Gun Rights

Threatening Cherished Gun Rights Confirms Americans' Worst Fears Without Improving Safety

Gun controllers advocate the imposition of laws that have already failed on people who won't obey them, to address crimes already decreasing in prevalence.


Freedom-averse types are forever looking for confirmation of their fears that letting people live their lives and voluntarily interact with others unmolested is fraught with peril. In no other area is this more apparent than in the personal ownership and enjoyment of firearms. Advocates of tighter legal restrictions look on every crime committed with a gun and see in it a crystal-clear argument that anybody who didn't commit that crime should be disarmed. It doesn't seem to bother them that their proposed "remedies" would restrict human activity in a way that treads heavily on what many Americans, including the United States Supreme Court, consider to be individual rights closely tied to the country's founding philosophy. And never mind that those "remedies" are largely pointless, unenforceable, and guaranteed to spark mass defiance by tens of millions of gun owners.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe," noted Noah Webster (the dictionary guy) in 1787. He argued that the proposed Constitution didn't need an explicit bill of rights because Americans were too gunned-up to let the government get away with much. As a Federalist, Webster supported the big-government faction of the day, against those more skeptical of concentrated political power. He lost the argument over the Bill of Rights, but his reference to an armed populace as a given fact of life—echoed by James Madison in The Federalist No. 46—permeates the thinking of those many modern Americans who see the right to bear arms as a natural individual right that checks the power of government.

Some pundits think that's just old-fashioned thinking. "Private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict," sniffs Cornell University's Michael C. Dorf.

Well, it's true that B-52s would make short work of fife-tootling gun owners who conveniently crowded themselves onto a big red X painted in a parking lot someplace.  But while some gun owners no doubt fantasize about playing the role of modern George Washingtons, a more appropriate inspiration might be Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's musing in Gulag Archipelago, "What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

You don't have to defeat an entire government to protect your freedom—just the goons in the hallway outside your apartment.

Already steeped in a historically founded distrust of agents of the state, gun owners are also understandably resistant to arguments that, rather than be prepared to defend themselves against assailants, they're supposed to depend on those same agents as protection against the bad actors of the world.

Cynicism about the intentions of government employees aside, the inability of the police to act as personal bodyguards for the entire population makes dependence on them a cold comfort at best.

That the laws restrictionists forever put forward after terrorist attacks and mass shootings always seem yanked from the shelf, dusted off, and irrelevant to the crimes at hand doesn't help their case any. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) pointed out that none of the mass shootings of recent memory would have been prevented by the usual legislative suspects, gun controllers scoffed—until the Washington Post's Fact Checker conceded that not only was he right, but "[n]otably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines."

People who see firearms ownership as an important personal right that defends them against bad actors and checks the power of the state should surrender that cherished freedom in favor of…intrusive laws that have already failed the test? Tell us more.

To give them credit, gun controllers' arguments have proven very persuasive—in favor of gun rights. After the San Bernardino terror attack, The New York Times editorialized on the front page for tighter gun laws, including confiscation of "slightly modified combat rifles."

Within a week, a poll conducted by the same newspaper found opposition to The Times' editorial board's favorite restrictions higher than ever.

Not that gun owners are looking for permission to snub gun laws. When Connecticut passed a law requiring so-called "assault weapons"—scary-looking semiautomatic rifles–to be registered, state residents responded with 15 percent compliance. A similar law in New York drew only 5 percent obedience in a state generally considered a hotbed of support for tougher controls.

That's only registration. What would the reaction be to fulfilling The Times' desire to "require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up"?

Even less-intrusive measures are unlikely to get any traction if codified into law. Prof. James Jacobs, director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, favors expanding background checks to cover sales of guns between private individuals. But he admitted to me in an interview last summer that it's "very easy to get around" such restrictions on inherently private transactions. Some buyers and sellers might be willing to submit to background check requirements, but others would not.

In the midst of debates over a hot-button political right, with major newspapers calling for confiscation, defiance of such requirements is likely to be more the rule than the exception.

And there's a strong "why bother?" argument against pushing intrusive laws that have already failed to prevent crimes, and are guaranteed to accomplish nothing but (once again—remember Prohibition and marijuana?) expose the government's impotence when a substantial portion of the citizenry refuses to obey. Headline-grabbing incidents aside, violent crime has been in decline for decades, even as gun ownership has soared. The latest FBI figures show "the 2014 estimated violent crime total was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and 16.2 percent below the 2005 level."

That's as the number of guns in private hands climbs every year from an estimated 192 million firearms in 1994 to perhaps 310 million by 2009. Californians, lauded for having the most restrictive laws in the country by the Brady Campaign, have been purchasing almost one million new guns per year that won't suddenly evaporate if the law books suddenly get revised.

Nor will they be a cause of much in the way of crime, to judge by the statistics. They may deter it instead.

And every time a prominent politician bloviates about tightening the screws, people around the country buy more (Black Friday was yet another record-breaker for firearm purchases).

Extra credit to President Obama for bundling due process with self-defense rights in a clever scheme to threaten them both at one blow.

But those fretters over supposedly excessive freedom never seem to learn. They advocate the imposition of laws that have already failed on people who won't obey them, to address crimes that are already decreasing in prevalence. And in doing so, they confirm gun owners' fears about the hostility of government officials and their allies to valued individual rights.

Strong work.

NEXT: Pando Appalled That Uber Hires High-Powered Politicos, Media Allegedly Ignoring It

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

  1. It does often take a while for the average American to see connections, but with the rise in violence around the world those who proudly denounce gun-ownership seem more and more disconnected to reality. Why would the average person eschew the security of self and surrender that ultimate and primal right to the state?

  2. I have been slowly coming around to the viewpoint that the gun grabbers are getting more and more desperate, and most of my thoughts stem from their increasingly strident screams for worse and worse gun control, and even outright confiscation. The NYT screams for confiscation, suddenly other gun grabbers echo it, and that word is precisely their problem — they are notorious for deleting adverse comments on facebook, comment sections, etc, as if they have their fingers in their ears and can’t stand to compete in the market place of ideas. In short, they have pushed themselves into a safe room, an echo chamber, where they are out of touch with the reality of so many states loosening gun laws.

    I think they are in for some rude shocks as far as gun reality goes.

    1. i think their biggest fear, is that gun crimes will go down, and they won’t have a new restriction they can claim credit with. the trends are clear. homicides are on the decline, and will continue to decline. based on the correlations that do exist with other factors, it will be significant. if they get new gun laws through, they can claim credit. if they don’t, their whole line of reasoning falls flat on its face.

      the problem is that the core of them knows that guns are not the problem… knows the facts are against them… but they are philosophically, and emotionally opposed to the very existence of guns.

    2. They started to really panic once 3d printing became a thing.

  3. Why bother with more “useless” gun laws? Can you imagine the extra business for the prison industrial complex? Can you imagine the enhancements to prosecutor resumes when gunowners who are charged with some other offense can also be charged with possessing any these most hated of inanimate objects?

    1. Considering that we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world, it would be a real problem. Compounding that is that the people being added to the list of incarcerated would be mostly white, middle class, voting Americans…

      I don’t think the grabbers think this stuff through very well.

    2. The PIC wouldn’t grow in business but the funeral home business would see a sharp increase as battles between agents of the state and the citizenry increased. Then we would have a Gun Owners Lives Matter movement and the conservatives would be against removing the ban because conservatives hate giving the state power but hate even more losing the power that the state was granted. Liberals would mean while take up the fight for repealing gun laws because they love giving the state power just so they can turn around to fight to take it back. Meanwhile independent thinkers will be left shaking their heads.

    3. Conjectural thought based around private ownership of firearms becoming illegal.

      Man wakes up in the middle of the night, finds a stranger in his house preparing to stab his young son in the chest with a butcher knife. He raises his Glock 22 and and squeezes the trigger twice. Two rounds center mass. He then calls the police and informs them that he has shot a would be assailant in his home, Police arrive to find family huddled in a corner, understandably shaken. The criminal is dead and is hauled away in a body bag. The police grab dad and haul him away in handcuffs. Possession of a firearm is a crime. He admitted that it was he who had done the shooting, his name is in the NCIS database as having purchased the firearm in question. He retained said firearm despite the mandatory buyback law. Dad saved his son’s life, but the son gets to grow up without a father.

      Not an if,… when.

      1. I see you’ve been to Britain.

        1. Nope; it is an inevitable scenario when the means of self-defense are declared illegal.

      2. But Agent Gibbs would never let that happen!

        I know you meant NCIC, but I couldn’t resist the joke. 🙂

        Obviously, the proper response in such a world is to eliminate everything after the third sentence of your hypothetical. Replace it with independent action involving shovels and silence and certainly no police. If exercising your inherent human rights requires being a criminal, then you might as well go all-in when doing what’s required.

        1. AKSHULLY its NICS. Gotchya both!!!!

        2. That’s a good point just from a self-preservation point of view.

      3. except, at this point, there IS no NICS “database” Those call records for BGC must be destroyed within 48 hours of granting the Proceed Code. BUT.. that’s not to say it won’t change any time soon, which is why I am very loathe to disown myself of any of those things I might own now. Once that change goes into effect, and I’m surprised the kinyun hasn’t made a move in that direction already, then every purchase/transfer WILL have a permanent record designating the “vital statistics” of both the firearm and the one who bought it. And since, by then, universal backgrund checks will be the law, they will know of everyone who has guns transferred under the new law, and since he can’t divest himself of it legally without another record being created indicating the new owner, he MUST have it…. somewhere…. and it CAN and likely WILL BE demanded of him once surrender is mandated. Of course, there are always those “boating accident”, and “breakins” and “car prowls” that can be “arranged” to “prove” I no longer “own” (on the record) those eight old Browning 12 bores, and my beloved collection of Smith revolvers in various models and calibers….

        1. At present, in most states, there is no way any government uffishuls can determine which firearms I own or ever have bought… except possibly for ones bought at a local FFL who will still have his Record of Sale books… but that takes going down the lists of guns on every page looking for MY name. Even if I did buy one ten years ago, that is no solid proof I still own it, as I could have sold it face to face prior to Bloomie’s Bought Backgrond Check law….. (and if I sell it tomorrow for cash, no record no BGC, only the buyer could testify that I sold it AFTER Blooomie, and then he’s on the hook too.. unlikely) , or even today on Gun Broker, or hand carried it into another state and sold it there, even through an FFL.
          Those who press for UBC and/or universal registration have no idea what they are wanting, and how utterly unattainable it is. I mean, just a quick look at the federal “health care” insurance and registration they are wrangling with. Mandatory, yet far underutilised in every state. And they can’t even keep it staight for each person. Imagine the hash they’d make of it with a gun database, where half the listed individuals might own ten or more guns….. ain’t a gonna happen. And if we try just a little bit, we can make the whole endeavour such a headache they’ll NEVER have a usable system.

          1. I get what you’re saying, and believe me, I’d like to believe that there is no database and that all the records are destroyed within statutory requirement. I tend to doubt that is actually the case. Call me a cynic, but this government has lied to me too many times.

            *FTR: All of my guns were lost in a boating accident, it was horrible.

  4. “Private citizens stand no chance of defeating the federal armed forces in a real conflict,”

    Exactly. Just like the Viet Cong never stood a chance, just like the Taliban and Al Qaeda never stood a chance, just like the insurgency in Iraq never stood a chance, just like ISIS never stood a chance…

    1. One of the assumptions behind that argument is that the infrastructure that supports the federal armed forces would remain intact. It would not.

    2. Or just like the colonists in 1775 never stood a chance.

    3. Right. “Man in tank has to pee sometime”

      /Mujaheddin soldier

      1. and the man in the tank has to go home to his family if they are still there.

      2. That’s what beer bottles are for. You think they operate those things sober? Ahahahaha

    4. I love that these idiots automatically assume that the entire military is just going to go along with turning their guns on their fellow citizens.

      Also, that is why I have every right to own what any grunt in the armed forces gets to use.

      1. They probably think the army has the same central tenet of being separate from and above the lumpenproles that has been inculcated in the police.

        They do not. The idea and ethic of the citizen-soldier is very much alive in the military, and any president who tried to order the Army to turn on Americans would likely find himself deposed. There’s a reason there are so many conspiracy theories about the brass ranks being purged of the “disloyal”.

    5. We don’t have to defeat or even fight the US military,we just have to go after and defeat (get rid of) the anti-gun politicians,judges,and high-level gov’t officials who enacted,signed into law,and upheld the unconstitutional laws.
      We don’t want to get into battles with police or military,we want them on OUR side. But if we kill their buddies and co-workers,they -will- turn against us.
      But when the politicians et al find they are not safe anywhere,not even in their homes,then they’ll back away quickly from gun bans or other anti-gun legislation.

      1. (*as in that film The Shooter”?

    6. and just like a bunch of “stupid farmers with squirrel guns” could never defeat the mightiest, best equipped and trained fighting force on the planet…… late 18th century. The very reason we HAVE that Second Article of Ammendment today…. or what’s left of it.

  5. “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s musing in Gulag Archipelago, “What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?”‘”

    But this has been turned on its head here in these United States. This is literally the rationale police use to justify the “shoot first” mentality they seem to have developed. Isn’t the current state of affairs an answer to Solzhinitsyn’s question?

    1. First rule of policing.

    2. would be a little different if not just a mindset. roofers are something like 5 times more likely to die on the job, in reality.

    3. I think their “shoot first” attitude is the product of a guilty conscience.

  6. “What do you need guns for anyway? You can hunt with a crossbow!”

    “I don’t hunt. I keep guns and respect the second amendment for the same reason the founders did: to defend against criminal incursion, foreign invasion or domestic tyranny.”

    “But you couldn’t defeat the government’s military.”

    “A bunch of medieval-minded goat-herders with AKs would tend to contradict that argument.”

    “And the police can protect you from criminals!”

    “The police are under no LEGAL OBLIGATION to do anything to aid citizens, as reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in two particularly horrifying examples, Castle Rock Vs Gonzalez and DC VS Warren. OR maybe you remember hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.”

    “I think the government should just ban guns!”

    “There’s number three on the list again….”

    1. You’re lucky… Every debate I have with an anti-gunner seems to go like this:

      “The NRA is lying to you… Owning a gun just makes your home more dangerous!”

      “Actually, those statistics usually include suicide, which is-”

      “Where did you read that? In the NRA magazine?”

      “No, it’s just that studies like that are usually presenting the numbers in a dishonest way, and-”

      “Are you just following a script from the NRA magazine or something?”

      “I was a staunch supporter of gun rights long before I joined the NRA, so they don’t really have anything to do with it. It’s just that-”

      “Man, that Wayne LaPierre has really done a number on you! You do know that the NRA is just a front for big gun corporations in pursuit of profits, right?”

      “Actually, the majority of the NRA’s resources are spent on safety training, something that everyone should support.”

      “Nuh-uh! I read something in Mother Jones that said that the NRA is evil! And there was a post on Daily Kos that said that gun corporations just want you to buy more guns! It’s a conspiracy!!”

      1. Respond with, “The NRA is too wussy for me, they sometimes support more restrictive gun laws!”

        Then you’ll have to deal with that long blank stare as they attempt to reboot.

        1. Hmm.. Truth be told, I did stop paying my NRA dues a year or two ago because of basically what you’ve said, along with the fact that their rhetoric is just plain dumb.

          1. Note that the NRA never defends “assault weapons” (semi-auto rifles that “look bad”),as MILITIA weapons,a defense that would be very hard to argue against,considering the Second Amendment,the Declaration of Independence,and American history.
            It’s like they want to lose.

            1. If you wonder where the term ‘assault weapon’ originated:

              “Assault weapons ? just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms ? are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons ? anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun ? can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
              ?Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director and founder of the gun control group Violence Policy Center (VPC); ‘Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation: an update to Assault Weapons and Accessories in America’, March 1989

              I have recently coined my own ‘politically-correct’ term for these most popular of arms:

              ‘Militia-pattern Modern Sporting Arms’

              Combines the recently-adopted ‘Modern Sporting Rifle’ term with the ‘DC v. Heller’ and ‘US v. Miller’ decisions, along with the 2nd Amendment itself

      2. the gun manufacturers are still around because PEOPLE keep spending their money on that they manufacture….. and the prosperous ones are designing and building that the people with the money want to spend it on. Then, after they;ve spent that money on guns made the way they want them, they spend MORE with their NRA dues to support the NRA’s ability to defend their right to OWN and USE that gun they bought from government’s moves to take it away or restrict it.

        He’s got cause and effect turned about…. dummie……

  7. “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s musing in Gulag Archipelago, ‘What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?'”


  8. You don’t have to defeat an entire government to protect your freedom?just the goons in the hallway outside your apartment.

    Or even better, when they are at home, asleep, with their families.

    1. +1 flashbang

    2. In Minnespolis, a Hmong Vietnam vet defeated an entire squad of SWAT police with an AR-15, good positioning, fire control, and, most importantly, sound tactics. It was like the Packers vs. the JV red shirts.

      There is no reason to believe that can’t happen again. And again. And again.

      1. Whoa…what was the context for that? Probably one hell of a backstory.

        1. Minneapolis SWAT Team Raids Wrong House
          Published December 18, 2007 Associated Press

          With her six kids and husband tucked into bed, Yee Moua was watching TV in her living room just after midnight when she heard voices ? faint at first, then louder. Then came the sound of a window shattering.

          Moua bolted upstairs, where her husband, Vang Khang, grabbed his shotgun from a closet, knelt and fired a warning shot through his doorway as he heard footsteps coming up the stairs. He let loose with two more blasts. Twenty-two bullets were fired back at him, by the family’s count.

          Then things suddenly became clear.

          “It’s the police! Police!” his sons yelled.

          Khang, a Hmong immigrant with shaky command of English, set down his gun, raised his hands and was soon on the ground, an officer’s boot on his neck.

          The gunmen, it turned out, were members of a police SWAT team that had raided the wrong address because of bad information from an informant ? a mistake that some critics say happens all too frequently around the country and gets innocent people killed.

          “I have six kids, and only one mistake almost took my kids’ life,” said Moua, 29. “We will never forget this.”

          Read the rest here:


          You will note here that Khang did EXACTLY what Joe “Two Blasts” Biden recommended ….

      2. The Hmong are fierce and naturally anarchist in sentiment. I like them.

  9. Hey good to see an article from 2 chilly, can definitely tell the tone and I like it.

  10. J.D.,
    Great article, you make me want to read Reason articles instead of just going to the comments. Now if you could just teach a few other writers on here…

    1. Yeah, but more articles like this with an actual Libertarian message might crowd out articles advocating open borders derpology, or a hundred more articles bleating that Trump is a fascist.

  11. There is at least one gun law that would probably help: getting rid of gun-free zones. They obviously don’t deter criminals, and in fact act as a magnet for them since they’re effectively defense-free zones. Someone with a concealed gun might have stopped the San Bernardino atrocity before the terrorists were done, leaving a far smaller casualty count. Having a gun nearby isn’t good enough when someone starts shooting. You have to have it immediately available, as Suzanna Hupp discovered to her dismay at Luby’s Cafeteria.

    1. that would not require a new law, but the repeal or ammendment of the ones that create the Defsnseless Victim Concentration Zones in the first place.

  12. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    American Thinker

    1. No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

      These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

      1. Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

        Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

        American Thinker

  13. The thing that makes me sick about gun control nuts is them dancing on the graves of victims of their gun control policies. Schools, theaters, mails, government buildings are all gun-free zones, which is where most mass shootings occur.

  14. Interesting note: For the past month 600,000 members of the citizen militia stalked the woods of Wisconsin in search of a Bambi to riddle. In doing so they represented the 8th largest army in the world. More armed men went into
    Wisconsin’s woods than exist in war torn Iraq. Moreover, 750,000 stalked around Pennsylvania, 700,000 in Michigan and another quarter million in W. Virginia. The largest, by far, armed force in the world, stalked around for one month and…..nobody shot anybody. In spite of largely entering the woods before daylight and exiting after dusk, nobody was accidentally (or intentionally) shot.

    What army of 2 million, however highly trained and equipped, would even consider a conflict with 40 – 50 million armed people on their home turf?

    It’s not about meat in the pot, it’s more a patriotic duty.

    1. Army and Marine combat arms troops number less that a half million. Add another quarter of a million from the reserves and national guard. That’s less than 1,000,000.

      There are 16,000,000 licensed big game hunters and millions of shooters who don’t hunt deer or elk. Many of them are military trained or combat veterans.

      Think about it.

      1. Actually there are approx. 1.4M regular troops and 800K reservists in the U.S. military, and of those roughly 176K are “trigger pullers” (combat arms). The remainder are support troops.

  15. “Gun controllers advocate the imposition of laws that have already failed on people who won’t obey them, to address crimes already decreasing in prevalence.”

    The foregoing being the case, therein lies the heart of the problem.

  16. if you wait until they are at your door,it’s already too late. They WILL bring overwhelming force to bear on individuals and small groups. You’ll end up like the Branch Davidians at Waco.

    Pick the PROPER targets;
    the ones to go after are the US legislators who ratified such a law,the putz who SIGNED the law,the judges who upheld it.

    the time to act is right after the oppressive laws are enacted.

    Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
    IMO,EVERY gun owner should read that book.
    if you can’t find a copy to buy,try your local library,or used book stores.

    the whole book in PDF;
    https:// 129/Media/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

    1. Too bad there’s nuttery attached to that document.

      1. Exactly what ”nuttery” would that be, Gamer???

  17. When asked how the meagerly armed Russian infantry soldiers would deal with Germany’s mighty Panzer tanks, the Russian Sergeant replied “They have to come out to shit sometime.”

  18. I am seeking assistance in making a ballot proposal for a gun registration fee to pay for gun violence. When gun violence goes down, the registration cost goes down. I’ve already talked with ~600 gun advocates. I dont need more debate. I need some help to make sure I write it properly before collecting signatures. Here is some information:…..1618962571

    thank you for your attention

    1. How about a registration fee for every computer attached to the Internet ? that fee to cover the costs of protecting us from child pornographers ? what’s your feeling about that infringement on the 1st Amendment, Mr. Meyer ? OK by you???

    2. SJW Ernest Leonardo Meyer (‘ernestm’) wrote in his ‘No Comments Allowed’ Facebook gun control diatribe:

      Creating Consensus on Gun Violence…..1618962571

      ”Those who don’t want guns have to pay for expenses arising from gun violence.”

      Your argument falls flat in the face of the fact that those of us who do not have ? nor ever have had ? children still have to pay school taxes to educate the children of non-taxpaying illegal aliens’ children, Ernest.

      BTW, Mr. Meyer:

      ”A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.”
      ? Martin Luther King, Jr.

  19. What I find most interesting is the way these same LibSoc Democrat gun control quisling SJWs “whistle past the graveyard” when its pointed out that every one of their pet gun control proposals they demand be enacted into federal law ? “Universal Background Checks,” “high-capacity” magazine bans, “assault weapon” bans, gun-owner registration, gun registration, “handgun safety inspections,” et al. ? are already in place in the Peoples Socialist ?epublic? of ?aliforni?ate ? and it didn’t do anything to stop the Inland Regional Center attack and massacree.

    Hypocrite, thy name is ‘Liberal Socialist’ (LibSoc).

  20. Gun controllers advocate the imposition of laws that have already failed on people who won’t obey them, to address crimes already decreasing in prevalence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.