NRA

Gun Paranoia in the Age of Trump

How will the NRA sell fear without Obama?

|

Gun show
Russ.. via Foter.com / CC BY-SA

There were plenty of agitated and even hysterical reactions to Donald Trump's election victory, but none more surprising than the one expressed in a direct mail letter I got a couple of days afterward.

"Our worst nightmare is staring us right in the face," it declared. "The attacks will be hitting everywhere, every day." It invited me to fill out a survey. "By answering this survey today, you're drawing a line in the sand—making it clear to politicians across America that you're not going to stand by while extremists trample our individual liberties."

Planned Parenthood? The American Civil Liberties Union? The Council on American-Islamic Relations? No, this shriek of terror came from the National Rifle Association.

Apparently, CEO Wayne LaPierre was among the smug, tone-deaf East Coast elitists who confidently anticipated a Hillary Clinton presidency. Otherwise, it's hard to explain why he would make such a point of proclaiming that the organization is "fighting gun-hating politicians" and "fighting to deny confirmation of judicial nominees who refuse to affirm that the Second Amendment guarantees your individual right to own and use a firearm."

The NRA endorsed Trump. The letter inviting me to join was obviously written and sent before his victory materialized. But it illuminates a problem that the organization and its allies will have over the next four years: how to sustain the fear and anxiety that have been so useful to them over the past eight.

As a gun owner, recreational shooter, former NRA member and longtime advocate of Second Amendment rights, I like to see cogent criticism of gun control proposals and anti-gun propaganda. But under President Barack Obama, the NRA has occupied itself sowing groundless panic and fighting imaginary villains.

Obama made it plain in his first presidential campaign that gun control was not a hill he was willing to die on. He assured gun owners, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

He has repeated that position over and over. He has spent more time trying to assuage the concerns of gun owners than he spent wooing Michelle, with far less success.

But in an era in which facts don't matter, the president should have saved his breath. In 2008, LaPierre dismissed Obama's promises: "Never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate … with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms." The NRA insisted he planned to ban all handguns, ban "use of firearms for home defense," increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent, and require a federal license to buy a gun.

Obama has had eight years to pursue these sinister goals. We're still waiting.

He did sign bills allowing people to carry concealed handguns in national parks and check guns on Amtrak, expanding the gun rights of troops on U.S. military bases, and preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from banning lead ammunition. His "anti-gun" proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of "assault" weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.

Faced with this record, LaPierre has done the only thing he could do: lie about it. "When I said Barack Obama would come for our guns and do everything in his power to sabotage the Second Amendment, they savaged me," he said recently. "But every one of those predictions came true." Sure they did. And Adam Sandler won an Oscar.

The strategy has clearly served to frighten some gun owners and stimulate them to buy more firearms—you know, before Obama could outlaw them. Gun sales have set records under him, and gun companies have prospered. The NRA has found that it can only gain by stoking chronic fear of draconian gun laws.

But how will it be able to do that with President Trump, a Republican Congress, GOP dominance in governorships and legislatures, and a Supreme Court that has given new force to the Second Amendment? The rights of firearm owners are more secure today than the gold in Fort Knox.

The NRA can go on depicting a dystopian nightmare in which gun owners are cruelly deprived of their right to protect themselves. But it's a Halloween house of horrors, not the real world.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

266 responses to “Gun Paranoia in the Age of Trump

  1. Doesn’t an article like this belong on HuffPo, Slate, or Media Matters, as opposed to Reason? Seriously, Chapman is such a progtard shitbag.

    1. Yes, he wants to brag about Obama’s first term (where federal gun control didn’t change much at all, IIRC) while forgetting about his second term (where a lot of executive orders tightened the screws). Fuck him.

      1. Did Chapman sleep through Sandy Hook?

        1. He was awake for the Obama, Clinton, and Feinstein part.

      2. Obama manufactured an ammo shortage by restricting spent brass from the military.

      3. Yeah, and ignore all the state and local encroachments.

      4. You see, when you avert an imminent disaster, even multiple ones, its like there never was a threat of a disaster. In the meantime, you have to ignore the one that got by – changing the regulations on gun trusts by fiat.

    2. Nah, this is way too pro-gun for those sites.

      Chapman sucks, and this goes way too easy on Obama. But the fact is that gun rights were not significantly reduced (more than they are already) at the federal level during the Obama admin and a few positive things did happen in the courts (no thanks to the administration).

      I think the NRA is sometimes guilty of blowing things out of proportion. Before I got sick of their constant fundraising and stopped giving to them, I don’t know how many times they told me the UN wanted to take my guns. Yeah, I know the UN wants to take my guns. They have for a long time and it isn’t going to happen. Gun control, thankfully, remains a political loser in the US.

      Not to say the NRA has outlived its usefulness. They do a good job reminding politicians that people will vote on the gun issue and there is a lot to be done at the state level in many places.

      1. You’re not being paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

        Sure, the NRA blows things out of proportion in order to get members to do something.

        But by doing something, they (together with the GOA, JFPO, SAF, and a host of others) keep enough political pressure on that Obama knows it would be pointless to waste his political powers trying. And even HRC knew enough to only mutter about gun control in front of certain crowds.

        And that is something to be grateful for. I just renewed for the next 5 years not because I am in perfect agreement with the NRA, or even like some of the things they say, but on this issue they are clearly the most powerful force for good.

        1. And even HRC knew enough to only mutter about gun control in front of certain crowds.

          I recall in last Prez debate the slithering Shrillz defining D.C. vs. Heller as a question about ‘keeping guns away from toddlers.’

        2. Cause you know, Obama only nominated a guy for the SC that wanted to overturn Heller.

        3. Sure, the NRA blows things out of proportion in order to get members to do something.

          Why is this any different that Climate Change alarmists?

      2. IMHO, in this instance, I think eternal vigilance is indeed necessary; even healthy paranoia – if there’s such a thing.

        They DO want your guns and they’ll never stop.

        1. Confiscationists like Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are still in the Senate and could possibly be in majority leadership positions two years from now. The fact that they haven’t been able to advance their agenda in the last few years does not mean they’re giving up on it, no matter how much Chapman wants to believe they will.

    3. One of the best things about this election is Chapman’s salty bitch ham tears. Cry little bitch, cry.

      1. This was a stupid article, but I’m not sure where you are seeing the tears.

      2. Don’t you mean “Deceive Fapman”?

        1. Nope, he meant, “Starvin’ Chappedass.”

    4. I will distance myself from this article in a Fast and Furious manner.

      1. noice! lets hope you have more success.

    5. My thoughts exactly. I checked to make sure I wasn’t accidentally on friggin Salon.

    6. He doesn’t seem to ever read the news…

  2. Chapman is full of shit. We’re one SCOTUS Justice away from having Heller overturned. Not to mention all the abusive, unconstitutional laws passed around the country restricting C&C, or trying to criminalize law gun ownership?

    1. But….but…STARE DECISIS!!

  3. While Obama pledged to and has not acted to initiate restrictions on the Second Amendment to the surprise of some, the NRA and the GOA use, like many other groups on both the Left or the Right, the threat of the Christian morality police looking for sex toys in one’s bedroom or the BATFE as Stalinist NKVD troops raiding homes for granddad’s revolver.

    The BATFE has solicited public opinion on the ban of private ownership of 5.56×45 mm ammunition, loaded with M-855 type bullets. This was under the premise that armor penetrating ammunition is currently illegal for handguns and since AR15 style pistols exist and are currently sold in 5.56×45 mm caliber; there should be a prohibition of M855 type ammunition. After the public outcry, BATFE declined to explore the issue further.

    The issue of gun control is not the sudden implementation of sweeping restrictions, as that is unlikely. It is the piecemeal reduction of relatively minor rights through creeping “positivist freedom theory” that is the threat. Even President Reagan promoted this erosion by signing the 1986 “Firearms Protection Act” which eliminated the production of full automatic weapons for civilian purchase and eliminated previously acceptable foreign rifles from importation to anyone but government agencies.

    The lesson here is to trust neither political party, nor any office holder, with basic Constitutional Rights.

    1. This article is one part misdirection and one part self soothing with a leftist’s Binky.

      The fact is that the NRA is a civil rights organization dedicated to defending an enumerated right from infringements. And even though the election of Trump would seem to lessen the threats to the 2nd, as you note threats are always out there (lately from states and municipalities) and actual infringements remain on the books.

      The NRA has never sold “fear.” At least not to anyone who values the entire BoR. Looking both ways and then pointing out the oncoming train does not promote fear of crossing the tracks.

      And to be sure the NRA has highlighted the oncoming threats from an Obama administration. Now that those threats have subsided I suspect they will continue their efforts at drawing attention to, and eliminating other un-Constitutional restrictions that continue to remain.

      Which is precisely what Chapman fears.

      1. @ThomasD The fact is the NRA is a Gun Industry trade group masquerading as a civil right organization, their funding comes from gun manufacturers and their goal is to stoke fears to drive gun sales, which they have done very well. Yours and other comments in this forum serve to prove just how well their propaganda has worked. no one is coming for your guns and even if someone was, the NRA does not work for gun owners.

        1. their funding comes from gun manufacturers

          Citation needed. A publically filed financial statement showing more industry domations than member dues would suffice.

          1. IIRC, the NRA doesn’t accept ANY funding from manufacturers, but instead receives it all from its members.

            1. They do sell a lot of ads to manufacturers.

              But, yeah. The notion that the NRA is just “astroturf” is obvious nonsense.

              1. They do sell a lot of ads to manufacturers.

                Yes, because the NRA has an audience interested in guns.

                Just like woodworking magazines get lots of ads from saw and chisel manufacturers.

        2. no one is coming for your guns…

          Phew.

          1. Obviously you don’t live in California.

            For us, this entire debate is a moot point. if they can’t get your guns, they’ll just cut off your ammunition.

            They have already taken away the right of self defense. Pull a gun in fear for your life and you’ll find out. Pull the trigger and prepare to be Bubba’s bitch in the big house.

            It ain’t never gonna stop.

            I used to think the NRA was a rednecked, outrageous exaggeration. Unitl I actually owned a gun and told someone about it. Nothing sends the leftist loonies off into a rage like the “discovery” that you might own and worse, know how to operate a gun when you aren’t currently in the military or police force.

        3. Where does funding for the National Rifle Association (NRA) come from?

          Quote:
          The NRA’s tax filings with the IRS are available to the public. From all these years combined, 73% of all NRA funding comes from membership dues and individual contributions, 9% comes from advertising, and 5% comes from organizational donations. The latter two figures are rounded up.

        4. CNN: the money powering the NRA

          Quote:
          A CNNMoney analysis of federal campaign finance records shows that much of this money comes from everyday Americans. And these contributions, which the NRA uses to keep pro-gun lawmakers in office, are on the rise.

          Here’s the rule: When you say that the NRA is in the pocket of gun manufacturers, you lose all credibility automatically because you have revealed yourself as an ignoramus.

          As a 20-year member of the NRA, I have observed that the cause and effect relationship is backward. Gun manufacturers do not dare to cross the NRA and its 5 million members and tens of millions of sympathizers. You can Google for Smith and Wesson in the Clinton years to see what happened to S&W when it decided to pursue gun control in partnership with Cuomo and Clinton. It was badly punished by its customers.

          The gun manufacturers have their own lobby, the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) that represents their interests. The NRA represents its members’ interests. Certainly, the two interests can and do dovetail. But the constant insinuation that the NRA is just a lobby for evil capitalist corporations is stupid and misinformed.

          1. “…stupid and misinformed.” so what else is new?

          2. What the idiots who push this idea don’t understand, is that large businesses often will lobby for more regulation on themselves. The reason is it keeps government contracts rolling flowing and smaller competitors out of their market.

            The NRA is squarely an individual members driven organization, as is most 2nd Amendment Civil Rights groups.

        5. I feels it so it must be true.

        6. Patently false leftist projection.

  4. I’ve stopped giving money to national gun organizations like NRA and GOA, after I realized they are populated with socons and neocons that care more about promoting their world views than defending gun rights.

    1. Check out AMGOA.

      1. Ah. So, AGOA, which is a more natural acronym is already taken.

  5. Part of the reason Obama didn’t get his way on guns is the “paranoia” of the NRA. Without the backlash largely pushed by the NRA, particularly after Sandy Hook, assault weapons and certain types of ammunition absolutely would have been banned and Obama and his allies were champing at the bit to do it. Fuck you Chapman for your slanted, bullshit propaganda and fuck you Reason for publishing it. Honestly Reason, the readership is getting tired of having their intelligence insulted.

    1. And yet we keep coming back for more.

      They really should atop publishing Chapman’s crap, but it’s pretty easy not to read it.

      1. Like most everyone else, Zebulon, the comments, and a few commenters for whom I have a genuine admiration and affection (No Euphies!), are the only things that keep me coming back.

        1. I originally started visiting reason during the SAFE act rollout in search of pro-RKBA people. Sadly, these days that voice is stronger in the commentariat than the contributers.

          1. I don’t think Chapman is really part of Reason. It seems to be a syndication type relationship. Although I don’t really know why Reason keeps paying him, he’s always been thinly veiled shill for the Democrats.

            They might as well pick up Krauthammer on the right.

            1. Horseshit. If they publish him, he’s part of Reason, regardless of syndication or their personal editorial stance WRT Chapman. And no, let’s keep The Hammer of the Krauts away too. That would just go toward even more clickbaitery.

              1. In the Reason family, he is the retarded cousin, clearly.

            2. No, he doesn’t work for Reason at all.

              1. I think, owing to the Chicago school affiliations of the Reason editorial staff, they mistake Chapman for some kind of libertarian in the vein of Posner, a guy that is also mistaken for a libertarian.

                I don’t think Reason publishes everything Chapman writes, but it’s telling what they do choose to publish. Like the Chapman article, I believe in the early days of the second Obama term, that Reason published which argued that easy credit, lower interest rates and a doubled-down monetary policy was the way to save the economy from a decade long recession. It certainly had me outraged that Chapman is published by Reason. Yes it’s true that I don’t have to read him, but it’s also true that it’s not that simple. Think of the uninitiated who read that article under the Reason banner and think it represents libertarian policy preferences. So yeah, fuck Reason for publishing this guy.

              2. He’s still a retard.

            3. it’s probably presenting “other views”,and not being biased totally libertarian.
              Or do you only want to hear views that you agree with?

              I’m not defending Chapman,he’s a idiot IMO.

        2. I keep coming back for the intelligent analysis in the comments, which I can’t seem to find elsewhere.
          If the core of the commentariat moves to another website, please let us know so we can follow.

        3. Well, I still like most of the writers Reason actually employs and a few of those they publish through syndication.

          I may not agree with them on everything, but I wouldn’t want to. And I find the common theories that they have some kind of secret agenda quite absurd.

          1. I don’t have a problem with those that challenge my opinion.

            I take issue with those that insult my intelligence with what they mistake for an argument while doing so.

      2. The only good thing about Chapman articles are the comments.

  6. ” His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners. ”

    Seriously? Minimal impact? This article is erroneous.
    Like them or hate them, the NRA does tremendous work in keeping government in check on 2nd amendment rights. The left would be gun grabbing as fast as they could and the rest of the country would have laws like California if the NRA stepped aside and let these politicians have their way. Furthermore, Chapman writes that 10 round maximum would not have much affect? C’mon…

    1. I’m curious how the ban on manufacture of all modern sporter rifles is considered minimal, as is the magazine size restriction. Especially given that neither law is well tailored to solve a problem.

      1. He is only anti some guns. What more do you want,?

        1. well as long as he’s not against the “cool” guns…

    2. He likely means “minimal impact” in the leftard sense sense that if the laws change to hand over all of your guns, the law abiding will turn them in, thus continuing to be law abiding citizens.

  7. ” His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners. ”

    Seriously? Minimal impact? This article is erroneous.
    Like them or hate them, the NRA does tremendous work in keeping government in check on 2nd amendment rights. The left would be gun grabbing as fast as they could and the rest of the country would have laws like California if the NRA stepped aside and let these politicians have their way. Furthermore, Chapman writes that 10 round maximum would not have much affect? C’mon…

  8. Freekin double post.

    1. I’m about to start a ration riot over the double-dipping.

    2. Double tap. It’s the only way to be sure.

      1. 2 in the hat!

  9. The fact that the Democrats’ efforts to ban guns have been stymied doesn’t mean they’re going to give up. They steadfastly deny that there is an individual right to own a gun, and they steadfastly deny that there is an individual right to self-defense. They’re not respecting our rights, they’re playing politics and playing the Long Game.

    And the election of Trump doesn’t guarantee anything.

    1. Part of why we need to bring back the HUAC and treat these progressives as the dangerous subversives they are.

  10. I didn’t even have to click this article to know who wrote it.

    1. Same here. Chapman’s back from his period of mourning, apparently.

    2. NPR wrote it for him a week ago.

  11. “I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

    “But the judges I appoint sure will.”

  12. Apparently, CEO Wayne LaPierre was among the smug, tone-deaf East Coast elitists who confidently anticipated a Hillary Clinton presidency.

    Chapaman really gets a lot of mileage out of the fact that he’s a tone deaf Chicago area elitist, which is basically an honorary east coat snob anyways.

    1. ‘honorary’ implies some honor in aspiring to be a an east coast snob, or in rejecting one’s upbringing or local culture. The term you’re looking for is more like ‘poser’, ‘pretender’, or a ‘wannabe’

    2. Chicago…clearly second tier from the second city

  13. Chapman’s idiocy knows no bounds.

    1. And Reason insists on discrediting themselves by publishing his garbage. Is it the hate clicks or do they agree with him?

      1. Yes.

        1. The healing power of ‘and’.

  14. “The price of peace is eternal vigilance.” I’d love it if we reached a state of freedom where we didn’t have to keep an eye on those banning bastards every single second, but I don’t expect such a day to *ever* come.
    They won’t stop, so we can’t either.

  15. Remember when Reason used to be about objectivity and PRESERVING civil liberties?

    1. Those days ended when they hired Weigel, and never came back.

  16. how to sustain the fear and anxiety that have been so useful to them over the past eight

    Start selling to progressives.

  17. His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.

    A minimal impact on law abiding gun owners. Really. This is horseshit. If you think making me a felon for all those 30 round magazines I have is a minimal impact then you can go fuck yourself. This is gun grabber nonsense that doesn’t belong on a libertarian site. This whole article stinks to high heaven of smug statist bullshit.

    1. Every time Reason posts a Chapman article I donate $15 to Freedomworks in his name.

    2. This is gun grabber nonsense that doesn’t belong on a libertarian site.

      In fairness, it wasn’t published on one.

  18. So, allowing concealed carry in parks is small beer and should’ve already been the correct interpretation of the law anyway. “Expanding” the gun rights of troops on military bases??? You mean letting fucking soldiers carry weapons? That’s an achievement? That’s an expansion of gun rights just like the repeal of Prohibition was an expansion of alcohol rights. And the EPA had no legal basis to ban lead ammunition to begin with, never mind the fact that such a power would be practically unenforceable due to all the exemptions you’d need to include.

    On the other side of the equation, he pushed for another Clinton-style assault weapon ban, a national magazine capacity limits, and the expansion of background checks to include private sales and intra-familial transfers. Under his proposals, you’d have ceased to be a “law-abiding gun owner with nothing to fear” the moment you left your wife in the grocery store parking lot with a gun in the trunk or let your friend standing next to you at the range try out your new pistol.

    1. I created a religious exemption for the use of lead shot…”keep your god damn hands off my ammo”

  19. So, allowing concealed carry in parks is small beer and should’ve already been the correct interpretation of the law anyway. “Expanding” the gun rights of troops on military bases??? You mean letting fucking soldiers carry weapons? That’s an achievement? That’s an expansion of gun rights just like the repeal of Prohibition was an expansion of alcohol rights. And the EPA had no legal basis to ban lead ammunition to begin with, never mind the fact that such a power would be practically unenforceable due to all the exemptions you’d need to include.

    On the other side of the equation, he pushed for another Clinton-style assault weapon ban, a national magazine capacity limits, and the expansion of background checks to include private sales and intra-familial transfers. Under his proposals, you’d have ceased to be a “law-abiding gun owner with nothing to fear” the moment you left your wife in the grocery store parking lot with a gun in the trunk or let your friend standing next to you at the range try out your new pistol.

    1. Omg squirrels…

      1. They don’t like gins either.

        1. Fucking berries in my booze man.

  20. Schumer and Pelosi exist.

    I am sure th he NRA shall prosper as th hey have prospered uh ndrr GOP presidents.

  21. Good point. Now that America’s #1 gun salesman is leaving office, sales are going to slump, and the industry is trying to figure out new ways to gin up sales. I don’t know why this is controversial.

    Personally, I hope bricks of .22 might make an appearance on store shelves again, before the kids shoot up all my reserves.

    1. Come to New York, we have them (just don’t buy 1000 at a time…)

    2. Gosh I sure hope 22 finally starts showing up.

      My local WallyWorld gets a few 100rd boxes every couple weeks but its always gone in a couple hours.

      I haven’t seen a bulk pack of 22 in over 4 years. My poor 22s have been sorely underused.

      1. Use wikiarms to find it on the internet.

      2. Use wikiarms to find it on the web.

      3. Dave,

        Look online for Lucky Gunner, Brownell’s, or look for slickguns for best deals. There’s lots of 22 if you are willing to pay shipping (tip: go in with other local shooters to save on shipping.)

        1. The thing is with shipping costs I may as well just buy the 100rd boxes when they show up in Wallyworld.

          I live close enough to the Brownells warehouse store that I could probably score some there, if I had any other reason for passing through Grinnell that is.

      4. I live right next to the CCI plant. My sister in law workes the rim fire priming line. All the local shelves are full.

    3. Where do you live? My local store have pallets of the (good) stuff and allows people to buy more or less as many bricks at a time as they want.

  22. sowing groundless panic

    Every. Single. Time. There is a shooting, the left starts up with the various bans and shit. They’ve been talking about a combined mental illness/gun owner registry since Sandy Hook. That is absolutely setting the stage for confiscation. The thinking is “whenever we finally get to the point that we can enact some form of confiscation, we have a list of the doors we need to knock on down.”

    There has recently been some progress made at the legislative and judicial levels regarding gun rights. BUT the ratchet is still much, much easier to move in one direction than the other.

  23. The NRA is over the top.

    Thank god.

    Unfortunately, all politics is is the selling of fear.

  24. Obama made it plain in his first presidential campaign that gun control was not a hill he was willing to die on. He assured gun owners, “I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

    He has repeated that position over and over. He has spent more time trying to assuage the concerns of gun owners than he spent wooing Michelle, with far less success.

    Yeah. You lost me there. How’s the weather on your planet?

    1. Awkward and stupid.

      Not an easy combination to pull off.

  25. First, the 10 round magazine limit effectively bans a large number of weapons that have standard magazines larger than 10 rounds. The gun banners know this and that is why they choose 10 rounds rather than 15 or 5. Chapman not knowing much, apparently thinks there is something magical about 10 rounds.

    Second, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. It is a meaningless term that describes a collection of attributes to certain rifles that makes them look scary to stupid people like Chapman. Like the 10 round magazine limit, the assault weapons ban is nothing but gun controlers wanting to ban as many currently legal weapons as possible and move us further down the road towards banning all gun ownership.

    1. A while ago my brother sent me a link to an argument for the 10 round limit on ARs. It was of course written by a life long gun owner and hunter, former NRA member who was now ashamed of his fellow gun owners because they would not support a simple compromise that would work to eliminate mass shootings. Little brother titles his e-mail to me “Rebuttal ?”

      Which of course was easy. The VMA shooter used pistols, the navy yard shooter used a shotgun. Hi cap mags like 30 rounders are unreliable e.g. the Colorado theater shooter’s AR jammed and he resorted to his shotgun. And with a little practice you can change mags in a second. So the 10 round limit isn’t going to do dick to stop mass shootings.

      So yes, it’s just another way to backdoor ban certain weapons, and make criminals of gun owners.

      1. The VMA shooter used pistols, the navy yard shooter used a shotgun. Hi cap mags like 30 rounders are unreliable e.g. the Colorado theater shooter’s AR jammed and he resorted to his shotgun. And with a little practice you can change mags in a second. So the 10 round limit isn’t going to do dick to stop mass shootings.

        That’s a lot of words to say “1860 Henry Rifle”

      2. “Little brother titles his e-mail to me “Rebuttal ?””

        “What does “Shall not be infringed” mean? “

      3. “Hi cap mags like 30 rounders are unreliable e.g. the Colorado theater shooter’s AR jammed”

        Jesus-fuck. So… the military doesn’t use 30 round magazines? Shit. I should send them a memo.

        30 round magazines aren’t “hi cap”. They’re standard capacity.

        Moron.

    2. also, universal background checks are unenforceable without universal registration.

      1. Not to mention that almost all of the mass shooters did not have anything on their records that would have stopped them from buying guns.

      2. All aboard. Take a number.

    3. BILL RUGER is where the “10 round” limit on magazines originated;he testified to Congress that “nobody needs more than 10 rounds”. Far too many gun owners are narrowly oriented towards hunting or target shooting,and ignore the “militia arms” purpose. (and fighting off a mob of rioters,as in the 92 LA riots or the more recent Ferguson riots.)
      You need 30 round magazines for riot defense.

  26. Hahaha, Today Chapman is cosplaying as a second amendment supporter!

    1. Pretty uncool, man. I think we can all agree that reasonable restrictions to natural rights are reasonable. For reasonable people.

      Reasonably.

        1. I suspected Tundra was just trying to get me drunk.

      1. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
        semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

        Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
        Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

        In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

        it’s VERY clear the Founders INTENDED that civilians have “weapons of war”,militia arms suitable for militia purposes,that include combat.

        So,it’s unreasonable to restrict such rifles as the AR-15,it’s variants,and the semi-auto AK’s. Completely unreasonable. “Shall not be infringed” is a STRICT prohibition,and thus any restriction MUST have a REALLY compelling reason,and FACTS and EVIDENCE showing the restriction would actually be effective.

        1. The milita part is correct, where he hell is my auto seat and 240B?

  27. I have a modest proposal.

    The Militia Restoration Act.

    Using the Penaltax theory of government mandate, we simply require that every adult Citizen not convicted of violent felony own, maintain and practice with a suitable military small arm from a set of enumerated options and maintain a sufficient quantity of standard capacity magaines to contribute to the defence of the country in the event of invasion. Those who object can opt to pay the penaltax.

    /not really serious.

    1. A plain reading shows it’s right there in the first clause, not just that a State should support or can make use of a well-regulated militia but that it’s necessary!

      /not really serious either.

      1. Well the anti-gun people said the 2nd amendment protects a collective right of militias. So my friends and I formed a militia. We practice regularly to stay well regulated. And now the progs are complaining about that. You just can’t make these people happy.

        1. Let’s see how this sounds, using the modern vernacular:

          So my friends and I formed a militia. We practice regularly to stay well regulated compelled. And now the progs are complaining about that.

          See, there’s the problem — you’re not making sense.

          1. Yes,he is. militias were not restricted to states or government,towns and counties had their own militias. In colonial times,”states” didn’t even exist,it was strictly towns and counties. But there’s NOTHING in the Second that restricts the RKBA to militia or militia membership. that’s a strawman. the 2nd clearly says the RKBA is “of the People”,not “of a militia”. and SCOTUS has ruled on that.
            Militias were simply volunteers. the current definition of militia is that every able-bodied adult male is militia.

      2. Swiss Army:

        When their period of service has ended, militia men have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. However, keeping the weapon after end of service requires a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 11-15 VPAA).[13]

  28. His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.

    Shorter: “No, frogs, that water’s not getting hotter. It’s all in your imagination.”

  29. Fuck the NRA. Shall not be infringed.

  30. Didn’t read the article, but I understand that Trump wants to take away people’s guns in violation of the right to trial by jury and in violation of the proof beyond a reasonable doubt rule.

    1. Trump believes the police are always right and we just need to trust them….and him.

  31. He did sign bills allowing people to carry concealed handguns in national parks and check guns on Amtrak, …, and preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from banning lead ammunition.

    He signed the CARD act, a transportation appropriation, and the NDAA each of which were very very large bills that happened to contain pro gun owner provisions.

    Had any of those been stand alone bills, they would have been vetoed minutes after arriving on his desk. If you believe otherwise then you really haven’t been paying attention.

  32. Hmm, maybe you could do a follow-up article on how single-issue activists organizations are the same WHETHER THEY COME FROM THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM!

    Did you expect better behavior from the NRA because Charleton Heston was a member or something?

    Personally, I expect the same behavior from them that I see coming from MADD, Greenpeace, BLM, and on and on and on. Activists gonna get their retard on no matter what reality is like.

    1. Yep. And activist organizations pretty much always exist as much to keep themselves going as anything else.

  33. “requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers.”

    Which cannot be enforced without a national gun registry, which is the point of the proposal.

  34. “The NRA can go on depicting a dystopian nightmare ”

    You mean like every single other lobby group and special interest? This is how all lobbiest get people to send them money.

  35. More fun and regulatory capture from FDA:

    FDA Removes Approval for the Use of PFCs in Food Packaging Based on the Abandonment

    November 21, 2016

    In response to a petition filed on behalf of the 3M Corporation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is amending a food additive regulation to no longer authorize the use of two long-chain perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) used in “grease-proof” food packaging. 3M’s petition provided evidence that the use of these compounds, for which 3M stated it was the sole domestic and international manufacturer, has been completely and permanently abandoned by industry in the U.S. market. FDA’s action in amending this regulation is not based on a safety evaluation; rather, it is based on the abandonment of these uses. Although manufacturers have voluntarily stopped using these products, FDA’s action means that any food additive use of the PFCs covered by the regulations is no longer authorized.

  36. The Dem sit in and constant media push for gun control was/is imaginary.

  37. Two words that get abused in the gun debate:

    Compromise. Every proposed restriction is a compromise. All take with no give ain’t a compromise. Gun control people, what will you exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity ?

    Paranoia. For example, Australia style laws means confiscation. Taking Obama and Hillary at their word isn’t delusional.

    1. The problem with compromise with the left, is that there is no real compromise. The left move the goalpost further to the left and the right then move further left as the compromise out of fear of being called extremists. Note, the left are never extreme no matter how far left they go. Then the left move the goalpost leftward again. This has been going on for decades and the GOP keep falling for it, which is why we now have mountains of unneeded laws and regulations.

      1. They do like to abuse the language. Giving up something with nothing in return is a concession, but they call it a compromise. And reasonable people compromise. Come on, be reasonable.

        This is why libertarians are such pains in the ass. Insisting that words have meaning.

      2. This sort of “compromise” is like a rapist or kidnapper telling the young girl that if she lets him put these handcuffs on her,she won’t get hurt,it’s just for her own safety.
        FEDGOV has been trying to handcuff gun owners under the guise of “safety”,when we are actually less safe when disarmed or “regulated” by their “common sense gun control” laws.

    2. Damnit Sir, I like the cut of your jib.

    3. Compromise isn’t always reasonable. There’s no moral burden to compromise with someone whose perspective is inherently unjust or unethical; just because someone has put forth a contradictory position doesn’t mean that it holds equal merit.

      1. ^^^^^

        Excellent!

        I love it when people insist that I compromise. It seems it’s always just so that they can have their way, even if it isn’t everything they want. It’s always you give and I’ll take.

        I often do begrudgingly compromise. But that isn’t because I think it’s in all of our best interests. It’s because I just get tired of fighting. It seems like one has to fight for everything….all the time. Life is just too short for that.

        Why is that?

    4. It’s only a compromise if you believe that a total ban with confiscation is on the table. Which, for all practical purposes, is not the case. For those for whom that is the desired endgame anything short of a ban is compromise.

  38. What I worry about Trump doing, as far as the 2nd is concerned, is him and his crummy little toadies creating more ‘secret lists’ in the name of public safety and using those to take away people’s 2A rights, and other guaranteed constitutional rights. The problem is, is that once the government starts taking away certain people’s rights by way of lists and regulations, then you have a slippery slope that will keep including more and more people until virtually everyone except the politically connected will have most of their rights taken away.

    1. Why worry?

      You certainly don’t have anything to hide? Do you? 🙁

    2. If you’re ever debating a “progressive” and you want to grind their gears, ask them why a Muslim registry is pure authoritarian evil but a gun owner registry is a wonderful idea that will improve public safety.

      Basically, all the arguments for a gun registry are equally valid when applied to a Muslim registry:
      – Peaceful, law-abiding Muslims have nothing to worry about
      – We have to Do Something? about Islamic terrorism, and this is a common-sense policy that will cut down on these types of attacks
      – It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights since they are not actually prevented from reading the Koran or going to the mosque

  39. This is interesting, but not unexpected.

    Change your vote to Hillary, or else

    1. Emailing death threats seems to be a particularly stupid thing to do.

      1. It’s just making people fonder of the left. Sort of like how bombing poor people in 3rd world countries make them love America.

    2. Lew Rockwell had a column up about a week ago saying that any Trump electoral college voters who switched to Clinton could expect to be killed.

      So a lot of threats from both sides.

  40. You aren’t paranoid if they really are out to get you. Describing pro-gun rights people as “paranoid” requires the denial of the fact that there really is a political movement to strip citizens of their guns, one that has had success in the past and is fairly open, at times, about its ultimate goal.

    1. You aren’t paranoid if they really are out to get you.

      I don’t think that’s actually true. Paranoia isn’t necessarily entirely delusional.

      It is certainly wrong to describe all pro-gun rights people who are worried about what the future might bring as paranoid. But the fact that there are people making a concerted effort to restrict gun rights doesn’t mean that some aren’t paranoid.

  41. Federal law is not the only path that gun control groups try to get their agendas enacted.

    There are state laws and referendums and local laws as well.

    Bloomberg is not going away just because Trump got elected.

    There is plenty of work for the NRA to do to fight that.

    Chapman is either ignorant of or deliberately ignoring that – tack your pick.

    1. Welcome to California. The nirvana state.

      1. I thought that was Washington.

  42. A more-interesting story about Obama & gun policy

    Last week the Department of Justice released guidelines for smart-gun manufacturers. Obama has made “gun safety” a priority during his second term as president and since the Congress is in the control of the Republicans, he has been unable to pass any gun control legislation. The Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House during part of Obama’s first term, but the president chose not to make any gun control moves, probably because gun control doesn’t play well at the ballot box. As with other unsavory political issues rejected by the population, Obama has turned to his imaginary executive power to curb gun violence and pushing the smart gun is one misguided way to do that.

    A “smart gun” is a gun that will only fire when an authorized user tries to use it. Theoretically.

    The new guidelines are voluntary, so they are useless. “This project was designed to spur the growth of enhanced gun safety technology ? and not to mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed,” the Department of Justice wrote in a blog post.

    1. Those same smart guns which don’t reliably fire under emergency conditions for the authorized user? The ones that are worth more as scrap than as defensive arms?

      1. I think the money shot is =

        “you mean those ‘smart guns’ no one will buy?… even with generous subsidies and federal incentives?”

        The article points out – if anyone wanted these things, they’d be in use already.

        1. I hvaent seen any of these smart guns but I cant imagine they would be difficult to disable.

          1. I cant imagine they would be difficult to disable.

            I think the problem is that they’re too-easy to disable.

            as in,”they don’t work when they’re supposed to work”

            as for “turning off” the security features to make them work like ‘regular guns’, i don’t know. I don’t think so, as (i think) they replace a mechanical trigger with an electronically-actuated striker. regardless of whether you can bypass their disabling-mechanisms, they’d still be prone to “dead batteries” which would turn the gun into a not-very-effective blunt-weapon.

            1. If this is how they work, the logic sits between a button (the trigger) and some kind of actuator (the hammer/striker, or release thereof). It doesn’t take much knowledge of electronics to connect a button to an actuator, bypassing any kind of logic in between.

              And yeah, you still need a battery, which would make it less reliable than a mechanical trigger.

          2. They’ll get better, like any other technology. I could see a smart gun used in places where only the authorities would have them. I don’t see the value when another gun is available.

        2. Lets try this again… (*bleep*ing servers)

          I believe the root of the two is the same – unreliability is unacceptable something that must work first time every time or the wrong person could die. Especially when it can spend months or years sitting in a drawer as an insurance measure before being needed in short order.

          Batteries, fickle electronics and anything else unsuited to long term storage simply don’t make sense as a consumer.

    2. In 1997, gun control proponents encouraged New Jersey lawmaker Loretta Weinberg to introduce the Childproof Handgun Act, which said that three years after a “personalized” gun was offered for sale anywhere in the U.S., New Jersey firearm retailers would be required to sell only smart guns.

      New Jersey fucked up the smart gun market by mandating them before they were ever invented.

    3. It’s interesting that every time somebody proposes a “smart gun” law they exempt the government. If the technology is so damn good, the government should be the first to embrace it. Security details for politicians should adopt the technology first and show us how good it is. Leadership!

    4. “smart” gun technology is garbage. it’s not reliable,in -any- form. Batteries can die at the worst times,the electronics can be zapped with EMP,or jammed by strong RF fields. The electronics go obsolete quickly,and guns could no longer be repaired,parts would be unavailable,and could not be made in a shop,as mechanical parts can. Lastly,any criminal could easily remove or disable the electronics,and return the gun to working order.

      If “smart” gun tech was so great,police would be the first to demand it,as they have the threat of having their gun taken from them and used against them. Or their children could access their gun and shoot themselves or another,as has already happened.But police OVERWHELMINGLY REJECT this garbage technology.

      If Comrade Obama was serious about gun control,he would mandate this “smart” gun nonsense for all FEDGOV agencies,make them use it and validate it as safe for everyone else. FEDGOV has “lost” several thousand of their guns,not counting military losses. They can’t even keep track of their own guns. Comrade Obama’s SS protection detail should be the first FEDGOV agency to have to use this technology.

  43. Obama made it plain in his first presidential campaign that gun control was not a hill he was willing to die on.

    He made it plain his was going to end the ongoing wars and close GITMO and post legislation for public comment before signing and that an individual mandate was a non-starter. But just because he couldn’t actually get much done on gun control at the federal level doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying. Even terrorist acts were turned into a chance to bemoan the Second Amendment.

    1. +1 Workplace Violence

    2. Yes, but at least look at all those line items vetoes that he… never mind.

  44. WTF is this article doing on this website?

      1. Clicksterbation.

  45. I cant seem to get any comments to post.

    For this all I can say is fuck Chapman. I didn’t even read the article but I know that is appropriate. It is amazing to me that a so-called libertarian magazine has so much squish when it comes to inalienable rights.

    1. Don’t worry, Reason will get a real web server soon. Ok, they won’t. Just refresh your browser once before posting. Then after you post, you’ll probably need at least 3 refreshes before the post actually shows up. I guess we few will keep this chat room all to ourselves, as no sane person coming here will put up with this shit for long before giving up.

      1. [Tin Foil Hattery] Perhaps they are trying to find Peak Frustration in The Commentariat so they simply run us off for more, ahem, “reasonable,” “sophisticated”, and obsequious commenters. [/Tin Foil Hattery]

    2. It’s not a bad idea to recognize when some battles are either won or lost or stalemated and to prioritize accordingly. Gun control is a dead issue for the moment, while Obamacare and the SCOTUS pick are going to be hugely inclement fights.

    3. Okay, so it’s not just me.

  46. The thing is, if the political Left isn’t prepared to admit that right written explicitly into the Bill of Rights is a ‘Constitutional Right’ and should be very broadly respected, then I cannot begin to trust them on ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

    I don’t own any guns. I don’t expect to own any guns any time soon. But that so many of the Political Class, in both parties, feel justified in weaseling around the plain wording of a Constitutional Amendment is grounds for legitimate worry. Maybe Trump’s victory justified some degree of hope on this front. But the battle isn’t won, and won’t be won until the anti-Gun forces are willing to come right out and propose a Constitutional Amendment to make their proposals Constitutional. Until then they are all a bunch of scofflaws, and must be watched closely.

    1. All of the regulatory stuff and the lists restricting people’s 2nd A rights are blatantly unconstitutional. And everyone defending them will be totally shocked when the same type of bullshit is used to restrict rights that they care about, like the first amendment. The left will totally cheer restrictions on the first, but then when their own free speech rights get restricted they’ll be screaming foul louder than anyone else.

      1. They already scream louder and use more foul language than anyone else….

    2. “Schofield Kid, that’s what they call me… onaccounta my Schofield-model Smith & Wesson pistol.”

    3. You can expect them to respect a right they agree with. It’s when they stop agreeing with it you have to worry.

  47. It’s hilarious, but not unexpected, that Chapman accepts at face value Obama’s bullshit about “no one wants to take away your guns”.

    1. Obama has the states and localities take away our guns for us.

      I.e. both sides are correct.

    2. Said the spider to the fly.

  48. If Obama doesn’t want to confiscate guns, why does he keep praising countries that confiscated guns?

    Obama Praises Australia’s Gun Confiscation

    Quote: Obama said:

    Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.


    Let me be clear, as Obama likes to say: You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law.

    1. But, but, but…………they didn’t confiscate them now. Did they? They bought them back.
      (sly smile)

      I love it when they say “back” and in “buy back”. It implies the government owned them, sold them and took them back as a return.

  49. Jesus Christ.

    Nick, Matt, are you guys just trolling us at this point?

    It is pretty fucking infuriating that Reason Foundation pays this assclown to publish retarded garbage. Same goes for Dalmia.

    If you’re desperate for writers, have a tryout among the commetariat. Better yet, start a Huffpo style blog for us.

    1. Beg to differ. It’s constructive. It gets us off our collective butts and incites us to carefully outline our arguments. This makes us all better in the end.

  50. I am in my 50’s and I have no record of any kind. I have never been arrested, suspected, charged or convicted of anything whatsoever. I mind my own business and I keep my hands off of other people and off of their property. I cant think of anyone that has a beef with me. I have also been a hunter and shooter and reloader all of my life. I have a hell of a good gun collection and for thirty years I probably burned through 20-50K rounds a year.

    There is a line for me and guns are it. I won’t register my guns and I won’t give them up. I am the guy the gun grabbers want to criminalize and the guy they are going to have to kill.

    1. I’m with you there. Gun control IS a hill I’m willing to die on.

    2. Somewhere in a nondescript federal building in New York City, a man perks up as if startled by premonition. His eye twitches briefly, and he cocks his head as if hearing voices from a distance. His name is Preet, and his hands move to the keyboard.

      1. I actually do have a real, no shit, honest to god woodchipper.

        1. and you’re not afraid to use it?

          1. That’s right.

          2. I’d be afraid to use one, but only because I have an odd fixation with my hands being mangled.

        2. What part of the south are you in? I’ll help you run it.

          1. Central parish of Loosiana.

            1. Nice to see another southern Libertarian. Sometimes I think I’m the only one. The Arkansas river valley in west arkansas is not exactly a hotbed of libertarian sentiment.

        3. hogs are cleaner/neater and leave no DNA to be discovered.

    3. Amen.

      I think this is the only way to look at it. The line between becoming Canada, the UK/Europe and Australia is a thin one.

      Keep America, AMERICA.

      1. Canadians like you give the social signalling, progtarded, goodthinking, inferiority-complex-having Canadians a bad name.

        I thank you for your service.

    4. I mind my own business and I keep my hands off of other people and off of their property.

      You’re the reason why it’s apparently important to find increasingly novel ways to create more prohibited people. Secret lists, the stroke of a doctor’s pen, what you do in private with your own body, etc.

      Getting this trend reversed is as crucial as stopping proposed direct regulation on sales, possession, and use of arms.

      No other civil liberty in the US requires the same unwavering path on the straight-and-narrow to preserve it for the individual, and no other can as arbitrarily be taken away.

  51. The NRA can go on depicting a dystopian nightmare in which gun owners are cruelly deprived of their right to protect themselves. But it’s a Halloween house of horrors, not the real world.

    lolwut? I guess Chapman has never heard of CA, NJ, NY, CT, &c and so forth.

    1. He’s probably a special snowflake and allowed to have armed body guards while he’s here.

      Just like Feinstein.

    2. Chapman probably thinks he’s able to defend his home against a riot mob with a bolt-action rifle with 5 rounds in the magazine,or a 6 round revolver.

  52. Hey, when people are happy, they drink and they smoke. When people are not happy, they drink and they smoke. Same thing!

  53. For those keeping score at home, team blue was wiping the floor with team red until the early 2013 senate non-vote of Dear Leaders 4 gun control proposals(post sandy hook). They were finally stopped cold, and the spineless GOP finally stood up and proved that Dear Leader could bleed.

    The NRA was a big part of that. Although expect some kind of secret list law to come out and get passed as a gutted procedurally dense piece of ‘useless’ legislation. During the run up expect a bunch of NRA donations, a lot of ratings spikes as the two bases get riled up, ammo scarcity, gun price spikes, and firearms stock prices rising. The end result will likely piss of the progs and ultimately be useless. Because what is the point of informing a would-be terrorist under investigation that his gun rights have been revoked?(not to mention showing our hand on these ‘secret’ lists). Also I think it jus made every ‘secret list’ fair game for opening up given its new liability.

    With all that said, it might be prudent to cross reference these lists with gun purchases (background checks) then either investigate the correlations as active threats (i.e. determine if they are in fact now-armed terrorists), or TAKE THEM OFF THE DAMN LIST.

  54. Must not get the news where Chapman lives…

    1. that would be douche bag county, in the great state of dumb fuck

  55. The NRA can go on depicting a dystopian nightmare in which gun owners are cruelly deprived of their right to protect themselves. But it’s a Halloween house of horrors, not the real world.

    Chapman writes this article as if gun rights are not almost constantly under assault by agitators, NGOs, lobbyists, think tanks, politicians, bureaucrats and foreign bodies like the UN.

    1. And I must have missed Chapman writing the same things about the ACLU, Amnesty International, SPLC, NAACP, or other civil rights organizations that aren’t the NRA.

  56. Obama made it plain in his first presidential campaign that gun control was not a hill he was willing to die on.

    The Sandy Hook kids’ sacrifice was not in vain Sgt. Obama said to himself, surveying the corpses that had seemingly opened up a left flank to the prize: Gun Grabber Ridge.

    Obama looked back to his platoon – a motley collection of trannies and girls with helmets who stared at their weapons like so many muggles with wands. Not the best trained unit Obama knew, but man were they dedicated. “Go, go go!”

    One-by-one they went over the foxhole, and stumbled up towards the soft left flank. And a silence grew, also in part one-by-one, as Obama’s platoon disappeared but did not come back, nor the flag on the emplacement atop the ridge change.

    After several minutes that each seemed an eternity, Obama knew how successful he’d been – such to say not at all, for he heard, louder and louder, the rumble of what could only be a Trump Tank.

    Wistful and forlorn, Obama started slinking back down the hill. So close to Gun Grabber Ridge, yet so far…he would need more Donkey-fodder to send up the hill, and more time to do it. And Obama no longer had more of either.

  57. Well this is ironic….guess who wrote?

    https://reason.com/archives/201…..-amendment

  58. Chapman is really salty regarding Hillary losing

  59. . His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners

    Minimal impact?

    Say what, motherfucker?

    (I half apologize, but seriously?

    Bans and mandatory state interference is “minimal impact”?

    Do you have any goddamn idea what you’re talking about?)

    1. “Shall not be infringed…” is an extremely hard concept to understand for many people.

      1. Yep. But hey, they like to say, there’s that well regulated militia thing and we all know the National Guard fulfills that role.

  60. Steve Chapman makes it clear he’s not an NRA member. “How will the NRA sell fear without Obama?” Well, the NRA does not sell fear. It sells the Second Amendment. That Amendment may one day be what saves Chapman’s life.

    1. Fair point, but I’m still in favor of 2a.

  61. Chapman is a Chicago Tribune writer. Ergo, a leftist. He doesn’t know squat about guns, gun owners, or the Second Amendment. He may know how the Negro youth out of the Chicago ghettos are killing each other right and left with illegal and stolen guns, but he doesn’t know anything else, and certainly does not know anything about the NRA. I’d bet money he has never read through either one of the NRA publications. What the dickens is this boob doing on reason.com?

    1. 1000 upvotes.

  62. I wondered about this as well when I received my letter and saw the fear mongering. Although I imagined that they went with the generic congress/elected officials are coming after our guns as their new tactic since “their guy” won.

  63. This is the dumbest article I’ve ever read on this site (and that’s saying something). Reason, if you want more donations, fire him immediately for this obvious attempt to tear a hole in the universe through sheer number of logical inconsistencies/fallacies.

  64. “ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of ‘assault’ weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds…..These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.”

    If you consider banning the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, and criminalizing the most common magazines in U.S. homes, as “minimal impact”, then you don’t even *pretend* to understand the culture of lawful and responsible gun ownership in the United States. Cloistered ignorance on display.

    It was *precisely* those proposals that had mainstream gun owners most concerned.

    1. criminalizing the primary MILITIA WEAPON of the US citizenry.
      That IS what AR-15’s and their variants are; militia weapons.

  65. Gun paranoia? If actually banning shit and passing laws restricting the 2nd amendment is “paranoia”, call me nervous.

    1. Just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean they are not after you.

      1. That is the proper formulation. A lot of people are getting that mixed up. Being paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. But that they are out to get you doesn’t mean you aren’t paranoid.

        1. Paranoia is characterized by delusions of persecution. If you really are being persecuted or credibly threatened with such, then the only way you can be paranoid is if you have delusions of different persecution from the stuff that you’re getting.

  66. “I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

    “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

    “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

    “Sorry Steve, I won’t cum in your mouth unless you beg for it”

    He musta kept at least one of those…

  67. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.

    Oh fuck off, Chapman, you tedious dickwagon.

    1. “Dickwagon”. For some reason I really enjoy ridiculous neologisms like that.

  68. Alright, Reason is selling out on the second amendment. The Left-wing Reform Party, here we come!

    Un-libertarian moment!

  69. No problem. When the Democrats are in charge, we buy guns because we fear the government banning them. When the Republicans are in charge, we buy guns because we really like guns.

    1. And because they scare the Democrats. Making them think twice before taking us on again.

  70. This is a poor article, way below Reason’s usual standard.

    1. You don’t avoid dumb laws by assuming the best of them, you avoid them by assuming the worst and fighting like hell.

    2. “Proposals to ban the manufacture & sale of regular capacity magazines and AR15s would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners”. That statement is utterly idiotic.

    1. Yeah exactly, the AR15 is one of the most common rifles in the country. And if you don’t like the AR15, you’re gonna really hate the Springfield Armory M1A Precision .308, etc.

      Once they come for AR15s they’ll get everything else. Handguns are “only for shooting people”, and deer rifles are “sniper rifles”, etc.

    2. Well the military and police would get to keep their M-24 bolt actions anyway.

      What good is a 30 round mag when a single shot in the hands of a pro will do?

      sarc

  71. Not sure how this screed could appear in a libertarian magazine. Libertarianism is notably absent throughout. As it happens, there were realistically only two candidates in this election, and one of them would have appointed Supreme Court justices who would have gutted the Second Amendment for all time. I voted for the other one.

    1. Amen.

  72. If I ran the NRA I would be turning off the “fear” lamp and getting the members out for a blitzkrieg to rack up sone serious successes while the time is right. Fire the supporters up with a strategy for not defending freedom but for expanding it.

    National reciprocity for concealed carry. Expand “The Hearing Protection Act” to not just remove sound suppressors from the NFA but to gut the NFA under the pretense of removing restrictions from hearing protection devices. Strike down all “assault weapon” import restrictions. I can think of hundreds of things the NRA could be rallying its members to action over.

    Take an offensive posture while we have a chance to do it.

  73. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://www.Nypost55.com

  74. Who is this Chapman fool, and how the hell did he get a job here? WTF?!

    First Bob Barr, then Weld,…now this guy?! Seriously?! Damn, this stoopid shit has to stop right fucking now!

  75. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  76. Wow, I’ve read really stupid and illogical gun articles over the years but this one wins the prize for the dumbest. Congrats.

  77. This is a silly article… There are many, many examples of LEADERS of the Democrat Party who have said they would take guns away… Gun Control has been a losing issue for the Democrats so they pretend that they have no “past” of taking away people rights…. Illinois, California, New York, Washington DC… are all under the Democrats Control and they have made it very difficult for gun owners… Try buying a AR-15 in any of these States…

  78. I saw a frenzy of AR-15 purchases right here in the Golden State a couple years back when new gun control laws were slated to take effect. The prices were astronomical.

    Articles like this only supported my anecdotal observations.

    http://www.breitbart.com/calif…..-controls/

    The most poignant take away for me personally was that some anti-gun types I know were buying them. They wanted to make sure they had one before the ban took effect.

    1. Naturally, because gun laws, like a lot of other Progressive-supported regulations, is something imposed on someone else.

  79. Read Damon Root’s book “Overruled” especially the part about how the NRA tried to fuck up “Heller” and “McDonald”.

  80. Washington State passed two idiotic initiatives to control gun sales. The NRA was nowhere to be seen. Not one ad, not even a mention. After the first initiative I told the last NRA salesman who wanted me to become a lifetime member that if they let another initiative go by with no action on their part I would cancel my membership. The second initiative went on the ballot, the NRA did nothing and they lost a member.

  81. Good grief! Didn’t the writer notice that the NRA was concerned about Hillary’s overt plans for gun control and gun confiscation. Did the writer miss that Hillary said she wanted to do like Australia’s “successful” program – which was outright confiscation?

  82. I think you’re wrong about “assault weapon” restrictions having a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners, but otherwise spot on.

  83. Everybody can earn 150$+ daily… You can earn from 4000-9000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  84. Sure, Obama said that HE wouldn’t take peoples’ guns away from them, but there really wasn’t a whole lot of chance he could actually do it in practice. However, Obama has been very careful not to say that he actually *opposes* confiscatory gun laws, which leads me to believe that he believes, or anyway suspects, that somewhere down the road he will be obligated to support, or anyway not openly oppose, someone else’s efforts to confiscate privately owned guns. If Obama really believed that “no one” wants to confiscate privately owned guns, then going on record as actually opposing such would be a political gimme with no downside. Since he hasn’t, well…….

  85. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://JobNews80.com

  86. It’s about turning the tide. Go on the offensive. Repeal the NFA.

  87. President Obama also promised that if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan. That’s one of the many things that stopped many people including me believing anything he says, so it’s disappointing to see the author – Steve Chapman – seemingly believing him implicitly…

  88. I have visited so many comment blogs,but i have not felt best,but this blog has been nicely using for my comments,I have been working in the SEO company for over seven months at http://www.friv.gold/,i would like to your comment suggestions so keep and touch.
    It is the best time to make plans for the future and it’s time to be happy http://www.juegosdefriv.live/ I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or advice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.