Mass Shootings

Oregon Killer's Father Says No One Should Own So Many Guns

How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?

|

CNN

The father of the man who murdered nine people at a community college in Oregon last week, who had not seen his son in two years, was dismayed to learn that he owned 14 guns. Police say the killer brought six guns—a rifle and five handguns—with him to Umpqua Community College in Roseburg and left another eight at home. All 14 were legally purchased by the shooter or his relatives. "How was he able to compile that kind of arsenal?" the killer's father, Ian Mercer, asked in an interview with CNN yesterday. Calling for stricter gun control, Mercer argued that the mass shooting "would not have happened" if his son did not own so many firearms.

That claim is debatable, to say the least. The perpetrator of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, at Virginia Tech in 2007, managed to kill 32 people with just two handguns, and other mass shooters have killed more than nine people with one or two weapons. Furthermore, the policy implications of Mercer's argument are unclear. Enforcing a limit on the total number of guns that any one person could own would require more than limiting the number that could be purchased in a given transaction or a given month (as California, where Mercer lives, does for handguns). It would require registering all 300 million or so guns in the country and keeping track of all transfers—not to mention confiscating guns from people who exceed the limit.

That's a pretty tall order, and it is hard to see how it could be reconciled with the Second Amendment. The gun restrictions that the Supreme Court so far has indicated are constitutional have to do with categories of people (such as "felons and the mentally ill"), categories of firearms ("dangerous and unusual weapons"), and carrying guns in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The Court has said nothing, as far as I know, about limits on the number of firearms a person may legally possess, which would require a highly invasive regulatory system that would raise issues under the Fourth and Fifth amendments as well as the Second.

NEXT: Education Secretary Arne Duncan Exits. What Did He Teach Us?

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. That’s a pretty tall order, and it is hard to see how it could be reconciled with the Second Amendment.

    The arguments have already returned that the Second is being misinterpreted and only the state sponsored such as LEO, military and militia should be allowed to possess weapons.

    I’ve also really grown to despise the articles about how much the Australians hate our “unreasonable” position on guns. Is that supposed to influence my opinion? What is the point of articles like that?

    Bottom line for me I guess is that as long as I breathe, I will retain and maintain the ability to keep myself safe thank you very much.

    1. The point of those articles is to make Australians (and leftist Americans who might be reading) feel “superior” – that is all.

      1. During German reunification, and just after, the smug arrogance of the dirt poor and garbage dwelling east Germans was vexing outright baffling to their western counterparts. Apparently, being dirt poor, unambitious and largely ignorant Russian pawns, as well as play-toys of the stazi, made them superior to their bourgeois western counterparts in every conceivable way..

        1. Given how many of them fled to the west at the first opportunity, I don’t think that view was all too common.

          1. Well, for the thousands that fled, maybe.. as for the millions that stayed, you might be surprised..

            1. Ossis lived with the brainwashing by a totalitarian dictatorship for 40+ years – cut them some slack.

              1. The uber superior smug-douche is the same in those who have convinced that less is more, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is bliss.. it’s quantum in nature, and that was my point..

                1. If Germany was this way, can you imagine what post-unification Korea will be like?

                  It’s a question I’ve often comtemplated. Eventually China will get tired of propping up lil Kim, and the likely result will be reunification with the South. The questions arise: How will South Korea’s economy survive the influx, and and how do you deal with deprogramming such a huge group?

                  1. The North Koreans will be able to vote when they migrate into the South. Don’t be surprised when they vote in a way that attempts to restore what they just escaped from.

              2. Calling East Germany a “totalitarian dictatorship” makes it sound like East Germans were brutally oppressed and overwhelmingly tried to resist the regime. By and large, East Germans generally accepted their government to roughly the same degree as West Germans accepted theirs. To the degree that East Germany eventually became less and less popular, that was less about individual liberties (which Germans generally don’t care much about) but simply because it wasn’t delivering economically.

      2. And with that horrible fucking accent as well.

        1. I like the accent.

          1. Commie..

          2. I like it too. Every racing documentary should be done in that accent.

      3. I find it especially galling to read the “If you don’t agree with me, you’re not a reasonable person” BS.

    2. They’re not American, and Americans are uniquely delusional on this point, so they’re better than Americans, therefore their opinions count for more than Americans’. It’s really very simple.

    3. It’s leftist Mad Libs.

      “We are the only industrialized country in the world that ________________________.”

      And no, you’re not allowed to fill in “has a corporate tax rate above 30%” or “claims the authority to tax income earned by expatriates”.

      1. or has jus solis citizenship

      2. or tax corporate profits earned in other countries

      3. If you listen to some leftist acquaintances of mine, you would have to come to the conclusion that all of Europe and pretty much every other first world country that is NOT the USA is a paradise in which everyone is happy, healthy, and totally care free, a literal utopia. But for some strange reason, none of those people ever leave this Mad Max style wasteland of the USA for one of these heavens on earth. I don’t get it.

        1. You forgot to mention all the children, standing on the hilltops, laughing and flying their kites.

        2. A bizarre college student formulation (yes, clich? I know) I recall was that we treat all of these other countries horribly. I asked what are all of these students from those other countries doing here, if we are so horrible? The response: “They pay a lot of money to come here!”
          QED, I guess.

    4. I’m sure some Australians hate it.

      But let me share an anecdote from another gun-control country.

      We just had a new postdoc start coming from the UK. She is really interested in buying a gun and can’t wait to go shooting. She was a little weirded out that she could enter a gun raffle at the local fair, but she enthusiastically did so.

      My guess? Most Brits/Australians/whoever don’t shit their pants about guns, they just don’t care as much as many Americans. It’s a minority that really want to get rid of all guns in any country.

      1. note a lot of people from gun controlled countries will go to a gun range as soon as they get to America.

    5. This place is across the street from a hotel I stayed at in Brisbane in 2012. I suspect more Aussies than this guy like guns.

      Didn’t someone a while ago post a like to an article in an Aussie paper about an increase in gun ownership in New South Wales?

      One the other hand, on my last trip to Australia an Aussie lectured me about guns in America and how “even though we don’t own guns we can make the government do what we want. We get all pissed off and they listen!” I somehow managed to not laugh at him.

    6. Well, I hate Australians’ unreasonable willingness to be disarmed. That’s really the amazing thing as far as I can see. That so many countries have been so willing and even enthusiastic about being disarmed. They must see themselves as subjects rather than free citizens, or something. I just can’t understand that mentality.

      1. +1 pair of invisible shackles

      2. Australia did start out as a prison colony.

        OTOH “Those who do not learn history…”

    7. what makes LEO’s so special?

      Their habitual killing of unarmed black men?

      If so, why not let the Crips possess weapons as well?

  2. No one needs more than 7 or 8 safes of guns. Maybe a couple of buried vaults, too.

    And let’s say no more than 100,000 rounds, too.

    1. no more than 100,000 rounds

      For each weapon.

      1. Well, it depends. 10,000 might be enough for a single shot or double-barrel gun. I’m not sure 100,000 is enough for a semiauto.

        1. And mags for all of it?

    2. No one needs more than 3 dooms day devices.

      1. Redundancy

        1. Two Three is one, one is none. Be prepared.

        2. Science is still perfecting the Dooms Week? device, as the entirely theoretical Dooms Month? device remains so elusive, current technology levels just aren’t there.. Pie in the sky..

          1. +1 beryllium sphere

    3. Maybe a couple of buried vaults

      The whole buried vault thing doesn’t work out too well, if FO is any indication.

      1. It showcases the intrinsic greed, corruption, and irresponsibility of free-enterprise, (such as Vault-tec) for everyone to see…

        1. You’re just sitting there, minding your own business, things are going pretty good and then the Deathclaws show up. And then shit gets real, yo.

          1. Ahh, Deathclaws.. Look upon Mr. Lizard, and despair..

            1. TunnelSnake Lives Matter.

      2. FO?

        Funky Ostrich?
        Finish Orgy?
        Friendly Orgasm?
        Free Oranges?
        Frolicking Orangutans?
        Fried Okra?

        1. Fukkin Obamots

        2. Fallout.

          It’s a video game.

          /geek

          1. Yeah, I had googled deathclaws before I even posted that. Just wanted to give the nerds a hard time.

    4. True. In a SHTF moment, even gold will be less desirable than a large supply of firearms and ammunition. As many have said, it’s the SHTF stuff for which the Second Amendment exists.

  3. How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?

    Irrelevant. Such a proposition is, objectively, unconstitutional at all levels.

    1. The Constitution is an unconstitutional infringement on our rights.

      1. A living document, that they’re plotting to murder..

    2. By taking stop and frisk to a national level.

  4. How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?

    Irrelevant. Such a proposition is, objectively, unconstitutional at all levels.

  5. Oregon Killer’s Father Says No One Should Own So Many Guns has no idea how a constitutionally protected right works, yet thanks god he hasn’t been hauled off to be tortured by the secret police over his son’s crime.

    1. He is from England and lives in California. Your expectations of his knowledge of liberty are set much too high.

    2. The father of the man who murdered nine people at a community college in Oregon last week, who had not seen his son in two years

      Guilt trippin?

      1. Agreed. Dad is looking for a reason not to off himself at this point. Blaming the number of firearms his son owned may have been fed to him by “concerned” parties. Probably fairly pliable at this point.

        1. Maybe we should all chip in and buy him a handgun and a bullet for no particular reason.

      2. since the shooter lived with his mother this is probably one way for the father to attack the mother as in how would you let him have all those guns. note the media has already attacked her for this.

        1. I’ve seen a number of references in news articles to some of the guns being bought for him by family members.

          I’d like to see that expanded upon, given that gifting weapons not as part of an estate settlement starts to look like a straw purchase.

  6. Oh so now the father of this killer wants to take MY guns away? That won’t solve anything. Maybe if he had been paying attention and taken HIS KIDS guns away then this killing wouldn’t have happened.

    I really wonder what plan they have for us when they take all our guns away. Because everything they propose is useless in stopping mass killing violence, but will be super useful in preventing political dissent in the future.

    1. Maybe if he had been paying attention and taken HIS KIDS guns away then this killing wouldn’t have happened.

      Too bad somebody doesn’t say that to his face.

      1. From the sound of things, he was largely absent from his son’s life anyway. Don’t really see why we should be taking an absentee father’s opinion on this seriously.

        1. Because he has the right opinion.

          1. Seems a bit more to the ‘left’ if you ask me…

    2. I really wonder what plan they have for us when they take all our guns away. Because everything they propose is useless in stopping mass killing violence, but will be super useful in preventing political dissent in the future.

      GLOBAL SOCIALIST GUBERMINT!1!111!1

      *hurries off to store for more tin foil. before they run out*

      1. I’m still looking for the sub-clauses and/or fine print in the constitution that entitles law enforcement access to military grade hardware (machineguns/armed MRAPs/etc.) that the general population is disallowed… It’s gotta be there, somewhere..

        1. Legislative grace.

      2. They will never run out of socialism.

      3. One world government is just as feasible as one world mafia: sorry, there are just too many wanna be godfathers for that to work.

        1. That would be nice to believe.

    3. Yes, he wants to take away your right to defend yourself from people like his son.

      1. ZING!

  7. Mercer argued that the mass shooting “would not have happened” if his son did not own so many firearms.

    Au contraire, Ian. Had your son owned *more* firearms he wouldn’t have been able to decide which to use and so the shooting “would not have happened”.

    Idiot.

    1. +23 brands of deodorant

    2. +23 brands of deodorant

    3. +23 brands of deodorant

    4. +23 brands of deodorant

    5. +23 brands of deodorant

    6. +23 brands of deodorant

    7. +23 brands of deodorant

      1. Also 23 comments?

      2. What did you do to so anger the squirrels?

      3. That’s like, 161 types of deodorant! Probably including one for the people who want to smell like mackerel.

    8. Maybe his point is that his son was hoarding and if his guns were collectivized, others could have thwarted him.

    9. Maybe his point is that his son was hoarding and if his guns were collectivized, others could have thwarted him.

    10. What does he think? That the guns reach a critical mass beyond whoch he can’t resist killing a bunch of people? What an idiotic statement. If he’d had fewer than 14 guns he couldn’t have used 8 guns to kill 9 people?

      1. Exactly. Most of us could own hundreds of guns and still have zero desire to go around shooting people.

  8. Yes, because it would have made a huge difference if he only had one or two.

    1. People who are not around guns, or are around them only for an annual deer hunt weekend or something like that, find the idea of someone owning a dozen or more guns to be shocking and an indication of danger.

      For someone to whom shooting is a hobby, though, a dozen is pretty much the minimum. You’ve got to have a rimfire rifle for plinking or squirrels, an AR-15 for three gun, a milsurp rifle for historical wanking, and of course a good bolt-action rifle for long distance shooting. Then you’ve got to have a double-barrel skeet shotgun, a pump shotgun for defense, and another one for hunting. For handguns, you need a small pistol for summer carry, a medium one with larger capacity for winter carry, a big fat heavy one for home defense, a rimfire target pistol for plinking and range time, and a nice cowboy action pistol for more historical wanking. That’s a dozen right there — and that’s if you only want one of each and don’t want to experiment with a semiauto shotgun or lever-action rifle, etc.

      1. Yeah, a dozen is not that many. Neither is a thousand rounds of ammo for that matter. Back when I used to shoot a lot and ammo was cheaper I could go through that in a summer.

        1. Right? Two bulk packs of 22LR is over a thousand. Back when I was a lad (three years ago) I remember seeing them stacked into gigantic cubes at sporting goods stores for $20 a pack. Who knows how many hundreds of thousands of rounds were in those stacks as the liberal douche hipsters looking for kayaking gear obliviously passed by.

      2. Growing up my dad had a literal gun room, 2 vertical shelves with long guns on the left, pistols on the wall on the right. I forgot the total at the peak, but it was over 100

      3. Reminds me I need to buy some more guns.

      4. Pretty much my list exactly. plus the odd impulse buy, like .357 revolver for wife’s birthday present, which is now her bedside table gun.

  9. What this country needs is common sense dad control.

    1. It was the village’s job to raise that kid. I’m not the responsible one here, you know. Society really fell down on the job and has some deep thinking to do.

      /Ian Mercer

    2. They’re doing amazing things with sperm protein these days.

      1. Sculpting it into three dimensional replicas of their visions of Devils tower after a close encounter with extra terrestrials? That would be somewhat amazing..

        1. Man, I remember that movie all wrong

      2. Sculpting it into three dimensional replicas of their visions of Devils tower after a close encounter with extra terrestrials? That would be somewhat amazing..

        1. I didn’t mean Sasha Grey. I meant those Japanese scientists.

          1. Mmmmm, Sasha Grey.

            Wait – what were you talking about?

            1. Another Sasha Grey vote here!

              1. Youngsters.

                *fires up the bootleg Betamax copy of Deep Throat*

  10. This is as usual an emotional response. The most guns any person can fire simultaneously is two, and that’s if they’re not aiming.

    It is odd that some of these mass shooters bring ridiculous numbers of guns and ammunition with them, far more than they could possibly shoot before being neutralized one way or the other. Is it some sort of security blanket?

    1. *side-eyes*

      *taps sarcometer*

      Mine no work-ee. Can someone else give me a reading?

      1. Makes sense to me. The first sentence could use some commas.

        1. I love cooking my children and my pets.

          This sentence might need commas.

    2. Sociologist Randall Collins seems to say “yes” when discussing Adam Lanza:

      “Like other rampage shooters, he brought far more weapons than he actually used…After he committed suicide, police found he still had over 250 live rounds on his body, with more in his car. He had used up about 150 rounds in breaking in and killing 26 people. He could have kept on firing, but he stopped. He could have fought it out with the police, but he did not– rampage shooters virtually never do, either killing themselves or giving up when real opposition arrives.

      Two implications: Much of the weaponry he carried was not for practical purposes. It was his symbolic accoutrement, like his black costume and his earplugs, his fantasy surrounding him in the real material world, his comfort zone hugging his own body– even the weight of the ammo he didn’t need. It was a continuation of the clandestine playacting that had filled his life for the months leading up to the attack. Ordinary street fighters don’t wear this kind of gear, and they don’t wear earplugs– they have other kinds of social support for their violence. Loners need more symbolic support.”

      http://sociological-eye.blogsp…..s-for.html

    3. I don’t remember which mass shooting it was but the police and media claimed the shooter had a 1000 rounds on him. unless they were 22 rounds i don’t think a person can physically walk very well with a 1000 rounds. I even asked my friend who was a Marine and he said he never did in the first gulf war but maybe they can now? does anybody know if you can. I have a 45 and I can barely lift the 500 round box

      1. Stuffed in your pockets? nope.

        1000rds of loose/boxed 9mm or 223 weighs about 30lb (.308 would be about 50lb), but loose ammo isn’t much use; if you’re gonna commit an atrocity and you expect to be opposed, you’ll want at least a couple hundred rounds already loaded in mags.

  11. Some interesting staristics about gun violence.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..solutions/

    1. Statistics are only valid when they confirm my personal bias.

      /just about everyone ever

      1. They also never tell you anything about people at an individual level.

      2. It’s interesting how that works.

        The fundamental purpose of the discipline of statistics is to eliminate the effect of cognitive bias when studying a phenomenon. But in practice, in the hands of a dishonest practitioner, it introduces new ones.

  12. — The point of the article is not to propose regulations that could theoretically be either enforceable or effective

    — The point of the article (and the dozens of associated pieces echoing the call for someone to do “something”) is to provoke obvious objections & criticisms to these regulations from the expected sources (Republicans), and then point fingers at them, saying, “SEE!! SEE!! They want your children to die.””

    (re: the ‘how they got their guns’ piece – you can tell the ‘concern for journalistic integrity’ by their focus on the AR15 that the Oregon shooter brought to the scene…. and never used)

    The linked piece also seems to undermine the argument that “number of guns” (or even *type of gun*) is particularly significant, given that most of the significant ‘mass shooters’ they cite used only one weapon… or in some cases used ‘hunting’-style shotguns*, or .22 caliber ‘recreational’ rifles.

    (though its equally possible that the NYT has no idea what is what and just consistently misrepresents things)

    1. (though its equally possible that the NYT has no idea what is what and just consistently misrepresents things is largely staffed by the imbecilic and functionally retarded)

    2. Ironically these articles as well as Obama’s speeches ensure a ramp up of gun and ammunition sales as people attemp to get ahead of any proposed legislation. The assault weapon ban debate triggered sales of more ar15’s then has existed before. The more they run their stupid gobs, the more guns and ammunition there are in American homes. Keep talking please.

      1. Maybe all the people who bought overpriced Bushmaster crap in 2013 will be able to break even?

        1. That bubble will burst again in about 2 months..

        2. Seems like the ammo has gone up at a way higher percentage then the gun prices. I paid probably $750 give or take for my Colt AR A2 pre-ban 20 years ago. I doubt I could get a whole lot more for it today.

          1. Ammo has gotten better lately but still expensive.

          2. Er, wasn’t that immediately after the 1994 AWB? That would have caused a spike in gun prices too.

            1. I bought it before the ban so I guess more than 20 years ago.. Legislation was being discussed they had already began climbing in price when I bought it.

          3. Colt? I would pay $750 for it now…

            1. Yeah it’s held it’s value but no ones going to pay that much more for it used even in excellent condition.

  13. Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Jayne, how many weapons you plan on bringing? You only got the two arms.
    Jayne Cobb: I just get excitable as to choice- like to have my options open.
    Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don’t plan on any shooting taking place during this job.
    Jayne Cobb: Well, what you plan and what takes place ain’t ever exactly been similar.
    Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: No grenades.

    1. Then the callback:

      River Tam: They want us alive when they eat us.

      Jayne Cobb: It sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don’t ya think?

  14. “The Court has said nothing, as far as I know, about limits on the number of firearms a person may legally possess, which would require a highly invasive regulatory system that would raise issues under the Fourth and Fifth amendments as well as the Second.”

    Thank you, Mr. Sullum.

    In addition to whatever utilitarian arguments all the well-meaning NRA types out there are making, we should also remember that there is no Constitutional justification for violating the rights of millions of gun owning Americans for the “crime” of never having done anything wrong.

    1. Look, I know all the libertcockmostarians here laugh at the thought that either more, or a lack of, regulations could result in a mass killing like this.

      But if a flag can kill in the South then it stands to reason that regulations can kill in the northwest.

      /The Tony Troll

  15. What we have here is a father (of the shooter) trying to pass the buck on his responsibility to raise a sane child. A handgun, in the hands of a responsible person, will be used responsibly. But put it into the hands of a nut-job and you end up with a tragedy. Go back over the history of mass shootings like this and take a close look. You’ll find that the overwhelming majority of shooters were mentally unstable (usually suicidal). This is not “yet another example” of the lack of gun control legislation. This is “yet another example” of society’s disinterest in funding the inpatient facilities to keep these nut-jobs off our streets.

    1. Of course, for each mass shooter there are 100 similarly unbalanced people who despite having the means never massacre anyone.

      I guess we should lock them up anyway for the good of society, amirite, comrade?

      1. Not necessarily. People who are mentally ill can usually be recognized by mental health professionals. And these professionals can also usually recognize who is a danger to him/herself or others. THOSE are the people who need to be locked up. The problem is that, over the years, inpatient mental facilities have been defunded. And there’s a sad and growing trend in the mental health to consider people who are a danger to themselves and others as “treatable” on an outpatient basis.

        1. A large percentage of the homeless are mentally ill. With a few exceptions they tend to be non-violent though.

        2. Wow, just wow – no they can’t. You are flat-out, just wrong.

          1. People who say this sort of stuff know absolutely nothing about the mentally ill, or the people who treat/care for them.

            they also don’t understand anything about the De-institutionalization process and what motivated it.

            1. This was the great American gulag debate, yes?

              1. Background

                Key part of that process was the Supreme Court decision in 1975 that said (basically) you can’t involuntarily confine someone who isn’t guilt of any crime…. and – importantly – *has other people/places to live where they can be reasonably cared for.

                1. … be “reasonably” cared for? That’s a pretty broad umbrella.

                  1. Under law, it usually means an address they can be found at, and someone who can keep a spare set of eyeballs on them.

                    You claimed that there’s …”a sad and growing trend in the mental health to consider people who are a danger to themselves and others as “treatable” on an outpatient basis””

                    Technically, if someone is legally determined to be a danger to themselves or others, then they CAN be confined temporarily and treated until psychiatrists recommend otherwise, and remitted to the care of some guardian.

                    1. Also – anyone ever determined a threat to themselves or others by a court would also be prevented from ever legally buying a gun.

                    2. On the “professionals can identify” front, I’ll note the plethora of articles (both scholarly and popular) showing that once you are confined in a mental health facility, no behavior can tip off the staff or doctors that you are merely a reporter or grad student and not mentally ill. Not even walking around with a notepad while telling everyone that you are an undercover reporter for the Washington Post doing a story on the state of mental health care.

                      There are also studies that show that doctors will stick with the diagnosis in the file even when grad students are portraying symptoms of a different disorder.

                      Confirmation bias is a bitch… particularly in a field as subjective as mental health.

    2. “his responsibility to raise a sane child.”

      To be clear = better-parenting wont make a mentally-ill child sane. Shitty parenting isn’t the (only) reason people become mentally-ill.

      Good Parenting, however, can help teach mentally-ill kids to deal with the world without senselessly hurting other people.

      1. What I’m trying to say is that “this” parent is trying to deflect any responsibility he might have had toward the “weapons” his son chose to use.

        1. I wonder how many of the relatives will be held liable for giving the punk any of his guns?

        2. I agree with your assessment of the dad… it is a perfectly understandable response to a horrific situation.

          But on the good parenting front we have some examples of how a parent can teach mentally ill kids to deal with the world without senselessly hurting other people. I saw this documentary series about this forensic tech in Miami who was a sociopathic killer because he saw his mom get murdered when he was a little kid. His father was a cop and helped him develop a code of ethics to guide and suppress his violent tendencies. It was kind of a feel good story about making lemonade out of lemons.

    3. Yup.

      And I still want to go through this kids medicine cabinet and compare it with the others.
      that have done this.

    4. Sounds like pops’ stupidity started with the woman he bred a kid on and went downhill from there.

  16. I believe the one-gun-a-month laws are not intended to prevent people from having a lot of guns, it’s to prevent people from being able to make a living as unlicensed dealers to criminals and other prohibited persons.

    1. Well, there are intentions, there are the justifications politicians use to sell policy, and there are the real world consequences.

      The intentions of one-gun-a-month laws are to sell progressive and Democrat constituents on the idea that the Democratic leadership is doing something on the issue.

      The justification could be that such laws will prevent mass shootings.

      The real world impact could be to prevent unlicensed dealers to make a living selling to criminals.

      1. Well, as we know there are a lot of Dems who will vote for any law that is anti-gun, without any thought as to what the purpose is, or how effective they would be at fulfilling that purpose. Just give them talking points and watch them spin. 1GAM laws are particularly politically safe since even a lot of cultural gun owners would look askance at someone buying guns more frequently than that, and they also have survived court challenges post-Heller.

        1. ” a lot of Dems who will vote for any law that is anti-gun, without any thought as to what the purpose is, or how effective they would be at fulfilling that purpose’

          as already noted = the purpose/point of the laws is largely to demonize the opposition to the laws

          they will perpetually propose new ideas on top of the old ideas, not because the old ideas were bad, but because they NEED to keep forcing people to Oppose “Common Sense” Laws.

          They can’t be “good guys” unless they’ve got “bad guys” to be fighting against. And proposing new gun laws gives them INSTANT BAD GUYS

    2. to prevent people from being able to make a living as unlicensed dealers to criminals and other prohibited persons.

      Uhm, did you *read* this? Is it a typo?

      How are *unlicensed* dealers going to be stopped from selling large numbers of guns to criminals.

      1. An ‘unlicensed dealer’ is just a private transaction – so there’s no record of the sale anyway.

      2. If the state allows transfers outside the control of FFL holders, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a guy from buying from other private sellers (even from sellers in other states) and then reselling them to criminals.

      1. I think he is talking about the source of supply for the unlicensed gun dealer who buys guns legally, then sells them illegally in the sorts of unregistered transactions you mention.

        1. in volume enough to make money

        2. But you can’t really buy guns in *bulk* without being an FFL in the first place.

          The guy selling guns to criminals is either an FFL doctoring the paperwork to cover up a buyers ineligibility or he’s a guy who’s buying one gun from an FFL and twenty more from sellers on Facebook.

          1. In jurisdictions where there is no restriction on gun buying frequency, you can buy multiple guns from multiple FFLs every day. You wouldn’t get volume pricing, but presumably such a person is going to charge a premium above the normal retail price when selling to prohibited persons.

            1. Yes? And there’s no way a law mandating a maximum number of purchases a month could possibly do anything about ‘unlicensed dealers’ selling to criminals as a business.

              Because there’s no way to keep track of *private party exchanges*.

              I can buy two dozen guns in individual purchases and sell them for, say, a $100 dollar markup to someone who can’t *legally* purchase a firearm (and for some reason doesn’t want to evade the background check by doing their own PP – say because they don’t want to spend time combing ads) and come out with a decent $2400 buck.

              So the ‘one-gun-a-month’ law would not be able to stop that as there’s no way to verify *when* anyone bought those guns.

            2. And FFL’s keep records … so mass buyers leave footprints, too.

            3. In jurisdictions where there is no restriction on gun buying frequency, you can buy multiple guns from multiple FFLs every day.

              If those guns are handguns the multiple sales get reported to BATFE and local law enforcement. And any reputable dealer who wants to stay in business will report suspicious sales to BATFE. Your business isn’t going to last very long.

              1. So, as I said in the beginning – you buy from a private party. Where these restrictions do not exist. Negating that whole effect of the law.

      2. And in his case, the people closest to him bought some of his guns for him. Thus, they would be the unlicensed dealers in this story.

      3. There’s no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer.” Read the Form 4473, Question 16.

        It’s illegal to engage in the business of selling firearms without a FFL. The private sale exception is for occasional sales, as defined by BATFE. (Who won’t tell anyone how many per year is “occasional.”)

        If you buy a firearm from a FFL you state it’s for your own use. If you buy one firearm to sell to another person, it can cost you ten years.

        1. (Who won’t tell anyone how many per year is “occasional.”)

          And who won’t *know* how many guns you’ve sold since you’re selling them to *criminals*. Who are not going to go rush out to register the weapon with the ‘authorities’.

    3. Maybe they should pass similar restrictions on crack, so that people will not be able to make a living as a friendly neighborhood crack dealer??.

  17. I’m so fed up with Obama, I’ve been willing to support most any Republican candidate who isn’t openly hostile to free market capitalism, but I’m starting to think that our next President’s stance on the Second Amendment is going to be more important than I realized.

    Especially if we get a Republican President in the upcoming, chances are we may get Democratic majorities in Congress at some point over the next eight years.

    And the chances of there being another mass shooting during that time period are pretty high.

    1. They have to be the right kind of mass shooting.

      Funny how in the litanies of mass killings that the media indulges in, Fort Hood and Chattanooga never come up, nor the Boston Bombings.

    2. “And the chances of there being another mass shooting during that time period are pretty high.”

      And the media is going out of their way to sensationalize, in the desperate hope that you are right, and they can keep it on the front burner..

      1. “See??!! See what you get! Elect a Rethuglican, NRA doormat and you get mass shootings!!”

        /Salon

  18. Enforcing a limit on the total number of guns that any one person could own would require more than limiting the number that could be purchased in a given transaction or a given month (as California, where Mercer lives, does for handguns). It would require registering all 300 million or so guns in the country and keeping track of all transfers?not to mention confiscating guns from people who exceed the limit.

    Which is precisely where the obsession with “universal background checks” come in. It’s how we get millions of previously untracked and untrackable guns onto the books.

  19. The truth of the matter is that more people in the U.S. defend themselves with a gun each year than are victimized by people with guns. Don’t take my word for it, ask the CDC.

    The truth of the matter is that gun control is counterproductive. Don’t take my word for it, ask Harvard.

    The truth of the matter is that armed civilians stop mass murders. Don’t take my word for it, ask the FBI.

    The truth of the matter is that the crime rate, including “gun crimes” and gun homicides is at a 30 year low despite the sunset of the “assault weapon ban”, liberalized concealed carry, steady gun ownership, stand your ground laws, and ignoring the DEMANDS of the “gun control lobby”.

    Everyday our leadership has an opportunity to look at the root causes of crime and violence such as poverty and lack of opportunity and education, the War on Drugs, our revolving door justice system including plea deals, as well as mental health and the role of SSRI drugs and enact policies to address these issues.

    It’s time to move on from “gun control”.

    1. The CDC, Harvard, the FBI. Are you saying the science is settled?

    2. the root causes of crime and violence such as poverty and lack of opportunity and education

      Bullshit. There are millions of poor, uneducated people who are not criminals.

      We just don’t want to accept that some people are going to be criminals. It’s in their nature.

      1. Your Bayes is backwards. Poverty and lack of education may not inevitably cause criminality, but they certainly lead to a higher probability of becoming a criminal, because (1) poor people have less to lose from the punishments for criminality, and (2) they have fewer options in the legal economy.

        1. Are you serious? Poverty does not correlate to criminality, and no one in poverty is consigned to staying in poverty. Where there is a higher probability is in what happens after-the-fact: poor people are more likely to go to prison because they can’t afford lawyers to whittle charges down to probation. Regardless, your argument sounds like the one from the gun-grabbers in that it ignores the individual and seeks to blame some outside entity.

          1. +1 product of my environment..

          2. poor people are more likely to go to prison because they can’t afford lawyers to whittle charges down to probation

            ^This. And getting sucked into the “criminal justice” system seems guaranteed to lead to an entire life of crime.

            1. School to prison pipeline!

              1. State raised..

          3. Poverty does not correlate to criminality

            That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. You have a link to prove it?

            Where there is a higher probability is in what happens after-the-fact: poor people are more likely to go to prison because they can’t afford lawyers to whittle charges down to probation.

            This may be the case for nonviolent drug possession and the like. It’s not the case for violent crime, which I assumed to be the only type of crime libertarians care about (excluding fraud).

            1. I won’t argue anything but I’ll throw something into the mess. I’ve walked around Third World poor neighborhoods in Indonesia I don’t know how many times. Never had a problem. Someone who considers himself dirt poor in the US might be doing relatively all right over there. Yet people in Jakarta, for example, aren’t running around in every ghetto taking turns assaulting, robbing, murdering each other. Biggest problems in the US regarding tendencies toward criminality are cultural.

          4. Regardless, your argument sounds like the one from the gun-grabbers in that it ignores the individual and seeks to blame some outside entity.

            The blame for a violent crime always lies with the person who chose to commit it. That does not change the fact that external factors will make that choice more or less appealing.

            Do you seriously believe that a kid raised in a wealthy suburban family, sent to the best private schools and private university has the same chance of becoming a violent criminal as a kid raised in abject poverty surrounded by street gangs, and forced to attend terrible dysfunctional inner city public schools?

      2. Some people make poor decisions. Poor decisions lead to poverty and criminal behavior. So the two do go hand in hand in a way. Too bad you can’t fix stupid.

    3. “the role of SSRI drugs”

      Yes. I want to look in this kids medicine cabinet and compare it to other mass killers.

      This medical layman suspects there might be a connection but the FDA has approved these drugs so that link won’t get much Fed. Gov. attention.

      1. I haven’t seen anyone point to evidence he was being treated for anything. Have you?

  20. I’ll cut a parent trying to comprehend the incomprehensible a little bit of slack – just a little – but here we have a network letting someone spew retardation nationwide. Editing, how does it work?*

    *Reason comments section may not be the right spot to ask about editing.

    1. I 2nd this post.

  21. Fuck Ian Mercer.

    That is all.

  22. This man doesn’t need to speak at all unless the first words out of his mouth are heartfelt remorse and an apology to the world. Only when he has convinced us of the first two should he decide his opinion on anything else ought to mean dick.

    What fucking gall and arrogance. This is giving off strong aromas of a self-important negligent dicktwiddle with all the self-awareness of algae. I’m fighting the urge to rush to judgment, and losing.

    1. Also, Christ, what an asshole.

  23. Too bad there aren’t laws against murder or against carrying guns on college grounds. That would have prevented this from happening.

    1. You forgot hate speech.

      Maybe we should ban anti-Christian hate speech?

      1. That isn’t hate speech anymore. Same with anti-male, anti-hetero, etc., etc., etc.

      2. No, no, no. Christians are intolerant. So hate speech against them is an act of tolerance, since tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

  24. Someone should pipe up, too, that there are legitimate reasons to have a lot of different guns. Guns are highly specialized.

    A 20 gauge camouflaged turkey gun.
    An over/under 12 gauge for pheasant and other upland birds
    A 400 yard+ rifle for elk in the Western U.S.
    A pre-1964 Winchester 94 lever action carbine for deer in the woods
    A small 9mm like a S&W M&P for conceal carry.
    A Taurus Public Defender or S&W Governor for home defense/backpacking in bear country.

    All those guns are for mutually exclusive, perfectly legitimate purposes. And there are a hell of a lot more like that.

    Add in rabbit hunting, target shooting, nostalgia collectors, etc., etc.

    1. It’s down to this. We have to defend our legal rights because a man who fathered and raised a mass murderer pointed a finger.

      Christ.

    2. Taurus Judge/PD are the stupidest, most useless handguns ever invented.

      1. That’s the beauty of it..

      2. I don’t know that I would go that far but yeah I personally have no desire for one.

      3. I disagree.

        If you can find more firepower in a smaller package for backpacking, I’d like to see it (and .357s out of a pistol with a 6″ barrel are known not to be reliably insufficient for black bear, much less grizzly).

        Those guns got a bad reputation from people (magazine journalists) who shot standard ammo (whether shotgun shells or .45s) out of them, but there are specialty loads out there now that make for some of the most devastating rounds available anywhere.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bLonprIWm4

        http://www.hornady.com/store/4…..ense-Ammo/

        I’d rather get shot with just about anything else, and I bet a bear would rather get shot with anything else but that, too.

        1. Is that $20/box, or $20 a round?

          1. Yeah, you’re not going to do a lot of practicing with those specialty rounds.

            I’m sure it’s up there at a dollar a round.

        2. “not to be reliably insufficient”

          Double negative anybody?

          Should be [not to be reliably sufficient]

          But you probably already knew that.

        3. .410 slugs, (and buckshot) are the key to that pistol..

          1. Yes they are. I have one for home defence and within 10 feet, it’s my favorite.

            1. .410 buckshot (000) = (3) 9mm balls in a 2.5″ chambering. (5) 9mm balls in a 3″ chambering. 5-round cylinder dumped in a panic fire within ~3-5 seconds at ~10′ is devastating with ~3-6 pellets in the air at any given second. Better accuracy than an smg, ~0% likelihood of a jam, similar volume of fire.. A difficult to control ammunition as well.

              1. What’s the spread look like at 10′?

                1. According to what I’ve seen on You Tube, for the Defender (disks and BBs), 3″ on the disks and 8 1/2 on the BBs )) buck stays within 4″ for all 5 balls. I’ve usually gotten pretty close to that in practice.

                  1. I’d say

              2. Is this hypothetical shooter aiming each shot or just firing wherever the gun happens to be pointing? 5 aimed shots in 5 seconds from a small revolver is going to be something most people aren’t capable of.

                1. Aimed fire? in a panic situation, at 10′? With any snubnose, for that matter? The entire point of buckshot at that range is area denial.. denying your would be adversary that area by filling it with lead. three to five times as much as an ordinary revolver. Across a bedroom, or down a short hall, it will work.. point and click.. It’s a snubnose .410, not a competition silhouette pistol..

              3. Those “9mm balls” are 1/6 oz, roughly 0.01 pound, or 70 gr. The lightest bullet you’d commonly find for a 9mm Luger is 115 gr. It’s misleading to call them “9mm balls” when they are much smaller than 9mm bullets.

                1. I still wouldn’t want it fired at me.

                    1. Winchester makes a .410 buckshot load in a 2 ? inch shell containing three “triple-ought” or 000 buck shot. The 000 buck is .360 in diameter, weighs 71 grains, and the first pellet out of the two shells which I chronographed out of a Remington Model 870 with 25 inch barrel crossed the chronograph screens at slightly above 1250 fps with a muzzle energy of nearly 250 ft. lbs. The other pellets were no doubt going nearly as fast. That gives three pellets each with as much energy as a standard .38 special police load, and a total energy of 750 ft. lbs. That would have to be quite effective.

                      A full-sized .410 shotgun gets the same energy* as a caliber (38 Spc) that’s considered the bare minimum for self defense purposes. A 3″ revolver is going to do far worse in the energy department.

                      * adding up pellet energies is deceiving as the energy is spread out over a larger area in the case of pellets.

                  1. I wouldn’t want a pellet gun fired at me either, that doesn’t make it a good self defense weapon.

          2. Which pistol ? .357 mag or the judge ?

            I keep two .357 mags loaded with hollow points at two spots in my home and my 5′ tall wife and I go to the range with them a couple of times a year. If those don’t stop what I need them to stop then I am a lost cause.

            We don’t backpack with bears on Galveston Bay.

            1. .357 will not reliably take out a black bear–at least not out of a pistol. Out of one of those pre-2007 Winchester 94 lever rifles with a 16″ barrel, you get a lot more velocity and they probably do just fine.

              I read one report of a guy who was hunting black bear with his dogs. Just as he got to the tree they had the bear in, the bear decided to come out of the tree and go after his dogs. The hunter drew his .357 revolver and emptied it into the bear, and the bear just kept coming.

              YMMV. I’m sure you can take down a black bear with a .357 revolver, and I know it’s been done. And I’d rather have a .357 revolver against a bear than just my street fighting skills.

              I was charged by a black bear coming out of a tree, from 150 feet away or so, while I was hiking a couple of years ago. He stopped about 25 feet short. Scared the shit out of me. They do that sometimes if you smell like food–they do that to people at campsites, etc., too, because people will leave the area and they can then get their food.

              I’ve had a number of bear encounters since then–none of them so dramatic. Anyway, if I’m hiking out in the back country somewhere with a lot of bears, especially if there are grizzlies, I think a Defender with the right ammo would make an excellent choice. That’s all I was trying to say.

              1. I also think they make an excellent home defense gun. If a shotgun with an 18″ barrel can make a good home defense weapon, then why wouldn’t a shotgun with a 3″ barrel make a good home defense weapon, too?

                But, you know, that’s my opinion, and it’s not going to work for everyone in every home defense situation.

                1. A 12 gauge shotgun with an 18″ barrel is good for home defense*.

                  A .410 bore shotgun with an 18″ barrel, probably not. You’re going to have to fire more shots for the same effect as a 12 gauge. With a 3″ barrel you’re going to get even less power, blow your eardrums out for sure, and have much tougher follow up shots.

                  * 26″ or longer is better if you’re defending a fixed choke point or saferoom entrance — about a 20 dB sound reduction and it looks more like a hunting or recreational gun if you get prosecuted or sued. Needless to say, tramping around the house like Elmer Fudd looking for the wabbit is NOT a good home defense strategy.

                  1. Again, look at the ballistics tests above from that gun. Look at what it does with .45s that are made for that gun. Did you see the size of those holes?

                    You may not get as much power per round as you would from a 12 gauge shotgun with a standard 18″ shotgun, but you’re getting a hell of a lot of firepower, you don’t have to worry about an intruder grabbing the barrel of your gun, and you’re getting off more shots with a revolver than you would from a standard pump shotgun, as well.

                    If an 18″ shotgun isn’t a bad choice, then the Taurus isn’t a bad choice for home defense either.

                    1. If you want a handgun that makes .45″ holes, there are far better options out there than the Judge.

                      you’re getting off more shots with a revolver than you would from a standard pump shotgun

                      Are you referring to capacity or the speed of follow-up shots? A standard home defense shotgun (and even many hunting shotguns) have 5+1 capacity or more, which is more than the Judge has. I really don’t think you’re going to get off aimed follow-up shots as quickly from a small revolver as from a pump shotgun.

                      If you’re defending a saferoom, you don’t have to worry about somebody grabbing the barrel because you’re not letting them get near you. If you’re tramping around the house like Elmer Fudd, your home defense plan is probably pretty lousy to begin with.

                      The only legitimate home defense scenario where you’d have to worry about somebody grabbing the barrel is if you’re answering the front door and the attacker shoves their way in when you reach it. In which case you want a handgun, preferably not one that has had compromises in its design enabling it to shoot shotshells.

          3. So you’re shooting a solid chunk of lead that’s less aerodynamic than a regular pistol bullet. Not sure how that’s an advantage.

            Whereas shot is going to pattern weird thanks to the rifling, and .410 00 buckshot has what, 3 pellets? Again, not seeing any advantage over a regular pistol.

      4. Desert Eagle is more useless. But more fun, too.

        1. I’ve shot one. It’s ridiculously huge and heavy.

    3. People also inherit them. Hell I have four of those last year that I haven’t even shot yet. Also, I don’t need a reason anyways.

      1. I agree you don’t need a reason, but I thought someone should point out that there are reasons to own a lot of guns–other than just because a nut wants to storm a community college.

        This guy was suggesting that there is no reason to own a lot of guns.

        He’s wrong.

        1. Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of people who are just as clueless as he is.

        2. “This guy was suggesting that there is no reason to own a lot of guns signaling, as loud and clear as he possibly could, to distance himself, and deflect conversation from his sense of failure, guilt, and moral responsibility as the parent of a mass-murder.”

          Given the circumstances, I’ d bet he would rather be talking about anything else..

          1. Given the circumstances, I’ d bet he would rather be talking about anything else..

            We’ll see if he cashes in in any way.

          2. Given the circumstances he ought to have simply kept his mouth shut, but who passes up a chance to get on the teevee being slopped over by an interviewer feigning sympathy?

    4. that there are legitimate reasons to have a lot of different guns

      Yes. I want to own a lot of different guns.

      Amusing side-note: When I typed my response, I fat-fingered “guns” as “funs”.

  25. “How was he able to compile that kind of arsenal?” the killer’s father, Ian Mercer, asked.

    Well, pops from the sentence just ahead of that quote All 14 were legally purchased by the shooter or his relatives.

    I suppose he would be under your theoretical limit if his own damn relatives were not giving your nutjob son any guns at all. Did this punk have a job? Sans job, my money is on your ex wife giving him the money for the rest of the guns an ammunition.

    Go back to Oldham from whence you came you bloody wanky leprechaun.

  26. The burden of proof is on those who want to restrict. So asking “How many guns does someone really need?” is switching the burden of proof. Fallacies all the way down. Tony would be proud.

  27. I wish I had the coin to buy fourteen guns. I’ve only got three.

    1. Ever heard of Hi-Point?

      1. Ever heard a little bird? They say “Cheep, cheep, cheep.”

        1. So you do have the money for 14 guns. Just not good ones.

          1. Apparently.

        2. Cheap isn’t always bad.

          Cobra and Diamondback are cheap because they have shitty materials and workmanship.

          HiPoint is cheap because the blowback action they use has fewer moving parts and stress components. (at the cost of increasing size and weight)

      2. Yeah, if you have, avoid them like the plague…

        1. Yeah, they are shit. Ruger, Tauras, Rossi much better value brands. I’ve heard pretty decent things about Kahr and Bersa as well. Don’t know a lot about Keltec but they seem pretty popular. I’d go with any of those over Hi-Point. I’d probably have to research the Keltec more though. Had a buddy who’s brand new Hi-Point was literally falling apart when we were at the range.

          1. Taurus = Rossi, they merged. most of their tooling was purchased from S&W, and Beretta back in the day. I’m sure they’ve upgraded since though.

            Bersa, I believe is an extension of Imbel, which produces excellent firearms.

            Kahr firearms are decent, if a little over priced. An interesting history on the owner/ceo and his “tertiary activities”..

            1. Interesting, I wasn’t aware that a Moonie owned Kahr The Tauras/Rossi thing rings a bell now that you mention it.

          2. Had a buddy who’s brand new Hi-Point was literally falling apart when we were at the range.

            Really? There are some videos on YouTube of people trying to destroy a HiPoint, and those who succeed generally have to take dire measures to make it happen.

            for example this one by Iraqveteran8888

            1. Yeah, really. I was there, he basically just started shooting when the front sight became loose and slid around the barrel. Then after we fixed that he had some other other problem with it. I don’t recall what that one was but it was ridicules.

          3. Ruger is a great brand, but Taurus/Rossi (same company now) have very poor quality control. You roll the dice on whether you’ll get a great gun for the money or a paperweight (which you have the option of shipping off for a few weeks or months while they send you another gamble gun).

        2. So, you’ve never actually owned one and probably never shot one, I’m guessing?

          They have their negatives (weight, ugliness, and annoying field strip method) but they are excellent, accurate, reliable guns. Not as reliable as a Glock, but you can buy three of them for what it costs to get a Glock.

          And the Hi Point carbine rifles are even better.

          1. Hi Point 9mm is absolute crap. Had one which could not be made to function with any of the magic techniques which work for everyone else. Plus there was no way to hold to keep it from eating my thumb joint. Bought a Smith and Wesson SD VE 9. Under $300, 350 rounds, no malfunctions. Don’t believe the reviews about the trigger. After the second magazine you don’t notice. Superb weapon.

  28. For those who in Knoxville, TN are scared of the guns in thy home, please check out this generous offer. For a limited time there is a gun buyback program to get those scare things out of your home and into the hands of the right people:
    http://austriananarchy.blogspo…..yback.html

    Thank you for your vigilance.

    1. Sarcasmic should set up a table across the street and offer more money for the good ones he wants !

      1. Ah, that is why I will operate in a cul-de-sac

  29. I blame society.

  30. In honor of this limey fuck, I think I’m going to go gun shopping today.

    Glock 42 or AR?

    1. AR, but just because I am personally anti-Glock. YMMV

      1. I’m an XD guy, but I borrowed a Glock 21 at the range. I consistently had quarter sized groupings at 25 yards. It just fits my hand.

        1. I have 3 Glocks including a 21 I recently bought from a friend. Grips a tadon the big side but I shoot it well anyways. so that’s what matters. Also have a 22 and 26. prolly going to sell the 26.

          1. I’m a Colt 1911 guy all the way. Always shot well with those.

            1. I have a stainless officers special. Very finicky about about ammo. Forget about Federal. Seems to do pretty well with Winchester. It’s the short throat. Still love it. Beautiful, nice grip, nice trigger. I like it better than any of the Glock’s. I’m not really a Glock guy. I had the Glock 22. Inherited the 26 and got a great deal on the 21 from a buddy so that’s why I have 3.

              1. That brings me back to my XD 9mm. Over 8000 rounds fired, haven’t cleaned it once. Not a single FTF or FTE. Carbon soot is a great lube.

            2. The grip angle on the 1911 is a perfect, holy number.

              1. I agree

                1. So did/does Gaston Glock!

    2. Can’t it be both?

      1. The safe is full. It would mean buying another one, and it turns into a big thing.

        I’m going to have to dig out the hammer drill, bore into the concrete slab, and epoxy in a new safe. I just want to molest some new guns, not do a remodel.

        1. If you need to make room, allow me to assist!
          http://austriananarchy.blogspo…..yback.html
          For you, I will make an out of State exception and we would have to enlist the assistance of some licensed dealers.

          1. Spent a few days in Farragut last year. Nice little area.

            1. I used to live out that way.

        2. Son, half-assed effort gets you half-assed results.. Grab the brass ring..

          /Dad

    3. You can buy this for me

      http://www.sigsauer.com/Catalo…..atrol.aspx

      1. That’s in the maybe pile. I do want an AR in .308. I had an order in for a multi caliber lower, but then the unpleasantness in Connecticut happened and they didn’t honor the order.

        1. That’s crap.

    4. Get a man’s gun. You know, a revolver.

      1. Revolvers are for pussies who can only piss off six people at a time.

        1. “Revolvers are for pussies who can only piss off six people at a time fuck-up resistant.”

    5. In honor of this limey fuck, I think I’m going to go gun shopping today.

      I will go gun shopping too, though probably not today, definitely sometime this week.

      Glock 42 or AR?

      Why not both?

      1. Why not both?

        Oh. This is what I get for being late to the thread. I see you answered it up above.

  31. From the CNN interview:

    “It has to change. How can it not? Even people that believe in the right to bear arms, what right do you have to take people’s lives? That’s what guns are, the killers. Simple as that. Simple as that. It’s black and white. What do you want a gun for?”

    Animism. Evil spirits.
    “Them guns was to blame, not my boy.”
    Fuck you, dad.

    1. What do you want a gun for?

      Seriously, what the fuck? Ask the 150 million or whatever peaceful gun owners who have never shot anyone. What is wrong with people?

  32. Buy a manly gun, Playa. Get a 1911.

    1. I have a Raptor. I’m looking for a cargo pocket piece. Which reminds me, I need more cargo shorts.

      Or something ridiculous. I already have 2 ARs and an HK USC. If I could find an AK for a decent price around here, I’d get one.

      1. I’ve been thinking about one of these since I don;t have a 9mm. Not sure if that’s small enough for your cargo shorts or how your securing it.

        http://www.beretta.com/en-us/px4-storm-compact/

        1. I wonder how heavy it is. That’s one of the reasons I like Glock for CC.

          1. Local range has one to rent. Planning on trying it before buying. There are a lot of youtube reviews out there on it.

      2. Which Raptor do you have? Do you love it?

      3. Which Raptor do you have? Do you love it?

        1. II, not the stainless one.

          It’s pretty awesome. I bought it used, though. There’s no way I would have paid retail.

          1. Yeah, I’ve had my eye on Kimber since they first started out. Don’t own on yet.

            1. If you’re considering Kimber, you might want to look at Dan Wesson too.

      4. I’m looking for a cargo pocket piece.

        I have a Ruger LC9 and it has a very easy carry. With the laser on it, it somewhat obscures the outline, which helps with printing.

        I also have a Bersa CC .380 which is thin enough to wear IWB under a t-shirt. I like both of these for different reasons, but the Bersa fits in a pocket holster and draws without hangups.

        1. I have the LC9 sans laser. It just doesn’t fit my hand very well. I supposed with some practice I could get better control on it, but I don’t really have the time.

          It’s not a bad gun, but it’s also not awesome.

          1. I had the same issue with it fitting, so I got a magazine extender that adds only about 3/8″, but that made all the difference for me. You’re right, not awesome, but it works for what I need it to do.

            1. It’s not just the uncomfortable feeling of having nowhere to put my pinky. I think it’s the diameter of the whole grip. It just doesn’t fit my hand well, so it wobbles a little bit when I sight up.

              1. so it wobbles a little bit when I sight up.

                With the laser set, I don’t think I’ve noticed that problem.

              2. Do you have the little foot extending out of the front of the mag? That’s where I put my pinky.

  33. To be fair, I can understand where this guy is coming from, given that if someone I loved did something like this I would probably be up there looking to blame anything but them, it’s only human nature.

    That doesn’t mean any rational person should listen to him though, he’s pretty much the definition of a subjective witness.

    It would be like someone who lost family members in 9/11 saying we should ban planes, you can smile and nod along and maybe give them a hug or something, but anyone who would base a policy decision on that is mentally crippled.

    1. To be fair, I can understand where this guy is coming from, given that if someone I loved did something like this I would probably be up there looking to blame anything but them, it’s only human nature.

      Even if you knew exactly which of your relatives gave him the means to kill all those people? Seriously, you would shield those people behind a lame excuse like this?

      1. I mean yeah, I would probably still react the same way. My point is that he clearly isn’t in a place where he is thinking rationally, so while it’s not like we should toss him in jail or something for what his kid did, we also care about his opinion on this as much as we care about the Dalai Lama’s opinion of who I should start at quarterback in my fantasy football league.

      2. He didn’t need anyone to give him the means to kill. Once someone has the firm intent, they are spoiled for choice in regards to means.

        In other words, they don’t even need a lame excuse. Unless they knew he had formed intent to kill and then gave him guns, they didn’t do anything wrong.

        1. They didn’t have to know if/when he was going to kill people before giving him a gun. They should know not to give nutty people guns.

          1. You know, I was going to put some effort into distinguishing whether you meant to imply these people were giving guns to someone with a known, diagnosed medical condition, or just wildly trying to assign blame anywhere possible, and then I realized it was completely unnecessary.

            Fuck off, slaver.

            1. I never said the government should limit it directly. I said people who give guns to nuts should be held to some level of culpability, shitbrain.

              1. That’s dangerous territory.. There thar be dragons..
                Remember that when you loan a car, give a tool (claw hammer/tire iron/crowbar/screwdriver) or sporting equipment…

                1. I don’t have to be reminded not to give a bat or hammer to a punk who cries about the bugs in bugland.

              2. Not legal culpability.

                Public shaming maybe.

              3. Look at this cunt.

                You should have opted for the Cracker Jacks degree in criminality and constitutional law rather than their half-off armchair psych degree.

          2. Do we know how nutty he was? I’ve been out of the country and not paying attention, so I have no idea.

            1. Yes, he was nutty, nutty, weird acting nutjob nutty.

            2. “Do we know how nutty he was?’

              The fact that he attended a 4 year high-school program specifically for kids with emotional/behavioral problems is a sign that he had some recognized issues as a youngun.

              One place noted his graduating class was only 4 people. Which suggests he got plenty of direct attention.

              However, interviews with people at the school didn’t paint the picture of anyone particularly off their nut

              1. Nutty nutjob always wearing military gear, mom going to the neighbors telling them to quiet their kids because her son has problems, etc, etc, etc.

                1. Nutty nutjob always wearing military gear and acting detached, mom going to the neighbors telling them to quiet their kids because her son has problems, etc, etc, etc.

                  1. And what medication is typically prescribed for cases of “Nutty nutjob”?

                    1. http://www.oregonlive.com/paci…..qua_c.html

                      “He was born with problems. He was hard to discipline. If you told him ‘no,’ he would scream like you had just hit him.”

                      The U.S. Army confirmed Friday it discharged Harper-Mercer just halfway through his 10 weeks of basic training in 2008.

                      His screen name on some social media sites was “lithium love.” Lithium is used as a psychiatric medication.

                      And it is a pretty safe bet that he was on the same category of antidepressants as so many other of these mass shooters.

                    2. “it is a pretty safe bet that he was on the same category of antidepressants as so many other of these mass shooters.’

                      Again = i’ve not heard any evidence of this yet. The childhood behavior described isn’t particularly uncommon even for “normal” kids. And the teachers in the “Special Needs” school didn’t characterize him as being anything but sweet and funny.

                      Obviously the guy was a few cans short of a 6-pack. The degree to which this was the case, and whether he’d ever actually received treatment is completely unknown.

                    3. Okay, let’s assume he never got any treatment. Buying guns for a guy who has fits about neighbor kids playing, and bugs in his mom’s apartment is as stupid as giving a drunk guy a car to drive.

                    4. “”a guy who has fits about neighbor kids playing””

                      i thought you said that was the mom who did that?

                      Look, all i’m doing is pointing out how people are jumping from these randomly collected details of ‘oddity’ about the guy, to making grand assumptions about his emotional-stability & mental competence at age 26

                      I submit he was actually batshit crazy, which is easy to judge in retrospect of a mass-killing.

                      I submit that in the time leading up to his mass-killing, almost no one would be qualified to judge him ‘incompetent’ or a danger to self/others based on the same information you’re using now to make that determination.

              2. “Which suggests he got plenty of direct attention.”

                Which apparently stopped the day he left, leaving him attention starved, and eager to seek it in other venues and formats..

                1. ” leaving him attention starved'”

                  This is speculation.

                  The impression most people seem to be consistently communicating is that he was more of a loner than someone starving for attention… generally reticent, but not particularly misanthropic. Most people described him as “funny” and not-unpleasant.

                  1. “This is speculation.”

                    Absolutely.

                    He is not available for comment..

  34. When he gets done blaming everybody who had nothing to do with his son’s actions, I wonder if he will be supplying the families of the victims with the names and whereabouts of the relatives who gave his “mentally ill” son guns and the money to buy more.

  35. So if I have 20 guns, go shoot someone but only use one or two – how does limiting me to one or two limit the amount of damage I could do.

    To put that sort of limit will *only* stop some dude who is planning on outfitting his own private army. And those guys seem to spend more time holed up in a compound in the woods than they do shooting people.

    1. It depends on your cause, naturally. If you are a close friend of Angela Davis, then you get a pass.

      1. Actually, I messed that up. If you are a close friend of Angela Davis she gets a pass.

    2. Not if your limit is zero, citizen, now.. move along..

  36. Mercer argued that the mass shooting “would not have happened” if his son did not own so many firearms.

    Obviously not.

    Look, the kid could have countered the evil spirits emanating from one or two guns but nobody, nobody can overcome an assault by fourteen evil spirits at once.

    1. It’s absolutely diabolical the way they network in community, like a hive-mind..

  37. Hasn’t seen his kid in two years? Maybe have a catch with the lad once in awhile and he won’t want to take out his father issues on society.

    1. That’s government’s job.

    2. I’d like to see the stats on how many of these mass shooters are the children of divorce or estranged from their fathers. The Sandy Hook sicko didn’t have a relationship with his father either. This may make me a socon, but children really do need both strong male and female role models who are active in their lives.

      1. The 2 most recent shooters had moms who introduced them to guns, despite the fact that they very obvious emotional and psychological problems.

        Dealing with kids like that is a lot of work, and yes it takes 2 parents. My neighbors are going through that right now, and their son just turned 14. The dad knocks on my door for help every once in a while (which I told him to do). He used to call the cops for help. Bad idea.

      2. But, again, almost no mentally ill children of single parent families go out and murder a bunch of people.

        But anyone who denies that two parents (as long as they don’t themselves have a completely disfunctional relationship) is preferable to one is suffering some serious delusion.

      3. This may make me a socon, but children really do need both strong male and female role models who are active in their lives.

        Yeah this dad is the dictionary definition of a weak male role model.

        I’m reminded of something my uncle once said about when he used to teach high school P.E. He would occasionally get calls from fathers who said to let them know, personally, if their sons were ever out of line. Those kids without fail were never the problem. The kids who were the most trouble were the ones whose parents he was least likely to hear from.

      4. I think the fact his parents were separated probably indicates that the dad was not a good role model. Kind of like mine – though I did have other male role models & I don’t disagree overall. I just wouldn’t go basing any sort of policy on it.

        1. I might be misunderstanding here, but I would absolutely base my policies on it if I were dictator.

          The government is not a replacement for a father. Period.

          1. The government is not a replacement for a father.

            As much as they’d like us to believe that

          2. “It” being the notion that “two parents are better than one”. That is none of the government’s business.

          3. The government is not a replacement for anyone. Government is like the large intestine; doing a job necessary for life as we know it, but if you start noticing what it’s doing it’s an unpleasant situation.

        2. the dad was not a good role model. Kind of like mine

          My father was an alcoholic who broke my jaw when I was 12… But, he was my single parent from 11-17 (he died of pancreatic cancer), and taught me how to work, and how the world works.

          I haven’t killed anyone who didn’t deserve it.

        3. I just wouldn’t go basing any sort of policy on it.

          The reason stable two parent households used to be the norm is that it was economically and socially essential. Single women with children suffered extreme economic hardship and were ostracized. Those weren’t government policies, they were the way society works.

          These days, welfare and other government support has largely removed both the economic hardship and the stigma of single parenthood.

          What that means is that you really can’t avoid “basing any sort of policy on it”: either you adopt policies that encourage two parent households, or you adopt policies that encourage single parent households; there is no neutral position.

      5. “I’d like to see the stats on how many of these mass shooters are the children of divorce or estranged from their fathers”

        Speaking of, has anyone seen The Tony Troll here since the shooting ?

        Just sayin…..

      6. This may make me a socon, but children really do need both strong male and female role models who are active in their lives.

        Bullshit. The vast majority of kids from single-parent homes grow up to be perfectly normal. A single parent home is far better for the kid’s development than a home with two parents who can’t stand each other and fight all the time, which is what you’d have if you try to end divorce.

        The root problem is our society’s idiotic attachment to an ideal (happy loving nuclear family) that has always been somewhat rare in practice.

        1. The root problem is our society’s idiotic attachment to an ideal (happy loving nuclear family) that has always been somewhat rare in practice.

          You’re a moron. There’s plenty of studies that show children raised in two-parent households tend to be ahead of their single-parent peers in just about every social and economic metric. It doesn’t mean being raised by a single parent dooms you to failure, but the facts are that single-parent kids have a much tougher row to hoe to achieve stability.

          By your logic, America’s ghettos should be paragons of social stability.

          1. Have a heaping helping of correlation not being causation. The same factors that make it easier for couples to stay together also make their kids more likely to grow up in a positive environment. That doesn’t mean that forcing couples in bad situations to stay together will cause their kids to be better off.

            America’s ghettos are not paragons of social stability for many reasons, few of which have anything to do with parenting. The WoD, the culture of govt dependency, ridiculous incarceration rates, racist policing, suffocating regulation from city hall, terrible schools… all of those have a bigger impact and little to do with single vs double parents. It’s very likely that the disproportionate number of single parent homes in the inner city is an effect of these causes, rather than the reverse. If daddy’s in jail or can’t make enough money to make ends meet, he’s not going to be part of the family.

            1. Have a heaping helping of correlation not being causation. The same factors that make it easier for couples to stay together also make their kids more likely to grow up in a positive environment. That doesn’t mean that forcing couples in bad situations to stay together will cause their kids to be better off.

              What it means is that you shouldn’t have kids unless you are quite certain that you are in a stable relationship that can be expected to last for the next 21 years.

              America’s ghettos are not paragons of social stability for many reasons, few of which have anything to do with parenting. The WoD, the culture of govt dependency, ridiculous incarceration rates, racist policing, suffocating regulation from city hall, terrible schools… all of those have a bigger impact and little to do with single vs double parents.

              Actually, they have a lot to do with single parenting. Single parenting limits economic resources, parental involvement in school and school work, and time for supervising kids. It greatly increases government dependency. And single parenting is often the result of crimes committed by the father, which kids take as a role model. That’s in addition to the psychological problems resulting from breakups, family conflicts, and single parents bringing in a string of dates and short term partners.

            2. Have a heaping helping of correlation not being causation.

              Have a heaping helping of question-begging.

              The same factors that make it easier for couples to stay together also make their kids more likely to grow up in a positive environment.

              You’re not exactly making the case for the awesomeness of single-parent homes.

              That doesn’t mean that forcing couples in bad situations to stay together will cause their kids to be better off.

              Nice strawman, idiot.

              America’s ghettos are not paragons of social stability for many reasons, few of which have anything to do with parenting.

              Yeah, I’m sure they’re all awesome parents, they’re just going through a tough stretch. Please.

              The WoD, the culture of govt dependency, ridiculous incarceration rates, racist policing, suffocating regulation from city hall, terrible schools… all of those have a bigger impact and little to do with single vs double parents.

              None of which refutes the multiple studies that show children who grow up in single parent homes tend to be worse off than those in double parent homes. Sorry, the stats don’t take a backseat to your feelz.

  38. How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?

    Subjectively, of course.

    1. Not entirely unlike their enforcement regimes for Medicare/tax/social security/ebt fraud, or Obamacare implementation. “Incompetently” and “ham-fisted” are the first two terms that come to mind… They would fuck it up in stellar, breathtaking fashion..

      1. Yea, those are good terms too.

  39. Beware of the man with only one gun. He probably knows how to use it.

    1. + 1 Quigley

    2. Or if he has none, he might just take one of yours

      1. huh. The guy who gets chumped there is “Trevor” from GTA V. I’ve never actually seen him in anything.

  40. What an asshole. “I failed as badly as it’s possible to fail at being a father, so it’s obviously everyone’s fault but mine.”

    1. “But someone’s gonna get publicity out of this, so it may as well be me!”

  41. So, wait, the kid had an English daddy and was obsessed with the IRA? Is that right? That’s quite a way to manifest a daddy issue.

    1. Yes, and his relatives armed him.

      1. Congressman Peter King?

  42. Sorry to break it to you pal. The guns weren’t the lonely homicidal maniac. Your son was.

  43. Man loses touch with his son (suffers from learning disability) for two years, can’t believe his son bought guns and apparently accepted guns from relatives.

    My mom isn’t a Tiger mom, but she wouldn’t lose me for 2 years. No amount of “I’m my own man now and I want to live my life” Americana is going to persuade her.

    I’m convinced that a touch of shame based culture would do America some good. If you weigh 300 pounds, that’s not something to be “empowered” about. You won’t walk somewhere in Japan and see too many human hippos, because they’ll be pressured about it in the most passive aggressive way.

    Lots of 25 year olds are still kids. If they have no job and no future prospect, some decisions can be made on their behalf. You don’t send your emotionally unstable son to a far away college and lose track of him for 2 years. Yeah, you’re legally responsible for him. But your family and peers have every right to shame you and ridicule you.

    1. You’re not legally responsible

    2. So you want a suffocating society instead of a suffocating government?

      If the kid moves and doesn’t tell his parents what his new address or phone number is, how are they supposed to “keep track” of him? Hire a PI? Your mom wouldn’t lose track of you because you wouldn’t try to be lost track of, presumably.

      And if I weigh 300 pounds that’s my problem, and all the consequences that flow from weighing that much are my problem too. I never demanded accommodation. If you don’t like seeing me walking around, buy some blinders or better yet stay at fucking home, weight slaver.

        1. You never know who you’re talking to on the internet. The person you’re talking to has a whole history and set of personal traits and experiences that you’re not privy to. You have no idea, for example, whether they’ve had bouts with depression and overindulged in food to try to feel better.

          This realization would lead a normal person to avoid telling people to

      1. I said a touch of shame based culture. Can you read?

        Wasn’t kid was enrolled in this college? How did pay for tuition? And no, most parents wouldn’t lose track of their kids, and most kids don’t flee their house without a trace of information.

        If you let these mentally unstable kids isolate themselves in cocoon, stuff like this will happen. Almost all of these mass shooters break off from their families and society and marinate in their madness. You don’t want gun control because it wouldn’t work, that’s fine. It’s not unreasonable for society to take these clueless parents to task and do something about the breakdown of families.

        If you’re overweight, it’s not something to be proud of. But that’s how it is in America. I don’t want the government to dictate my diet, but its shouldn’t be “discriminatory” for me to express concerns about someone’s weight.

        This guy lost track of his son for two years, but he received guns from relatives. How did that happen? None of his relatives told the dad about that? The dad didn’t search the internet for his son?

        1. Forget it. You’re in Tulpa town.

        2. its shouldn’t be “discriminatory” for me to express concerns about someone’s weight.

          Unless it’s somebody you know well, it’s very nosy to do that. Losing weight is a very hard thing to do and ragging on someone about it is just going to make them resent you.

          I know someone’s going to pipe in and say “just eat right and exercise” — easy to say, hard to do for a person who’s not in the habit.

          1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

  44. No one should own guns PERIOD! they should be banned and for everyone. This includes the hypocritical politicians. How are you going to tell people to get rid of their handguns when you hypocrites have bodyguards with handguns protecting YOU? Be real LEADERS and live the way you want others to live. Then others will follow. Until then … we will do what YOU do…

    1. No one should own guns PERIOD! they should be banned and for everyone.

      Hell yes! And once we ban them, no one will have them! Just like no one has drugs!

        1. And prisons are really safe places too! Right?

    2. who bans the banners?

      1. Municipal advertising regulations?

  45. No one should own guns PERIOD! they should be banned and for everyone. This includes the hypocritical politicians. How are you going to tell people to get rid of their handguns when you hypocrites have bodyguards with handguns protecting YOU? Be real LEADERS and live the way you want others to live. Then others will follow. Until then … we will do what YOU do…

  46. We wouldn’t need guns if it weren’t for the kind of assholes who want us all disarmed.

    -jcr

  47. “That claim is debatable, to say the least.”

    No. No, it is not.

    “Calling for stricter gun control, Mercer argued that the mass shooting “would not have happened” if his son did not own so many firearms.”

    Yes. Yes, it would have.

    1. His son was like this, only with guns.

    2. His argument would make sense if his son had gone on his little spree using several muskets. Applying that kind of nonsensical thinking to semiautos or revolvers is the height of stupidity. I’ll cut the guy a bit of slack because he’s obviously in the middle of a very hard time but the people who are taking this idea and running with it really deserve nothing but ridicule.

      1. “I’ll cut the guy a bit of slack because he’s obviously in the middle of a very hard time”

        Not me. Either he’s being honest and he actually thinks guns are to blame, which only highlights the shittiness of his parenting and moral character (not that he should take the blame, but that he should at least admit his son made an evil decision) Or he actually knows that the problem is the fact that his son is to blame, but he’s lying to deflect that fact or for some other ulterior motive, which makes him a liar and a douche.

        1. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt for at least a month or more. It’s been what, less than a week? Fucking media vultures.

        2. The mom is the one the kid was around in the time leading to this. Where is she?

  48. RE: “How would the government enforce limits on how many guns you are allowed to own?”

    Ummmmm…. the same way they enforce other laws. If you are suspected of owning more guns than you should, send the police with a warrant to search your home. If more guns are found there than allowed, have a prosecutor charge you. If convicted, sentence you to 50 years in solitary confinement.

    1. You need to do something about the adjective in your handle.

      1. You never read THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS??? Who brought you up?

    2. How is owning 20 guns more dangerous than owning 2?

      1. In fiction, you can use all of them at the same time.

  49. Who needs courage, when you can have… a government?

  50. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  51. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  52. He seems cullish.

  53. He should also blame some friends and other peoples then his son visited.

    That comic seem to be right on target. http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2…..-peasants/

  54. Maybe he should have been a better father?

  55. Calling for stricter gun control, Mercer argued that the mass shooting “would not have happened” if his son did not own so many firearms.

    It would also not have happened if he had raised his son better.

    I think we should pass laws that hold parents liable and criminally responsible for the actions of their children.

  56. “How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?”

    Easy peasy lemon squeezy, you pass a law. Boom, then it shall be so.

  57. Already this morning on Derpbook I saw someone post that what we need is a constitutional amendment to ban guns. He backed his reasoning by saying that prohibition was a success because everyone was drunk and now they are not.

    I SWEAR TO GOD.

  58. Already this morning on Derpbook I saw someone post that what we need is a constitutional amendment to ban guns. He backed his reasoning by saying that prohibition was a success because everyone was drunk and now they are not.

    I SWEAR TO GOD.

  59. The father of the Oregon mass shooter is trying to blame guns for his failure as a father. The mass shooters came from divorced homes where the mother had custody. These mass shootings did not happen at this rate 100 years ago when everyone had a gun, and most boys had a father in their lives. The State is an enabler to this father absence by being involved in the family/marriage/divorce racket, when the State acts as the enforcer collecting child support payments, it makes the father a slave with responsibilities, but no authority. His master is the mother of his children, and the State, enforced by the State gun toters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.