Gun Control

Why Was There a 12-Year Gap in the Gun Debate?

What happened to gun control from 2000 to 2012? Funny you should ask...


Forward, into the past!

When Hillary Clinton unveiled her plans for new gun controls yesterday, she sounded a nostalgic note for her husband's years in the White House. "There are a lot of ways for us to have constitutional, legal gun restrictions," she said. "My husband did. He passed the Brady bill, and he eliminated assault weapons for 10 years. So we're gonna take them on. We took them on in the '90s. We're gonna take them on again."

Some voters, listening to this, might wonder whether anyone was taking "them" on after the '90s ended. The short answer is: not really. Oh, the anti-gun lobby was still around, and they would occasionally send me lonely-sounding press releases. And some fights still flared up over local laws, with two of those battles making it to the Supreme Court. But as far as national politics were concerned, there was a great gap in the gun debate: a period of more than a decade when Washington did not see a significant push for new restrictions on the right to bear arms.

As with any historical period, we can argue about when exactly this started and stopped. But if precise dating is your thing, you can say it began on November 7, 2000, and ended on December 14, 2012. The first is the day Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee, a loss many observers blamed—along with his losses in several other swing states—on his support for stricter gun laws. The second is the day of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Gore's defeat may have convinced the Democratic establishment that gun control was a losing issue, but this wasn't simply a matter of centrists backing down from a fight. When Vermont Gov. Howard Dean briefly roared into the lead in the 2004 primary season, damning the me-tooers who had endorsed the Iraq War and claiming to represent the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," he simultaneously touted his history of getting NRA endorsements. When the left-wing netroots who assembled themselves behind Dean moved on to other races, their movement's darlings included such figures as Brian Schweitzer, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb, all of them fairly friendly to gun rights. While their exact opinions varied, the standard line was that different regulations may be appropriate in different parts of the country, that their parts of the country were quite happy with their weapons, and that the feds should pretty much butt out.

Further left than that, you could still hear remnants of the old '60s arguments that gun control is racist and gives too much power to the police. (I wouldn't necessarily say this was the dominant position in radical circles, but it wasn't an unusual one either.) And the average left-tilting intellectual sort, the kind of person who doesn't get involved with politics herself but reads magazines like The Atlantic or Harper's, had plenty of opportunites to encounter liberal-friendly arguments that gun laws don't work very well or that the Second Amendment really does protect an individual right.

Barack Obama plays with a gun.

By 2007, the Democratic Party was capable of issuing a press release mocking Mitt Romney as a Johnny-come-lately on gun freedoms. (Sample quote: "Romney's decision to duck the NRA meeting raises important questions. Was Romney afraid to be ridiculed by real NRA members over his claim to have been a hunter 'pretty much all my life,' despite having never been issued a hunting license and having been on just two hunting trips? Or was Romney simply trying to avoid explaining his real record on gun control issues?") The trend did not end when a Democrat entered the White House. In Barack Obama's first term, the president's most notable acts related to gun rights were to sign a bill allowing people to bring loaded weapons into national parks and a bill letting Amtrak passengers pack firearms in their checked baggage. The latter reversed a ban put in place after 9/11, making Amtrak the one place where Obama's policies have been more gun-friendly than George W. Bush's.

That was then, this is now. The ground started to shift with some high-profile shootings in 2012, and the dam burst with the massacre at Sandy Hook.

When I say the ground started to shift, I'm not referring to mass opinion: According to the Pew Research Center, public support for gun rights actually increased after the Connecticut killings. Nor had the general patterns of American crime changed substantially: While the number of gun homicides did go up slightly in 2012, the next year saw the figure resume its decline. But the anti-gun lobby was energized, and we began to see a change in the sorts of positions a Democrat was expected to take. Each of the party's prominent presidential candidates except Webb—even Bernie Sanders, who had been relatively pro-gun for much of his career—has started calling for new controls, harking back to the sorts of proposals we saw the last time a Clinton was president. Hence Hillary's promise to "take them on again."

Pleasing as this may sound to some parts of the Democratic coalition, other activists on the left have been wary. Bill Clinton's gun controls were tightly linked to his tough-on-crime posturing; indeed, by driving Republicans to oppose what was presented as law'n'order legislation, they were a classic case of Clintonian triangulation. His assault weapons ban, a law generally regarded as having no notable impact on crime rates, was embedded in the crime bill of 1994, a law that did so much to amp up incarceration that the former president eventually apologized for its effects. His Gun-Free Schools Act, also passed in 1994, helped launch the era of zero tolerance and the school-to-prison pipeline. Basically, the Clinton-era anti-gun rhetoric that this year's candidates have been reviving overlapped heavily with the Clinton-era carceral policies that the candidates have made a big deal of rejecting. And the more the party's leaders flirt with ideas like an Australian-style confiscation of weapons, with all the intrusive policing that would require in a gun-loving culture like America's, the more that tension will look like a full-fledged contradiction.

But if the dozen-year gap in the gun debate can be forgotten, I suppose the context of the last war on guns can go down the memory hole too. This is how the battle lines look today, and this is how they're going to keep looking—until the next time everything suddenly changes.

NEXT: Covenant House Spreads Lies About Sex Trafficking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Re: Amtrak
    He was right for the wrong reasons. At the time, you could already check firearms into aircraft luggage.

    This wasn’t about being gun friendly. It was about being train friendly.

    1. Hillary Clinton is promising to eliminate the second amendment by executive order. And I believe she would easily get away with it. Our government employees know the American people are a bunch of stupid idiots and cowards that are terrified of government at all levels. The American people know that their government can fuck with them at any time for any reason. And that government crooks are above the law. But, the people like it that way.

  2. That Hillary picture. So……Leninist? Or Stalinist?

    1. I don’t know. But that guy looks weird in a turtleneck.

      1. Steve Jobs sans glasses.

    2. I believe it is more Maoist.

      1. Mao, pos-def.

        1. “The East is red BLUE and the sun rises; in China DC there emerges Mao Tse-tung HILLARY!”

          1. All the rays focus on Our Savior, Heil Hillary! Heil Hillary!

            Y’all FLUNK! She isn’t Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, Wonkist, Skunkist, or Punkist… Nor Sun-kissed either…

            She is HILLARYIST, the NEW and IMPROVED brand! Guaranteed plutonium free! All Hail!!!

    3. Sprockets

      1. +1 would you like to touch my monkey

        1. Even my donkey would NOT touch your monkey, not even with a 10-foot dwonky…

      2. This is outstanding

      3. Is this the part when we dance?

    4. Depends…do you like her better with a thick moustache or with the thinner moustache with goatee?

      I like to color it in both ways.

      Caption: Menopause, like Hillary, is a bitch!

    5. Cultist.

  3. I’m trying to decide if people seemingly more willing to admit this is bad or good.

    In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.

    1. I always feel better when people are more open and honest about their intentions.

      1. Sometimes people are only honest when they think they have the power to get away with it. Of course just because someone thinks they can get away with it doesn’t mean they can. They could just live in a bubble and have no clue how unpopular their ideas are to the rest of the country.

        1. They’re seeing the MSM reports, and the surveys saying that 90% want background checks and that gun ownership is shrinking away.

          They don’t see the spikes in gun sales, 12,000,000 CHLs and rising, a majority of states strengthening gun rights, and new-shooter classes full of young urban women.

          1. And those of us who refuse to get a CHL because we find the idea of asking permission to exercise a right to be offensive.

            1. This really is what it comes down to, isn’t it: the demand that we ask permission to defend ourselves.

              The sad thing is, it’s the inner-cities where the need to defend one’s self is greatest on a routine basis. That should be the hotbed of gun support.

      2. So do we.


    2. I would say bad. Good that they are honest, bad that they feel comfortable talking about confiscation openly.

      1. Talk away. If Hillbot is ready to concede the election this early, I’m all for it.

      2. In this case it’s not. These people are deluded and can’t see outside their bubble. They think the masses are on their side, but support for gun rights continues to rise.

        1. They think the stupid masses can be hoodwinked into granting them enough power to keep said power. There’s a difference.

        2. The majority may stop to consider guns as being a right but how many of them think healthcare is a more important right? How many would not stop to think about trying to trade a liberty for a percieved security?

    3. I appreciate the honesty. We all know that’s their endgame, it’s best to be upfront about it now

    4. Who cares. Fuck him.

      1. Nope. For one thing, I’m male and heterosexual. For another, there are parts of my body with which I will not touch a fascist.

    5. and he complains about the WaPo editorial board being firmly statist? pot/kettle.

      1. No, he’s annoyed that they’re establishmentarian, which isn’t the same and probably means they’re not statist enough for him.

    6. I think it would be great (for gun rights) if the antis admitted that they do in fact want to take your guns away.

      They’ve been fooling a lot of people with that “nobody wants to take your guns away” shit for decades now. I’ve even met numerous gun owners (including owners of “assault weapons”) who vote blue because they believe that gun control laws would not progress past a certain “reasonable” point.

      Most anti-gun people already support confiscation, so it’s not like they can get much more extreme. If more people openly called for confiscation, the only significant change would be that fence-sitters and slightly pro-gun people would be forced to face the fact that confiscation is the goal, just like we’ve said all along, and that you must vote a certain way if you want to protect your gun rights.

    7. I love how the Talking Points Memo site is so bold in their proposal.

      It is a nice contrast with the fact that their huge pussies in not allowing comments on their site.

      Seems about right for progtards.

    8. “In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns. Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.”

      Quite literally, Molon Labe MoFo.

      I know he means that he wants to arrange for the government to come and take them but – since this is merely a hypothetical discussion – I relish the idea that he and any 50 of his ilk might attempt to knock on my door and demand my guns.

    9. Go ahead Josh- Stand on my front porch and personally tell me you’re going to take my guns.

      See how that works out for you…

  4. “There are a lot of ways for us to have constitutional, legal gun restrictions,”

    Frankly, its hard for me to reconcile “gun restrictions” with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “Restrictions” sound like per se “infringements”, to me.

    1. Whatever regulated meant in the past, today it means subject to bureaucracy. So it’s right there in the Bill of Rights.

      1. Sure, sure. Reading “a well-regulated militia” to mean “a militia subject to federal control” (which is a little odd, given that the prefatory clause refers specifically to States, but whatev), I think the feds could probably adopt a Militia Act.

        Oh, look! They already did! And not a bit of gun control in it.

        1. Lincoln settled that state issue. States should shut the fuck up and follow orders, if they know what’s good for em.

        2. not does not begin by specifically referring to “the States”. The term “free state” means society as a whole, in other words, simply the security of all the folks who live within the political borders in question. It is the present FedGov wanting to manufacture some sort of legal control out of nothing that promote the view you mention. The intent in that Second is simply that the PEOPLE bear the responsibility for their own security, and in order to effect that responsibility, they MUST have the ability to freely possess and use arms.

    2. Kind of like common sense campaign finance restrictions somehow don’t violate “congress shall make no law”.


      *points at RC Dean*

    4. “Infringe” is an old, white, slave owner word, you gun-loving, misogynistic racists.

      1. dream on.. or did I mis the sarcasm font? Not a crumb of truth in your post.

        1. You missed the sarc tags. Juggler is one of us. 😀

  5. He passed the Brady bill, and he eliminated assault weapons for 10 years.

    And then gun homicides went up after it expired, right? Right?

    1. Don’t bring logic, history, or statistics into this argument! It’s that “Top Men” tried something that matters!

    2. He passed the Brady bill, and he eliminated assault weapons for 10 years.

      The irony of this statement is that people murdered by “assault weapons” (read: scary-looking rifles) was never a major factor in firearm violence during the late 80s and early 90s. The rise in firearm murders during that period was entirely attributable to handguns.

      And of course the Brady Bill never would have stopped our recent spate of incel nerds from buying guns and killing people because they had no criminal record to speak of.

      1. And the weapons continued to be sold sans bayinet lugs and flash suppressers.

        1. Which is funny since you don’t much read about people using bayonets on their rifles to kill people in suburbia. I’m not saying their hasn’t been a case, but fucking seriously … Demonizing a bayonet lug is stupid. About as dumb as when they think AR means assault rifle.

  6. And the more the party’s leaders flirt with ideas like an Australian-style confiscation of weapons, with all the intrusive policing that would require in a gun-loving culture like America’s, the more that tension will look like a full-fledged contradiction.

    This is a losing issue for the Democrats, but they don’t understand why. They truly can’t wrap their heads around why anyone would have an opposite opinion on the subject (more so maybe even than any other subject they can’t believe anyone would have an opposite opinion on). They will continue to butt up against it time and again.

    1. Just as the Stupid Party can’t resist the abortion issue, the Evil Party can’t resist gun control. They really can’t help themselves.

      1. ^this.

        1. ^ this + 259… Talk about over-interpreting your (sometimes imagined) mandate…

  7. Bring back Clinton-era gun policy, pretty please.

    -Corrections officer unions

  8. I hear that in CT where they passed some new gun laws people just ignored them. The government does not have the money or man power to start searching peoples homes and it would cause an uproar that would get these laws reversed.

    Let’s not forget many Americans are already afraid of their government and though most would just lay down their weapons,,, many would not.

    We are not a Mono-Culture, we have ethnic, racial, and regional differences (which the urbanized Democrats don’t seem to understand) and who are they going to send to take people guns, mostly people who have more in common with the gun owners than the “senders”.

    1. Too many people are willing to go along to get along. I’m kinda pessimistic about the long term trend of liberty in America.

      1. Now, 3. Haven’t you been paying attention? I am given to understand that our halting efforts to legalize pot, the availability of gay marriage, and the ability to ask permission to bear arms in nearly every state, mean that the long-term trend is toward liberty!

        Pay no attention to all those new laws, regulations, bureaucrats, etc.

        1. But we have smart phones, Uber, and many choices in entertainment, so awesomeness will REIGN.

          I just listened to a podcast discussing bank solvency – very depressing.

        2. Libertarian moment! is momentary.

        3. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!!11!!!!!! /retard

        4. Right.

          Try that the next time you’re at the airport. Just walk past those TSA goons.

    2. “The government does not have the money or man power to start searching peoples homes” No, the government can’t find enough cops brave/stupid enough to kick down a gun owners door and announce that they’re at his residence to steal his firearms!

  9. In other news, here in Cincinnati you must now strip down to the satisfaction of deputies to get into the ultra-secret, super high value target of…the county administration building.

    Who knows, a terrorist or “gun-nut” might want to penetrate the building to…pay their property taxes?

    While I was gently scoffing, one of the deputies got a little defensive (to his partial credit, just defensive, not aggressive) and said “well, what if something were to happen?”

    I asked “What has happened in the last hundred years?”

    If my ass gets shot on government property where I’m not even allowed to carry a pocket knife, I’m suing the ever loving bejesus out of somebody.

    1. well, what if something were to happen?

      “Something is happening. You’re violating at least two, and probably three, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

  10. From “Gun ownership rises 10 per cent across NSW”:

    Alarmingly, in 22 of the state’s 600 postcodes, registered guns outnumber people.

    This includes four postcodes where guns outnumber people two to one.

    “There are hundreds of thousands more guns now than following the gun buyback.”

    1. I can’t decide if I find it more alarming that, (a) in 578 of 600 postcodes, people outnumber registered guns, or (b) people in 22 postcodes have actually submitted to gun registration to such a degree.

      1. I suspect those 22 postcodes are the wealthier postcodes and expect their political donations to protect their guns…

        1. They’re in for quite a shock.

          “B-b-but… I thought you were only going to confiscate guns from people I don’t like. You know, rednecks and gang bangers. Not from people like me!”

          1. Fuck, I can’t imagine a gentrified proggie would be able to even hold onto a gun without dropping it in abject fear and running the other way.

            I mean because we all know it the gun that’s evil, not these deranged shooters.

        2. The wealthiest ones are inner Sydney, so I doubt it.

      2. Exactly.

        As Ayn Rand said: “The government will make so many laws, they can make criminals out of anyone, if they so chose…”

        1. And when you think about it, that would be a very powerful tool of Societal Control
          Exactly what our forefather warned us of.

  11. The distrust the general population feels for the government is at historically high levels. That’s a good thing. As long as that persists gun control won’t fly. Now, if the public were to begin to see the government acting with competence and restraint then it might be possible. HAHAHAHAHHA, deep breath, HAHAHAHAHHA. Not gonna happen.

    1. Ah, the 60s, that golden age of democracy when America was governed by a dynastic clan of drunks, criminals, and philanderers.

    2. President Obama is scheduled to visit Roseburg on Friday.


    3. late-20th century primitives. /scoff

  12. That pic of Obama is one of the very few that doesn’t inspire loathing in me.

      1. Meh, that one’s just goofy. I assumed he was doing some campaign call, and as much as I despise politicians, I wouldn’t wish the necessities of campaigning on anyone.

        1. I assume that is what he looks like when he is ordering tactical airstrikes on brown people.

      2. That link didn’t work for me so I typed “obama_smug.jpg” into Google Images and wished I hadn’t.

    1. That picture has yet to be taken for me.

      1. Oh, c’mon, Sapient. He actually comes off as a normal guy having fun with his kids in that pic.

        I know, I know . . . on the taxpayer dime and all that. Still. . . .

      2. He’s black in all of them.

        1. You’re half right.

  13. There’s something off about this article.


    It needs more Commonzenze!

  14. I seem to recall during the 2004 election a lot of pants-wetting about the expiration of the MSR ban.

    Its also a subject that has come up every year since 2005 in the Illinois legislature.

  15. 1,000,000 New York State gun owners REFUSED to register them in 2014..


    1. The talk over in NPR/Salon comments has it that they’re going to amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment.

      Progressives have always had a problem with overestimating their support, but I’ve never seen it so bad before.

      Do they really think they can get 3/4 of the state legislatures to repeal the Second Amendment?

      If they tried, we might not see a Democratic majority on either side of Congress for another generation, and in the state legislatures it would even be worse. Traditional swing states would almost certainly turn bright red.

      I almost hope it happens. It’s just that states usually get seven years to vote on Constitutional Amendments, and I’m afraid of what the Republicans might do with a super majority for so long on foreign policy and War on Terror issues.

      1. I hope they do too. Also hope bern wins so he van wreck the economy. Progs would be buried forever. Though they will jusy blame market failure and try to grab more.

        Proggies are really delusional

  16. It should also be noted that President Clinton’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban in his first term in the ’90s was met with the Republicans taking over the House in 1994–for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration. Why would she want to revisit that?

    The other impact of Clinton’s anti-gun polices was an explosion in the militia movement, which only started declining after the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Even someone as obtuse as Hillary Clinton must have learned something from those outrageous policy failures. The best explanation is that she’s feeling a lot of pressure from Bernie Sanders, and she wants to differentiate herself from Sanders (since he has a long record on being pro-Second Amendment) on an issue that fires up the Democratic base/primary voters.

    1. I forgot to add…

      1) The Republicans taking over the House and 2) the firing up of the militia movement against gun control were two other reasons why there was a gap in federal anti-gun legislation–between 1994 (the year the Republicans took the House) and 2000, when Al Gore lost his home state.

  17. In Barack Obama’s first term, the president’s most notable acts related to gun rights were to sign a bill allowing people to bring loaded weapons into national parks and a bill letting Amtrak passengers pack firearms in their checked baggage.

    According to the Peanut Gallery this didn’t happen.

    1. Tony’s a better troll than you.

      His ignorance and stupidity are at least sometimes entertaining.

      Your comment isn’t even interesting enough to register a yawn.

      1. Shouldn’t you be out campaigning for Carly?

        I will be voting for the Libertarian Party candidate like I did in 2012.

        1. -1 yawn

          1. I asked you if you had stopped supporting Carly last week and you insisted you had not.

            She is a typical Big Gov Drug Warrior GOPer.

            1. I said I support Rand Paul, and I think she’d be better than Trump or Ben Carson.

              I’d tell you not to quote me if you can’t quote me properly, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you quote anybody or anything properly–so why bother?

              P.S. -1 yawn.

              1. I always presume that “libertarians” who vote republitard are just neo-con assclowns who want to be less embarassed in front of their progtard friends.

                Into the woodchipper with the rest of’em!

    2. It didn’t happen.

      He signed the CARD Act, which is what he wanted.

      Sending it back to Congress to remove a minor section he didn’t want would likely have meant changes he didn’t like to the parts he actually wanted.

      On a stand-alone bill, he’d have vetoed respecting our rights in Parks with glee.

      1. You’ll need to provide evidence for that claim.

        I distinctly remember Obama repeating his campaign promise to respect the 2nd Amendment.

        1. Well, lets see.

          He spent 8 years on the board of an organization that funds studies to try and gin up support for gun bans, then there is his extensive legislative history of supporting various gun bans, as well as his extensive public remarks supporting bans on concealed carry and the possession of certain types of firearms.

          1. YEah, PB doesn’t respond to ironclad facts.

    3. According to Weigel, Obama is lying when he says he really wants to restrict gun rights, but hasn’t been able to.

      Even though he isn’t running for re-election, and even though the progs already hate him (again, according to Weigel), Obama feels this bizarre need to say what the progs want to hear.

  18. It isn’t so much a debate as it is one side stating things logically and citing statistics and the other side calling the pro gun people baby killers and apologists for murder.

    The only thing that will convince either side on this issue is a serious drubbing at the polls. I just hope it’s the anti-gunners who are delusional because they love in a bubble, not us.

    1. live in a bubble
      damn it

    2. I think this is a wedge issue for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, and that’s it.

      She’s trying to drive a wedge between Bernie Sanders and his progressive support on gun control.

      That’s it.

      She’d rather not be seen as anti-gun in the general election, but now she’s worried about losing the nomination to Sanders like she did to Obama.

      1. She’s certainly dancing to the left here but I think you’re mistaken. In my view, she’s a true believer who feels unfettered by her party’s left turn.

        I hope you’re right, though. After all, she just might win.

      2. Seriously, does anyone who has ever even touched a firearm, and heard of Hillary, not know that she’s as die-hard anti as Feinstein and crew?

    3. Sounds like the AGW debate where conservatives deny science and statistics are real.

      I agree, the left is mostly wrong about gun control.

      1. Sure, both sides do it. Libertarians never distort facts and stats (unless it benefits them, of course).

        1. I’d argue as libertarian there’s far less need to since the entire idea isn’t riddled with a parade of contradictory opinions.

          Life is easier when a belief construct is at least consistent. I remind my wife of this every time she says something fascist (both her parents were gubment school teachers, she blindly punches straight progtard tickets, she is hopelessly indoctrinated and gets angry when I compare her thought process to Islamic fundamentalists, but I digress).

      2. “Sounds like the AGW debate where conservatives deny science and statistics are real.”

        Contrarians mostly acknowledge the reality of AGW–what they deny is the likelihood of CAGW (Catastrophic AGW, which depends on there being big positive feedbacks, which haven’t manifested themselves yet, and are unlikely to do so).

        Liberals are pretty deft with AGW statistics too. E.g., redefining sea level as oceanic volume (which is increasing, because of the subsidence of certain ocean floors), to make it look as though the sea level is rising more than it is.

  19. I was disappointed in not finding the “smoking gun” on the 12-year gap on the debate…


    1. Maybe it’s vaping instead

  20. The answer is Millennials, the new brainwashed masses of the left that helped elect Obama to two terms. After Sandy Hook they were going crazy and driving the gun control debate.

  21. I guess I don’t remember there being a 12 year gap. Maybe it’s because I’m typically surrounded by progressives, but I remember a lot of gun control talk after Tucson, Virginia Tech and the Bowling for Columbine crap.

    1. But even Bowling for Columbine, bad as it was, pretty much came out and said that gun control doesn’t do much good. And while there was a bit of gun control talk after the Tucson shooting?you can arguably date the ground starting to shift back to there?the main narrative it fed was The Tea Party Is Scary, not Guns Are Scary. Even though the shooter turned out not to be a Tea Partier.

  22. “and he eliminated assault weapons for 10 years.”

    That would explain Diane Feinstein’s complaints one month after passage where decried the “skirting” of the law.

    1. The greatest thing about the assault weapons ban was that it never actually banned those weapons. It sure as hell helped sell a lot of them.

      1. I would really love to know the multiplier of ar15’s that exist now compared to before Clinton. Ten times as many? A hundred? Keep yapping your gobs dems.

  23. Hillary’s facebook post showed up in my feed after someone I know commented on it. The post was her anti-gun rant. I commented Please keep talking about gun control Hillary. PLEASE!

  24. The leftists will not be satisfied until all gun are confiscated.

    Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

    1. damn you 50word limit
      here’s the tiny url

  25. 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!……


    1. Making amateur porn videos! 😉

  26. There was no massacre at Sandy Hook. The building that it was supposed to have taken place in was decommissioned in 2007 because of asbestos and mold contamination. It was being used to store school furniture.

    1. I still don’t understand this theory. Government fakes school shooting, for what purpose?

      If they’re able to falsify stuff with impunity they could just take over gun manufacturers and shut down production, all while hiding it.

  27. So what is the answer to the undeniable gun violence problem in America. Yeah there is a second amendment that allows people to own guns. The Libertarian response just sounds hollow in the face of mass shootings. Is the libertarian line just mention that citizens have a right to guns and whatever proposed legislation to help curb that violence just won’t work? Even Ayn Rand was ambivalent about gun rights. I am not trolling you. Probably looking for answers in the comment section is a dumb idea in the first place. Prove me wrong.

    1. The libertarian response to “The Gun Problem”(tm) is that, while murder of numerous innocent people is truly deplorable increased regulation of firearms is not a useful response to these incidents.

      There are mass murderers in all societies – even in “civilized” and “developed” ones (regardless of how you want to define those terms). If you understood anything about incindiary devices you would be glad that most deranged killers focus on gun use rather than gasoline, thermite, or any other number of readily availible/producible substances which could be employed to kill people by the hundreds.

      1. If you understood anything about incindiary devices you would be glad that most deranged killers focus on gun use rather than gasoline, thermite, or any other number of readily availible/producible substances which could be employed to kill people by the hundreds.

        It’s happened before and it’s still the biggest school massacre of US history.

        1. The Columbine devils has propane tanks rigged to blow, but didn’t get the chance to set them off. The death toll would have been in the hundreds…

    2. End the drug war. The vast majority of gun homicides in the U.S. stem from drug prohibition or issues relating to drug prohibition (like creating more broken homes with ridiculous minimum sentences).

  28. Great article.

  29. Methinks gun rights supporters are getting very overconfident. In Heller and McDonald, four SCOTUS justices voted to completely gut the Second Amendment by creating an exception for laws aiming to reduce violent crime.

    Unless the GOP can win back the White House (highly unlikely for the foreseeable future), once Kennedy or Scalia retires, Heller and McDonald are getting reversed ASAP. Stare decisis only applies to court decisions that liberals agree with.

    1. An SC reversal merely fucks over people in deep-blue states and cities.

      The most important battleground remains federal law, as that applies to everyone.

    2. Methinks you totally misunderstand this country and what it stands for.

  30. Gun restrictions only work on law-abiding citizens.
    And even then, only to the extent they don’t put us in danger.
    The strictest gun zones have the highest crime rates, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to do the math.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.