fits in with my employers.

      3. I remember back in Boulder there was a short-lived fad of people carrying around walking canes.
        I say short-lived because the cops determined that anyone with a cane and no limp was carrying an illegal weapon. People were given a choice between surrendering their cane or going to jail. Many people were upset because the canes were irreplaceable family heirlooms. Especially because the cops would often snap them right on the spot if the person protested.
        Did I ever mention that I hate cops?

        1. Colorado’s 4 cities really suck ass. Back in the good old days of open carry, one always had to disarm before entering Colorado Springs, Boulder, Pueblo, and Denver because the police loved to bust people for ‘flagrant display’.

          1. The KY constitution explicitly protects open carry as a right.

            1. My grandfathers from there, maybe it’s a little cloudy something to do with someone shooting a lover, anyway if I can open carry and it sucks here in Kalifornia maybe it’s time to move the clan back.

            2. The KY constitution explicitly protects open carry as a right.

              Same here in Maine. However if you try it most people who see you will call the police who, rather than informing the caller that you are not breaking the law, will take the opportunity to question you. If you’re lucky they’ll give you a lecture about how you’re drawing attention to yourself and that while legal, open carry is a bad idea. If you’re unlucky you’ll spend the night in jail on some soon to be dropped charge, and never see your piece again unless you can afford an attorney.

  9. I see that Feinstein has not *yet* posted the text of the actual bill.

    My speculation: She realized late in the game her bill contains a “fatal flaw” and is rewriting it.

  10. It’s all cool, though. Any guns belonging to old bags elected by retards, are exempt:

    Exempt: any weapons used by government officials

    1. Why do they exempt ‘retired’ law enforcement personnel?

  11. “We have done our best to craft a responsible bill to ban these ‘assault weapons’ ? guns designed for military use, bought all over this country and often used for mass murder,” said Mrs. Feinstein of her ambitious proposal.

    That word; you keep using it…

    1. You’ll have to be more specific.

    2. guns designed for military use,

      Yet, oddly, not used by the military.

      What shameless liar. These are guns designed specifically and explicitly for civilian use.

  12. I bought the .22 knock off of the MP-5 a few years back. What a fun plinker/possum shooter.

  13. and often used for mass murder,”

    Yeah because once every ten years is “often”. What a stupid bitch.

    1. Countless lives will be saved!

      1. Because she can’t count very high…

  14. Here is Diane explaining why she carries a piece – I missed the part where I don’t have the same right for some reason.…..eapon.html

    1. Your husband isn’t dying of cancer…oh and terrorism!

  15. I saw something which made it appear that her bill wants to impose the same registration and fee requirements for semi-auto scary black rifles as for actual full-auto weapons.

    And a no-transfers provision which would require the weapon to be surrendered to the Proper Authorities when the registered owner dies.

    Did anybody else hear this? Maybe it was just some teevee dope’s fever dream.

    1. Until we see the text of the actual bill congress gets to deal with — who the hell knows. Sorry, I’m starting to think all these lists and summaries are distractions.

    2. And a no-transfers provision which would require the weapon to be surrendered to the Proper Authorities when the registered owner dies.

      How is that not a taking requiring payment for the seized property?

      Dean the Elder has a Garand, I believe. I’ll have to make sure it qualifies as an “assault rifle” so I can bring the takings case when (if?) he dies.


    Taxby Chambliss to retire, rotten bag of puss that he is.

    1. Isn’t Chambliss the scumbag who questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland (disabled vet who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam) because Cleland was skeptical of the Iraq war?

      1. The same brave Max Cleland who got thrown overboard by his comrades as soon as he was no longer a useful tool to beat GWB with?

      2. Of what relevance is Cleland’s disability to his patriotism (or lack of it)?

        Notes: I have no idea what Cleland’s views are, or whether he is patriotic.

        I have learned that claiming that someone has “questioned the patriotism” of someone else is nearly always a lie intended to shut down the discussion.

        I am unaware that the number or arms and legs someone has is related in any way to their political views or philosophy.

        I concur that Chambliss is a scumbag.

        1. I have learned that claiming that someone has “questioned the patriotism” of someone else is nearly always a lie intended to shut down the discussion.

          I concur that Chambliss is a scumbag.

          Right on both counts RC.

          Saxby is scum for the way he conducted himself as a Senator, not for his campaign tactics against Cleland.

      3. I don’t know. But Cleland got what he deserved. He wasn’t defeated because of the Iraq war. The election you are talking about was in 2002, before the Iraq war. He was defeated because Cleland went to the mattresses so that DHS employees could be unionized. Cleland was nothing but an SEOIU butt boy.

        1. Dumb SOB was asking to get beat in GA by putting government employee unions above perceived national security.

        2. Thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea. Damn it, I love this place.

      4. No.
        Saxby attacked Max because he wanted all the DHS/TSA unionized.

    2. Meanwhile, over at HuffPo comments…

      I propose a toast to my self control…
      2389 Fans
      43 minutes ago (10:59 AM)
      You’re kidding right? Do you even know who Max Cleland is? Google it. And I also would be fine with Chambliss meeting the same end as Lee Atwater. Only slower and more excruciating.

  17. Every time I scroll past that damned magazine cover, I think it is from Archer.

  18. The “former law enforcment” won’t be affected by this ban. Retired pigs are, of course, exempted.

  19. Why are Feinstein and Schumer trying so hard to out-evil each other?


    From hooker to upper east side soccer mom. Who says working girl can’t make good.

    1. Any school board anywhere.

      1. Fair enough. And she married some rich guy who left his wife for her. So really her profession hasn’t changed. It is just gone legit.

        1. No different from the coked-out club whore who cleans up and marries Wall St., just a little more notorious.

  21. That face. So punchable.

  22. The Repubs will “compromise” by killing the assault weapons ban, but passing a universal background check/proto-registration law.

    My Magic 8-Ball tells me not to bet heavily against this.

    Does anybody really believe Boner is tough enough to withstand being accused of aiding and abetting baby murderers? I can easily envision the expansion of background checks to include private sales. After all, the overwhelming majority of private sales are gang related and conducted from the trunks of hopped up SUVs. The Replacement Killers was a documentary.

    And the info collected in the background check process is “useless” if it is not collected in a central Registered Owners database.

    1. Private sales are the bed and butter of people who actually own guns. I don’t think I know a single person who has ever bought a gun from a gun dealer. Everyone I know buys them at shows and from each other. Banning private sales would be just as deadly to Republicans as banning assault rifles. This thing is going to die.

      1. I’m in the AR community. Very few of us buy complete guns, but if you want a lower, somebody had to get it from a dealer.

        1. As I understand it, you can buy an unfinished receiver w/o a dealer, background check, 4473 or anything.

          You just have to have a milling machine to finish if off. Then you just buy the upper, trigger parts, etc (none of which require background checks) and you have an AR15 off the record

          Basically by finishing the receiver, you are the manufacturer of that firearm. The catch is, you can’t sell it.

          1. In many states ( for now ) you can buy any legal firearm privately. See:

            1. Yup, though here in PA it’s restricted to long arms. But yeah, I could answer an ad on craigslist to buy an AR and not even give the guy ID. The seller would be stupid to do such a thing, but freedom requires risk and responsibility.

              A lot of private sellers will ask to see an LTCF, which shows the person holding it is pretty much able to buy the firearm.

          2. This is true. But I don’t have a mill. So I just bought the lowers and said screw it. I’ve been through the system so many times for so many different things, the feds and the state know where to find me if they want me.

  23. Banning private sales would be just as deadly to Republicans as banning assault rifles. This thing is going to die.

    You guys keep saying that. It’s almost as if you really believe there is such a thing as Peak Retard.

    Stupid is infinite. Entropy is real.

    1. It made be that fate has ordained that Obama should receive a majority Dem Congress for his last two years so that he can top his first two years in retard.

      I can’t predict the future. But if you believe Republicans are going to vote for background checks, you by implication believe they have a death wish.

      1. I dunno. I could see it. “Law and Order” and all that…

  24. you by implication believe they have a death wish.

    And your evidence to the contrary?

    I eagerly await.

    1. The entire political history of the US. If sitting congress creatures have one thing, it is the almost feral survival instinct. These people would sell your mother and their mother to stay in power. They are not going to risk losing that.

      1. I have to agree with John on this one. Naked self-interest trumps almost everything with congresscritters. I don’t worry because my rep (R) is walking a real thin line and is already vulnerable to a primary challenge. He votes for gun control and the rednecks and the Tea Partiers are gonna send his ass home.

  25. There are a lot of soccer moms and henpecked cubicle dwellers out there. You know, enlightened people who realize just how far we’ve come from the days of the French and Indian War.

    I would never have imagined the meek, if not eager, submission displayed by air travelers to the grotesque and utterly pointless indignities imposed on them by the TSA. When was the last time you heard about anybody motherfucking their Republican representative about it in one of those “town hall” meetings?

    When was the last time you heard about a group of parents rioting in a school board meeting over a school lockdown and random locker searches. or a proposal to force every student coming to a high school basketball game to undergo a breathalyer test before being admitted?

    The media are frenziedly beating the gong over “responsible” (that word again!) restrictions on the Law of the Jungle.

    A lot of people are grooving to that beat.

    1. Banality of Evil

    2. Yep. I was shocked at the lack of outrage when the TSA began its grope-n-scan program. Frankly, I couldn’t believe that these people were descended from the same individuals who rioted over a handful of colonial taxes.

      Every serious libertarian needs some galvanizing event to make him more active in the political realm. Good for us that we have Barry Obama, who, between destroying the economy, groping grandmothers and infants, murdering American citizens, and waging a war on what’s left of the Constitution, should at least double our numbers over the next four years.

  26. Excuse me, I have to go take a Dianne Feinstein.

    1. Don’t forget to wipe your Biden when you’re done.

  27. Basically by finishing the receiver, you are the manufacturer of that firearm. The catch is, you can’t sell it.

    And, I believe history has shown us, if the cops find out about it somehow (like you neighbor complaining about your barking dog or where you put your fucking trash cans on Wednesday mornings), you go to federal prison for having an unnumbered terrorweapon.

  28. One other thing to consider on this whole “background check” issue. NCIC is a joke. Any cop can put you in there, provided her finds “probable cause” you committed a crime. That doesn’t mean charged or even arrested. Just some pig wants to close out a case and boom you are in the NCIC. That is all it takes.

    I don’t know if you have to have been convicted or not to have your right to purchase taken away. But you do not have to be a criminal to show up on NCIC.

    1. Really? I thought (naively perhaps) that one must be in violation of one of the questions on the form to fail the background check.

      1. I am talking about what it takes to get your name stuck in NCIS for 25 years. I don’t know if being there means you fail the background check or not.

    2. Here’s the prohibited persons rules.

      1. With rules as airtight as “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” whos to know? Can you be placed arbitrarily in that category on someones whim or what?

  29. Banality of Evil


  30. That is all it takes.

    Just wait ’til everybody who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant shows up on that list.

    1. I was talking to someone I know in medicine about this and they were gung ho to stop people that are “mentally ill” from having a firearm. When quizzed about how this would be accomplished, they said that mental health professionals could add names to a federal list.

      This person has been treated for depression before, and was not happy when I asked if they’d be mad when that list was used to deny them the right to practice.

      “Of course, the list would only be used for guns” they said.


      1. “Of course, the list would only be used for guns” they said.

        If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.

        1. “Of course, the list would only be used for guns” they said.

          Me today, you tomorrow, comrade.

      2. Maybe one of those guys who checked off Jewish on the Austrian census forms in the 1920’s could have a word with him…

        Oh wait! They’re all dead!

      3. This is overall the scariest/stupidest of the apparently newly evolving rules… Way to ensure no one who cares about their freedom will ever seek help for depression or anxiety issues.

  31. Naked self-interest trumps almost everything with congresscritters.

    And if “polling shows” more votes on the anti-freedom Help-there’s-monsters-under-my-bed! side (INCONCEIVABLE!), your puny “Constitutional concerns” can eat shit and fuck off. Just as they have done for the past decade or so.

    1. It ain’t the general population poll they need to pay attention to. It’s the ‘likely Republican primary voters’ poll, and they don’t run that one until election time. The nanny staters and the soccer moms don’t show up to vote in the efenant primary. The tea partiers and RKBA crowd do. Voting for gun control may be a winner in the general in some places (not in TX), but you’ll still get slaughtered in the primary.

  32. I’ve already figured out a method around the 10 round magazine limit.
    The question is do I patent it or let it be open source so everyone can have it, open source would be the more progressive way of allowing everyone to protect themselves. Either way I won’t release the idea until after any laws are made so that they can’t incorporate it into the law.
    Now that I mentioned the progressives/liberals should all be for more relaxed gun laws because it allows for everyone to protect themselves not just the 1%’ers, isn’t that what they want equality across the board weather they are capable or not.

    1. For handguns too?

    2. I figured out a way around it too. Ignore the “law”.

  33. It ain’t the general population poll they need to pay attention to. It’s the ‘likely Republican primary voters’ poll

    I understand what you’re saying, but how did that turn out in Indiana and Missouri?

    Also, as I recall, I was mocked and ridiculed here for at least a year and a half for saying there was a very real possibility You-Know-Who would get re-elected. I was desperately anxious to be proved wrong then, too.

  34. “Of course, the list would only be used for guns” they said.

    “I don’t really have a problem with oppression per se, as long as they’re oppressing people I don’t approve of. What’s the point of having this fabulous apparatus of control if you don’t grind a few people to paste in its gears; you have to keep it lubricated, after all.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.