Guns Are for Everybody

Like America itself, gun owners are a varied bunch whose politics and experiences don't conform to any narrative.


Stepan Generalov

Clinton, Utah

Custom-built M16A4 clone (5.56x45 mm)

"I first started as a skateboarder, but then I learned about parkour. In parkour there was this whole philosophical movement, no joke, about building yourself as a stronger, better individual. One of the sayings that I think very well displays the philosophy behind pretty much everything I do, it goes like this: To be strong to be useful. To be strong to serve. There was a moment in my life when I decided that I am a person that is for progress—for good and against evil.

"It's not just about being able to run fast, or jump obstacles, or jump from big heights. It's also that sometimes you cannot just run away. Maybe there's someone with you, like your girlfriend or a kid that needs protection, and they cannot run away, because they're not as fast as you. What are you gonna do? You're gonna fight.

"When I started shooting, I thought, Hey, I can handle this. It's a better weapon than my fists. This works on bigger distances, can stop a threat even without actually engaging them—just by showing it—and stuff like that.

"I heard that kung fu should be translated as—how do you say it in English?—'the way of the work,' 'the way of the labor.' Basically it means the way of someone who works hard toward the goal that's maybe not very achievable, but the way itself is the purpose. It's always about getting better. It's always about being safer, being a better person. And really, shooting is just another martial art for me. It's just my kung fu. It is a discipline.

"I know there's a danger always to it. I know sometimes people are not very responsible. But that's the case with really every aspect of life."

Stepan Generalov


Alex Levicoff

Wyncote, Pennsylvania

Marlin Glenfield Model 25 (.22LR) (not pictured)

"My favorite type of shooting is bench shooting, where you set up your rifle with a bipod or a filled sandbag or something—basically keep it stationary with very fine adjustments while you're holding it—to shoot long ranges. Think, colloquially, sniping. I want a little piece of paper or a small steel gong about 100–500 yards away from me and just put holes in that paper and make the steel ping a lot. For me it's a nice place to focus. To sit, be introspective, almost zen out, get into myself, and just enjoy doing something on my own.

"One of the rifles I do not yet own is an AR-15-pattern rifle. The wonderful young lady I live with is averse to me building or buying an AR-15-pattern rifle because of its recent demonization in mass media.

"My first giant sticking point is that everyone says the AR [stands for] 'assault rifle' and the 15 doesn't mean anything. Well, if I hit you with a book, that is an assault book. If I hit you with a car, it's an assault car. Assaulting is simply the matter of attacking somebody. AR is ArmaLite, the company that originally came up with the pattern adapted from Eugene Stoner's M16 military rifle. It is just another rifle. If you put the exact same mechanism into a wooden stock, people go, 'Oh, it's just a hunting rifle. That's fine.' Well, no. It fires the same exact way. It holds just as many bullets."

Alex Levicoff


Alex Lambson

Sandy, Utah

Custom-built AR-10 (7.62x51 mm)

"It'd be easy for me to be like, 'Oh, nobody needs a concealed-carry [permit],' because I live in this bougie apartment right across the street from the police station that's mostly secure. When I'm walking around there's no danger out here. But for some people, walking from the bus stop to their house is dangerous. I feel like for me to tell them you don't need [a gun] is really just kind of privileged—trying to take my bubble and to project it onto them.

"I realize my views are extremely radical for American politics—I like Marx's view on guns. His language was old-school, and I can't repeat it verbatim, but it was basically: Any attempt to disarm the working-class needs to be obstructed by force. It's always funny when people say the left wants to take away guns. It's like, well, no, it's not the left that wants to take away guns. It's Democrats. And you know, it seems like most anti-gun people are upper-middle-class and usually white, in my experience."

Alex Lambson


Aulani Kahalewai

Gilbert, Arizona

Ruger AR-556 MPR (5.56x45 mm)

"I've had my [concealed carry permit] for at least four years now. I have owned a gun since I was 16. It's been a part of my life, so much so that as I'm looking for work elsewhere in the country, one of the first things I check is the gun politics in those areas. Can I take my guns with me? Can I bring my firearms?

"It's not like I'm attached to them greatly—I mean, I spent a good deal of money on them, and it's a personal hobby—[but] it boils down to protection. Protection of myself comes second. It's really the protection of my daughter, and making sure that I come home to her alive rather than in a box.

"I'm a trans woman of color. I'm a native Pacific Islander. There's very few demographics that are smaller than us. And very few demographics that have been stepped on as much as us, too."

Aulani Kahalewai


Jorge Bolanos

Santa Maria, California

Patriot Ordnance Factory P416 (5.56x45 mm)

"The best way I describe my stance towards police is: I'll show respect to them, but I won't always trust them to do the right thing.…How this relates to firearms and self-defense is we're really kind of getting to a point where a lot of minorities don't trust police to protect them, so they want to take it into their own hands. That's kind of a sad reality, but it kind of goes back to, 'Don't trust the government.'

"I'm fairly left-leaning, but I think what JFK says: You don't want to do something because it's easy; you want to do it because it's hard. I think the left has the answers to a lot of the problems with guns: health care, helping out the poor with various services, the robust welfare state we've seen in parts of Europe that's worked pretty well. But not with gun control. I think they're just taking the easy way out. They're not taking responsibility and trying to ask the hard questions of, 'Why is there such high crime?' I think I've heard at times, 'Nothing stops a bullet like a job.'"

Jorge Bolanos


Benjamin Benefiel

Phoenix, Arizona

Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 (9x19 mm)

"I basically think it boils down to two things: First off, I'm not doing anything to harm anybody, so why should somebody else have a right to tell me what I can and can't own? And secondly, by natural law, I should have access to something that will allow me to equalize the playing field when somebody's coming in and trying to rape my wife or abduct my child or burn down my house.

"I literally cannot comprehend the fear and the loathing that people have for what's basically a pile of metal parts screwed together. It's just a thing. It's a tool. It sits there.

"I am married. We just had our sixth anniversary. We have two children, both girls. I hope that they grow up having some of the same appreciations that I do for self-ownership and personal liberty and civil rights. Included in that is I hope that they have an interest in firearms and the Second Amendment, and that they are able to become shooters and enjoy it. If they don't, that's fine. It's their life. But hopefully I can teach them well enough to at least understand why I hold the positions that I do, and even if down the road for some reason they become anti-gun, they can at least understand where pro-gun people are coming from.

"I would say that I am a Quaker with Vedanta leanings, which is sort of a Hinduism thing, who tries to practice Buddhist ethics. Quakers are notorious for being nonviolent people, and I kind of take pride in knowing that I believe in that, but I have guns and I do martial arts. Because while I fundamentally disagree with the idea that you should ever initiate violence on somebody, that same rule applies to other people [as well]. If somebody else is going to initiate violence on a third party…I need to have the capacity to stop that from happening.

"In order to stop a cycle of violence, I need to be willing to interject with violence if it is absolutely necessary."

Benjamin Benefiel


Sander Leary

Gilbert, Arizona

Custom-built AR-15 (5.56x45 mm)

"I'm trans. I also don't identify as straight. I'm also on the autism spectrum. And I'm disabled. All those things combined, then, I'm not the most popular person in today's world.…I don't want to ever actually have to use them, but I feel better having my concealed carry on me. [My partner Aulani] works overnight, so I'm home a lot with [her daughter], and I can't move that fast. I want to make sure I can keep her safe if I have to.

"The first time we went to the gun show I was super uncomfortable. It's a lot of American flags and a lot of Trump stuff. The second time we went—last weekend, I think—I was a little more comfortable, because people do interact with you. And a lot of times, a lot of these people—even if they already know that we're probably politically different—the fact that we have this thing in common, they'll still be respectful and still have a conversation with you, as long as the conversation stays on guns."

Sander Leary


NEXT: Massachusetts Regulators Get Tough on LaCroix

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. Those are some nice ARs and I especially like the one that the “radical” kid from Utah has with the scope and bipod. But he’s not entirely honest in his assessment: gun control is entirely a political project on the left. It’s good to hear that he doesn’t like that, but maybe he should work a little harder at convincing his supposed allies of the benefits of an armed citizenry.

    1. Yeah, that's a sweet rifle

    2. I know leftists who are more pro-gun than Republicans.
      It's more of an urban vs rural philosophy.

      1. The advocates for gun control are entirely on the left, that there are a few pro-gun lefties doesn’t alter the fact that those seeking to deny the people the right to keep and hear arms are all on that side of the political divide. Name a prominent politician on the left who is pro-gun (or for that matter a right winger who is a grabber).

      2. Pro-gun leftist? Lol.... I've met a few confused pro 2nd Amendment Democrats but that's about it. The 2nd amendment speaks to the heart of individual liberty. No leftist worth their salt can allow that cancer to spread at least not once the revolution is won.

      3. It was urban vs rural until the left moved to the rural, my little tow this year started limiting the property people could shot on. It was all leftys

        1. In my area, we aren't limited to shooting, but we don't shoot because folks will complain and then we won't be able to. Catch 22!! And the people complaining: wealthy conservatives, generally. Because that's what we have around here.

        2. There are some small towns that have been colonized, but that's not the norm. They're almost universally college towns, or cool touristy areas. I lived in a tourist spot that had started being taken over by yuppies about 15-20 years earlier, and all the long term residents hated the fuck out of most of those people. For good reason.

          There may be a few loaded cons who don't want people shooting off 500 rounds in earshot out there, but very few of them want to ban people from being able to do it out of earshot like the commies do.

    3. Gun owners are so diverse! Look at these seven different types of white men gun owners!

      1. We know chipper. You want to go back to denying minorities their rights. Gun control started as a racist attempt to deny African americans protection after all. You probably salivate over the 1900s south though.

        1. I don't support any gun control. Gun rights are especially important to minorities. Not sure what the hell you are talking about.

          1. He's talking about your stupid fucking post retard.

            1. Read it again, retard. He thinks they some need some MORE FUCKING NON-WHITE GUN OWNERS TO MAKE THE FUCKING POINT, DUMBASS. What's so fucking hard about that to understand, you dipshit? Goddamn you people are stupid.

              1. Well, if non whites were cooler and owned more guns it would have been easier to find some to photograph!

                I saw an obvious Asian immigrant at the gun store when I picked up my last one. He had his hot, tiny, little Asian girlfriend with him. Other than the nice eye candy he provided me with, I was glad to see a non white person in there. Other than blacks who have been in America a long time and are often gun friendly, we REALLY need to work on all these new foreigners from shit holes where guns are outlawed. All these assholes are voting now, or will be, so if we want to keep our freedoms they have to be brought into the fold as much as possible.

          2. It's okay, Chipper, I don't either. Jesse's good at making up shit and saying people said things they didn't. He does it often. Just some lying little turd, pay him no mind.

        2. LOL. He's saying they need to show more non-white gun owners to make the point, not that non-whites shouldn't have guns. How the fuck you got Chipper being an anti-gun racist out of that is beyond me. Fucking idiot.

          1. Why?

            Why do you need to kow-tow to leftist standards?

            These people are of diverse OPINIONS--meaning that they're different in ways they have control over. That's diversity.

            The leftist version--wherein everyone thinks the same thing whilst having different physical or mental features isn't an important kind of diversity at all.

            But Chip's a prog. He prefers NPCthink to actual thought, so this is all right in line with his programming.

      2. Six. One of them is a latino. Hell, look at the showcase picture at the top. I mean you got a fucking tranny wearing a hybrid rainblow/gadsden flag that said "ShootBack" on it for fuck's sake! What's not diverse about that? That's something to celebrate motherfucker! 😉

        That said, a few blacks and such would make a nice touch, too, so you're not totally off. I hear they tried to get Killer Mike but he's off hding in a hole somewhere so I guess he was unavailable for comment...

        1. You should probably start taking your meds again.
          Or get some new ones.
          Either way

        2. One is a Latino. Two are trans. I presume the one with the beard is female-to-male trans, and I'm not sure about the other one. (This trans claims to be a Pacific Islander, but his skin is paler than any part of my northern European white man's skin that has been exposed to the sun within the last decade.)

        3. They should have got Iced T, he's actually pretty awesome. He's pro gun, and I've seen some pretty conservative/libertarian quotes from him over the years!

  2. I feel like for me to tell them you don't need [a gun] is really just kind of privileged—trying to take my bubble and to project it onto them.

    Nice. Turn privilege right back on them.

  3. “Gun control” has very little to do with guns, the actual objective power over gun owners.

    1. Gin control is people control.

  4. I find it problematic for Reason to glorify gun ownership like this.

    According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, we freedom-lovers should support common sense gun safety legislation. Moreover, sensible gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.


    1. Common-sense gun safety seems reasonable to me. I could support most any law that keeps my guns safe from politicians, police, and whiney do-gooders.

    2. The question is, of course is: what is "common sense?" I tend to look at common sense as something that, first of all, will actually go to some measure of achieving its stated goals. For serious reading, I would suggest either of Kleck's books as being the most comprehensive look at the issue of gun violence and gun control available. I have not read the latest edition, but your local library will have a copy.

      1. "Common" "sense"?

        The same intellectual skills that most people used to support a flat earth and reject germ theory? That led them to follow authorities that promoted blood letting, young earth creationism, and communism?

        There are commoners and there is sense, but the overlap is mighty small, and a poor choice to guide laws about anything.

        1. Speaking generally, I agree with you. It all depends on how one defines "common sense." My mother hated guns. Never even touched one in over eighty years of life. Yet, she was never anti-gun or for "gun control," since she recognized that the only thing dangerous about guns were people (and only a few of them.) She spend her childhood on a farm. She was full of a lot of "common sense" which actually is as advertised. 🙂

    3. Reason isn't "glorifying" gun ownership in this article at all.

      Instead, Reason is demonstrating that gun owners are far more diverse than the typical simplistic debate would lead most to believe - the gun owners exist across the political spectrum. This is a healthy perspective, if we are going to have a REAL conversation about gun ownership, rather than resorting to the tired, "right vs. left" stereotypes that dominate the debate.

      But I'm curious - can you elaborate on your statement that, "sensible gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution?" Where exactly in the Constitution does it say this?

      1. It's right after where the First Amendment protects political satire, but it's in really small print.

      2. OBL does sarcasms for fun. The only reply post to OBL should be the joke is getting really old now.

        1. I think it's just cut paste from think progress and huffpo.

        2. "OBL does sarcasms for fun. The only reply post to OBL should be the joke is getting really old now."

          But you have to admire his dedication. I've never seen him slip. And he's been running that sock for a long time. Kinda impressive, actually.

          1. I have. I trolled him into breaking character, and he sounded exactly like Crusty does when he bitches at me.

            1. Fuck off, Hihn.

      3. It's funny all of the folks that come in a take OBL serious and who don't know Hinh.

        1. Yeah. I made the classic mistake of responding to the post before reading the byline. LOL. Oh well. Never a bad thing to mention Kleck.

    4. Yep the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed sounds sensible to me.

      1. Why, you renegade! 🙂

    5. OBL, I think you are but young, or immature.

      My first encounter with "libertarianism" was as a bumper sticker on the back of a car that read, "libertarians" are pro.. (long list followed). Basically, small-ell libertarians support individuals as opposed to groups that would stifle individualism. "Glorifying guns" this is not, rather, it is protecting the rights of individuals to take care of themselves, individually. The article shows just how "diverse" gun owners (a.k.a. "gun nuts") are.

      Seriously, peace to you, but please remember that the first part of libertarian thought is that it sees the individual.

    6. “we freedom-lovers should support common sense gun safety legislation.”

      I do. I support common sense gun safety legislation that would overturn the National Firearms Act of 1934, The Gun Control Act of 1968, The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the Brady Bill. The Second Amendment says: “shall not be infringed” and, as those laws restrict our rights, they clearly “infringe”

      I support common sense gun safety legislation declaring that all firearms and magazines are protected by the Second Amendment and their possession cannot be banned or restricted. The Second Amendment doesn't mention any exceptions to its protection.

      I support common sense gun safety legislation that would prohibit the government from restricting the right to keep and bear arms of anyone who is not in prison unless they have been diagnosed as being mentally incompetent. The standard for mental incompetence being Alexandria Cowfarts Cortez.

      I support common sense gun safety legislation that would allow Americans to carry their firearms in any place they are legally entitled to be. Disarming Americans with “Gun Free Zones” is not common sense, it’s a threat to our safety by depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves.

      I support common sense gun safety legislation that would prohibit municipalities from restricting gun stores and ranges within their borders. Making it difficult for us to buy guns and practice shooting is not common sense, it deprives us of the ability to defend ourselves and to become proficient in the use of our firearms. Without practice, citizens might miss their intended targets as much as the police do. And as Slayer said: “Stray bullets can kill”

      1. How about the 1792 Second Militia Act? Presumably they knew exactly what the 2nd Amendment meant. And in that law - militia muster was mandatory, gun inspection/safety/training was mandatory, and registration at that muster was mandatory.

        Or do you have a clearer understanding of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment than they did?

        1. The Militia Act, actually, has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. It has everything to do with the government's power to raise an army. Don't forget the context: the constitution was "amended" to ensure the people would maintain the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise it would not have been ratified.

          1. I would suggest you read the text of 1792 Militia Act. It REQUIRED all white males between 18 and 45 to purchase arms - and then enroll in their local militia. And said arms would be exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes which is precisely the means by which Congress could 'infringe' on that right to keep and bear because those are the means by which the British had restricted those rights in previous decades/centuries. That 'exemption' is worded specifically because of the 2nd Amendment

            1. I am familiar with the Act. But my point is, that the Militia Act gave the government the power to train and arm citizens, though they did very little of it until the Dick Act. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment limited the power of the government vis-a-vis privately-held arms. Two entirely different entities with two entirely different purposes.

              1. No they are not different entities. I know folks like to ignore the 1st clause in the 2nd just like others like to ignore the 2nd clause in the 2nd. And everyone seems to ignore all the state-level precursors which the language of the 2nd was based on and the different iterations of the 2nd as it went through Congress. But all that means is that a huge majority of the population doesn't understand basic grammar and is lazy when it comes to history.

                The fear of those who opposed the constitution was that by taking enumerated authority (to organize/arm/etc) for militia from the states - and then failing to exercise it - that the feds would create a standing army for itself and the states would be stripped of a militia. And that they would then gut the ability of a militia to self-organize by infringing on personal arms ownership.

                That first fear is in fact exactly what happened in the 19th century. But keeping the second fear from happening via a purely individualist interpretation of the 2A is just silly. A bunch of individuals waving guns around and yapping bout tyranny ain't no militia and sure ain't gonna stop no standing army.

                1. “A bunch of individuals waving guns around and yapping bout tyranny ain’t no militia and sure ain’t gonna stop no standing army.”

                  As our sweeping and permanent victories in Iraq and Afghanistan so clearly demonstrate.

                  Oh, wait.....

                  1. Afghanistan and Iraq are tribal societies not individualist societies. Tribal societies can't be 'de'-militia'd or disarmed because each tribe is essentially its own extended kin-based militia. Your identity is not as an individual but as a member of an extended kin group. If someone takes a gun away from you, you get another one from your second cousin. If your third cousin gets injured, the person who did that is now your enemy too. Nor do they recognize anything we call 'law' or 'constitution' or 'nation' or 'rights' or any other abstraction which can either be put in place or violated. They manage relations with other tribal groups via feuds, marriages, nepotism, favors, mutual obligation, etc.

                    1. Your description of tribalism is pretty accurate, especially in regards to loyalty, respect for rules, etc. Many elements of it can also be seen in urban gangs. And sometimes in political parties, too. When it comes down to it, we all have our own "tribe." 🙂

                2. With all due respect, while I agree that the "citizen's militia" stood little chance of defeating, or even seriously harassing, an invading army, it did have a purpose -- to put down local rebellions and to maintain the peace. Now while the former only happened a small handful of times, the "citizens" were also the primary "peace-keeping" force for much of the populace, enabling the "hue and cry." Such purposes are also spelled out rather clearly in the history of the English Bill of Rights. Outside of Philadelphia, there were no police forces. The only policing was done at the federal level. Locally-elected officials still did most of the policing, as they did during the colonial period.

                  And then there is that pesky old, right to self-defense of one's home, family, community. In fact, it is not going too far to say that such a defense was, not just a right, but an obligation.

                  As far as my understanding of grammar, I hold a Masters in English, and my course of study, both as an undergraduate and a graduate, was on literature from the early 13th century onward. I assure you, I understand English quite well, as well as the history and structure of both its grammar and vocabulary.

                  1. I totally agree with the individual right to self-defense. But no one then viewed that as of any interest at all to the feds except perhaps for individuals in federal territory and frontier. Which may have been a worry of some in putting together the 2A but I've never seen that put in writing as a worry. And it wouldn't have been a worry for states to ratify because those folks living in federal territory would no longer be of interest to those states either.

                    Once you extend that individual right/obligation to defense of community, then you are talking about militia.

                    1. "Once you extend that individual right/obligation to defense of community, then you are talking about militia."

                      It depends what you call a "community," or a "militia." I am fairly certain that if your neighbor need assistance in defending himself against a violent criminal, you would not hesitate to offer any assistance you deemed reasonable, as would many neighbors. If the police are unable to protect the property and welfare of the citizens due to say, riots which the police cannot control, or due to a natural disaster such as a fire which wipes out an entire town in a few hours, then citizens acting together, to protect themselves, are the very definition of a "militia." At least the "unregulated" part of it. In each case,

                    2. In each case, the "organized" (or "regulated?") part of the militia was eventually called in (the National Guard).

                    3. The concern was re the part of the militia that the feds could call up into federal service. That isn't really a 'different' militia from those that aren't called up but argument's sake pretend they are.

                      They both need to drill and train together so they both need the same org structure and discipline and arms. Which are federal responsibilities under the constitution - because the feds need to make sure that the militias of different states can also be effective when combined into service. The officers remain a responsibility of the states - so it is the states that can control the particulars of which units will not be called up (remain at state level to keep protecting local community) and which will be called up.

                      It's a juggling act compared to the 'administrative ease' of just setting up a separate standing army. Which is why it would be tempting for the feds to just ignore their enumerated militia responsibilities (which is what happened) and we'd end up with the anathema of a standing army. THAT's why we needed the 2A - so that states (and local communities) wouldn't be harmed by the failure of the feds to perform their part of that juggling act - and so that states (not individuals) could resist the potential tyranny of a standing army if the feds got lazy (or used lazy to achieve evil).

                      I'm not sure we can really get back to that original intent of 2A because our entire system now - standing army, Natl Guard, FEMA, DHS, professionalized police/fire/etc at state/local level - is built around a BROKEN 2A and enumerated militia powers. Switzerland and maybe Finland would be the only model that still kinda does what we intended to do. But interpreting 2A in some purely individualist right of self-defense way is just a way to ensure it remains broken.

                      Libertarians in particular have a problem because they can't distinguish conscription into a national standing army from mandatory local militia muster/duty. Which enables the worst of all possible worlds - a standing army untethered to citizen obligation (congress having also proven its laziness re accountability) and hence a foreign policy that can range aggressively, tyrannically, and globally. And a local community that is composed of lots of sheep baahing in a crisis to a few professionalized guards/wolves.

                    4. Try reading what the author of the 2nd said. Everybody, save a few politicians, was considered to be in the militia in his eyes. Their intention was very much an armed populace.

                      The only reason they didn't spell out "Every single person can own whatever the fuck kind of gun they want" is because it was such an overwhelmingly obvious thing that people should be able to do that they didn't think it needed to be spelled out. This is the same with a number of other things in the constitution and other early laws. Unfortunately they were wrong, and people are idiots, so they should have spelled some stuff out more clearly.

                3. ""No they are not different entities. I know folks like to ignore the 1st clause in the 2nd just like others like to ignore the 2nd clause in the 2nd."'

                  The fallacy is thinking the 1st clause describes to whom the right belongs. There were many reasons people owned a gun back then.

                  Because a job is needed for prosperity, the right of the people to own a car shall not be infringed.

                  Would this mean only people with a job, or intended to get a job is allowed a car?

        2. Nothing at all wrong with the 1792 Militia Act. A lot of gun control advocates make much of "well regulated" in the second amendment.

          However, read in context, it is perfectly clear that the thing to be "well regulated" is the militia, not the right to keep and bear arms.

          It's not the fault of gun owners that they regulated the militia (as it existed in the founding era) out of existence.

          1. Well, I agree re the 2nd, but the militia, except rarely, and usually on a local level, was never "well-regulated." If it hadn't, we might not have needed the Dick Act. At its best the feds had programs designed to familiarize private citizens with the current military hardware.

            The Militia Act still stands, though. It wasn't legislated out of existence as much as it just died a natural death. I think the notion of America being a "nation of riflemen" seemed to be enough for most people. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it seems to be what happened.

  5. There's very few demographics that are smaller than us. And very few demographics that have been stepped on as much as us, too.

    There are a lot fewer me than there are trans woman, native Pacific Islanders. I belong to the only demographic that matters: the individual. People with guns and ill intentions have been stepping on the individual since guns were invented. But an armed individual is much more difficult to step on.

  6. jesus titty-fucking christ! this was literally just as cringe as those "/k/ is a progressive board" posters.

    These "left libertarian" articles are 100% Democrat socialist gaslighting. No amount of degenerate LGBTQWERTYBBQ Marx spewing gun owners will ever be successful in protecting gun rights in our, or any other, civil society. Every one of those idiots will inevitably support politicians and policies which must lead to total gun confiscation.

    Which leads to the ultimate agenda of Reason staff writers. The managed decline and subversion of Libertarian thought as to render it impotent to stop the evils of Marxism from being inflicted by the illiterate, degenerate, moocher hoarde being imported to destroy us. Reason is pushing this lie of Left-Libertarianism to destroy us.

    There is no, and can never be any, such thing as a Left Libertarian. Leftism DEMANDS the existance of a non-consentual power structure designed specifically to violate property rights. That is leftism’s highest moral good, and primary first principle. Leftism must be authoritarian. It can not be anything else. Libertarianism must stand in opposition to all forms of leftism.

    Right wing thought is equally predicated on one axiomatic principle; the advocation of the property rights of every living human. Therefore Libertarianism is and can only ever be an ideology of the right. We can disagree later on whether right wing authoritarianism can exist, (or whether all authoritarians so classified as right wing aren’t really just leftists by other means,) however, I must take this chance to say that Reason magazine is not a libertarian publication any more.

    Unless one takes active care to always stamp it out, leftism will inevitably infiltrate, desecrate, and annihilate everything it can. Leftism has infiltrated Reason magazine.

    1. I think you're right about the crux of the left/right divide being about property rights. Left and right have been about capitalism/socialism since . . . people started using the terms "left and right".

      My read of the Reason situation is that they think this has broken down. They seem to think that left/right is about things like racism, immigration, homophobia, etc., and that if libertarians want to be influential, they need to get on the correct side of history.

      If that's their strategy, especially since Trump was elected, I don't think they have much to show for it. There's no talk of a libertarian/left alliance anymore. The Democrats are over there trying to be more socialist than each other--none of them give a damn about libertarian ideas at all.

      The only evidence I've seen that Reason's change in strategy has been effective with anyone at all is that old trolls like Tony, Palin's Buttplug, and others have come to imagine that they own the place, now. Reason staff suddenly seem so reasonable to them. How embarrassing that must be for Reason staff!

      1. Not quite. The whole left/right paradigm started in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, with theocrats/monarchists sitting to the right of the president and secularists/revolutionaries sitting to the left. The original left/right divides were equality/hierarchy, church/secular, and monarchy/revolution. The whole capitalism/socialism thing came later.

        As far as Reason goes, I don't know where you got the idea Tony thinks he owns the place. Dude thinks every libertarian is a die-hard Trump worshipper, including the Reason staff. He's deluded but what else is new. And Buttplug claims he's an Objectivist who opposes Islamic migration to Europe. Both of those would totally disqualify him for any prospective cocktail parties, I can assure you.

    2. "....Therefore Libertarianism is and can only ever be an ideology of the right."

      Bullshit. The saving grace of Libertarianism is that it doesn't fall into the traps of EITHER the so-called "Left" or so-called "Right."

      And the notion that the "Right," at it is currently defined in the U.S, is somehow more virtuous, and a more staunch defender of individual liberties, is absolutely laughable.

      1. “And the notion that the “Right,” at it is currently defined in the U.S, is somehow more virtuous, and a more staunch defender of individual liberties, is absolutely laughable.”

        Um, that’s such a low bar, even Jeff Sessions gets over it.

      2. The saving grace of libertarianism is that it is anti-collectivist, anti-statist, anti-totalitarian, and anti-authoritarian.

        The left is pro-statist, pro-collectivist, and pro-authoritarian. It is not pro-totalitarian because totalitarianism is, to the left, simply a side effect.

        If one was using a bimodal system to describe political stances, where Libertarianism stands would be pretty clear based on the above.

        The generally accepted 'right' today claims to be anti-collectivist, anti-statist, anti-totalitarian, and anti-authoritarian. But they tend to not adhere too tightly to these precepts. When Libertarians critique them they tend to complain about the managed economy tactics they use (managed economies are leftist). They also take issue with social policies that collectivize individuals (collectivism is leftist)

        They don't complain about the modern right's stances on bearing arms, or freedom of speech, or personal responsibility (these issue are right wing)

        If you look at all this--and the mountains more that can be trotted out, it's pretty easy to see that, not only is Libertarianism on the right--it's further right than the GOP and most mainstream right wing ideas.

        And the notion that the 'right' is "a more staunch defender of individual liberties" than the left is a simple truth. The left is actively trying to destroy individual liberties. The right is not.

      3. I think pure libertarianism exists outside generic left-right labels... But anybody who can't see that the current left is FAR more dangerous and against libertarian ideals than the current right is... they'e fucking retarded.

    3. Yes, we wouldn't want to recruit more people to any of our causes.

      1. LOL. True. All we need are "real men." Like our family friend who lived on a farm for many years, hunts, was an amateur boxer, and owns more guns than me. Oh wait, I forgot, he's gay.

      2. Nor would you want to reveal that libertarians are extreme social conservatives sans the moral courage to say so.

        1. Well, THIS libertarian (both big and little "L") sure isn't. I am about as far from a social conservative as one can get. I manage to piss off both my "conservative" and "liberal" friends pretty equally 🙂

          1. So what do social conservatives expect to gain from libertarianism? What does a philosophy of individualism have to appeal to someone who, for example, condones violence against LGBT people? How does it serve that end?

            1. I have no idea what social conservatives hope to gain by adorning themselves with a mantle of libertarianism. I view libertarianism as akin to anarchy (I mean actual anarchy, as from Taoism, not chaos.) Such freedom of individual thought, action, and belief is contrary to many (though not all) social conservatives.

            2. Who, on the American right, condones violence against LGBTQ?

              Trump certainly does not. Mike Pence believes they are sinners, but as far as I know, he does not wish them harm. Some think they are mentally ill, but that falls far short of harming them.

              Undoubtedly, some people are violent and want to harm others for their beliefs and lifestyles. To me, the left seems to engage in this sort of psychotic behavior much than those considered to be on the right.

              1. I agree. The "left" is as bad as the right. And yes, most of those on either side of the fence wouldn't think of actually hurting someone directly. But too many (on both sides) seem inclined to believe that passing a law banning something somehow isn't a personal attack, or isn't a form of violence, whether it be against "hate speech" or "guns," "control over one's body," or whatever.

                1. I pretty much agree with you.

                  My personal credo is "live and let live". Leave other people alone. I don't have any right (or desire) to force somebody else to be heterosexual, nor do I have the right to force somebody else to violate their religious beliefs or even their own prejudices by baking me a cake, for example.

                  This is not to say I have no opinions on various matters.

                  1. Of COURSE you have opinions. Life might be pretty boring if one didn't. LOL. And I tend to agree that I don't have a "right" to demand a cake custom-made to my personal desires, any more than I can demand an artist to paint the picture I want them to paint. It is interesting to watch where, and how, "rights" collide and how they are defined.

                1. So nobody.

                  You were lying and got caught.

                  1. Fine.


                    ""Here's how it should work, it shouldn't work when we go out and we enforce the laws, because the Bible says the powers that be are ordained of God and God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to these LGBT FREAKS and arrest them," he ranted. "Have a trial for them, and if they are convicted then they are to be put to you understand that? it's a capital crime to be carried out by our government.""

                    1. You know that the vast majority of social conservatives aren't like him or the Westboro morons right?

                      Most people just want to be left the fuck alone.

            3. One more observation:

              Dave Rubin is a social commenter beloved by the right. He is openly gay, and married to a man. He is a thoughtful, decent man. How do you square your statement of condoning violence with that?

            4. Well there's some projection. Not agreeing with you and saying so openly isn't violence. I've seen no evidence by anyone on the right that says they are calling for violence. I have, however, seem much of the call for violence from the left simply for disagreeing.

              1. I grew up in an era, and in a place, where most of the violence came from the "right." Some of it still does. But yeah, I am not the only person I know to recognize that the left, when in control, doesn't hesitate to tolerate violence, or at least not condemn it. (again, with the caveat that on both sides of the fence, the majority of people, even though they disagree, tend to be peaceable.)

                1. I grew up in an era, and in a place, where most of the violence came from the “right.”

                  I am forever amazed at the ease with which leftists may be redefined as having been on the 'right' whenever the need arises for other leftists to distance themselves from the violence they commit so easily.

                  1. My point, is that many of those in "control" of the politics, the media, the government, institutions, or whatever, will use such power to their own ends, the rights of the "out group" be damned. This is one part of any political system, of which I am aware, that can be accurately predicted. Luckily, our system generally shields us from the worst aspects of changes in the nature of the "in group."

              2. Ah ... to the Leftard Proggies words ARE a form of violence, that in their warped minds naturally and rightfully begets physical violence against those that besmirch the Holy and Glorious Grievance Totempole.

                1. True. During the sixties and seventies, many of these same folks were arguing for student's rights, especially the right to speak on campus, whether it was about civil rights, or, even more commonly, "the war." Now, well, not so much. It matters little whether the "proggies" or the "conservatives" are in power. Some, from either side will abuse it.

            5. I think 99% of people on the right simply want to be able to NOT have some things shoved down their throats, more than they want to lynch dudes for loving the cock.

              I was always very pro gay rights... Until they started getting crazy and demanding everybody bend to their will on ridiculous issues. Men who think they're women SHOULD NOT be participating in womens sports. Sorry, that's just not reasonable. To tell them so is not being mean or anti trans.

              If anything most people on the right would be happy with live and let live, but those on the left refuse to let them live their way.

    4. Uh, sure. The "right" is dedicated to individual property rights, as long as we ignore all the theological crap they use to constrain what I can buy or ingest or who I can marry or how I can dress or what I can say or...

      1. The threats aren't equal and the rationale for inflicting theology on private parties is incompatible with property rights.

        It's like the justification for treating people like shit in Christianity. Yeah, there are Christians who do that, but they won't find much support for treating people like shit in the Sermon on the Mount.

        The right has been about property rights, even reactionary against socialism since we started thinking in terms of right and left. If some lost soles wandered into the tent because they were chased out of where they used to be by where they happened to land on issues like Vietnam or abortion, I'm not sure that flows naturally from property rights on the right.

        Using the government to inflict your values on property owners dovetails quite naturally with socialism--the defining characteristic of the left. There's no conflict with the basic principles of private property when socialists claim that the majority should inflict their views on the minority. The social conservatives who wandered into Reagan's tent from the South back in the 1980s brought a leftist mindset with them from the Democratic party when it came to using elections and government to impose their views on others.

        I trace the left's passion for that kind of thinking all the way back to Stephen Douglas' ideas about popular sovereignty and Lincoln's Republicans emerging to oppose the idea. It's quite natural for the Stephen Douglas Democrats of 2020 to try to hold an election on things like slavery, gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc.--and then use wining an election as a justification to impose their views on the rest of the country. Quite the opposite for establishment Republicans, who still hold that the government has no business regulating things like guns--regardless of whether doing so is popular. Even on issues like abortion, the principled response from establishment Republicans all over the country is that the courts should rule against abortion. To find anti-abortion people who genuinely believe that the best solution is to leave the issue to the states and sort it out a la Stephen Douglas' solution to slavery, you're looking at people in the South--both Democrat and Republican.

        Every 40 years or so, the Republicans get an infusion of Democrats when the Democrats lose sight of their socialist, anti-free trade bread and butter and start going all social justice warrior. They end up alienating a lot of pro-government people who would have supported them otherwise--but it's not because those people philosophically opposed to holding elections on abortion, gay marriage, guns, or slavery. It's just because they were on the losing end of that argument in the Democratic party.

        Social conservatives are basically disaffected Democrats in terms of process, and it's the establishment Republicans who are generally offended by Trump's stance on things like free trade. And I think that trickles through to the candidates. Other than the Bork nomination, I don't know that Reagan ever bothered to throw the social conservatives a bone--and even the Bork nomination was at the tail end of his time in office. I know it's considered normal to accuse Trump of everything bad under the sun, but what has Trump done much for social conservatives?

        Who do you think is a greater threat to our rights--Republicans or Democrats? If you say "Republicans", why is that? My concerns about the Democrats have to do with their open enthusiasm for socialism--especially as it regards the Green New Deal and Medicare for All--and I see them as openly hostile to the First Amendment, both in terms of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They flunk the Second Amendment test, too.

        Teaching creationism or praying in public schools doesn't seem like much of a threat anymore. What is it that you're afraid the social conservatives will do--because you voted for a Republican?

        1. Most social conservatives seem willing if not ready to conjoin church and state, and to promulgate lots of official policies that reflect whatever sacred text they worship. And the least tolerant among them are certainly eager to control me and my property accordingly.

          I also reject another Republican contingent, the good ol' boys club of crony capitalists and back-slapping government lackeys. And I suggest that many of these are in the church-going contingent, too.

          1. So the answer is that you're weighing the philosophy of social conservatives without giving any weight in your calculation to how much of a threat they actually represent in the real world--or whether voting for Trump or your local representative to Congress will further the cause of social conservatives in any way.

            This is in sharp contrast to the threat to our rights posed by the Democrats. When you look at the polls, more than 70% of Democrat voters support a candidate that enthusiastically supports the Green New Deal. Of the undecided, most of them are simply undecided about which Pro-Green New Deal candidate they like the best. Mainstream Democrat candidates are also pushing some version of Medicare for All, too--a "moderate" Democrat like Joe Bide is in favor of his own versions of both programs.

            That is in sharp contrast to the threat social conservatives represent to the Republican party. They're a tiny voice in the Republican party. I can't really think of anything Trump has done for them. Sessions was basically a socon from Alabama, and he wouldn't even go after recreational marijuana--because Trump wouldn't let him.

            And undead army of 18th century pirates would be destructive, but the satellite images show that there's a hurricane coming our way. Hurricanes are more dangerous than an army of zombie pirates because hurricanes are real.

            Yes, there are some real social conservatives out there, but their influence on policy is very limited--even within the Republican Party. The socialists in the Democratic Party, on the other hand, present a real threat with concrete proposals that are widely supported within the Democratic Party. These proposals attack everything from free speech and religious freedom and also promote socialism through the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

            I think you're talking about something abstract like the Nolan chart. Yes, the social conservatives are over there and the progressive socialists are over here, and they're both a threat to libertarian capitalism on that chart.

            In reality, the magnitude of the threat presented by social conservatives is negligible while the threat to our rights and economy presented by the Democrats is substantial. Theoretically, I could be struck by a meteorite, but, again, if I ignore that hurricane headed this way for fear of being struck by a meteor on the way out of town, that's unreasonable. That hurricane is real, present, dangerous, and headed this way.

            1. Yes, there are some real social conservatives out there, but their influence on policy is very limited–even within the Republican Party.

              Assuming of course that you aren't a woman in a large swathe of states that have now banned abortion long before viability and even in cases of rape.

              1. 2 is a large swath? This is why people think you're a dishonest moron.

                1. Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio are not 'two'. With South Carolina still 'in the works'. Those are all deliberate attempts - this year - to massively violate Roe in order to get it overturned. Arkansas and Utah have now banned before viability (though not 'heartbeat'). North Carolina, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have created bureaucratic gotcha hurdles whose sole purpose is to delay later (but still pre-viability) abortion decisions until the act can be made illegal under Roe. Four of those latter - North Dakota, Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma have previously passed near-total bans in a legislature only to be either vetoed by a gov, struck down by a judge, or overturned in a referendum. So they are on the 'legal sidelines' for the Roe challenge this year.

                  Other states not mentioned where socon R legislators have introduced total or near-total bans (only the ones in 2018/2019 - roughly 'post-Kavanaugh' which reenergized the socons) - but where that legislation won't likely pass into law because they are outnumbered - Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia.

                  How the fuck are you employable if you can't count past two?

                  1. You seem to be conflating legislators making headlines by trying to do something with people actually doing something successfully.

                    A few weeks back, someone pointed out to me that rising sea levels were so bad that the president of Indonesia announced that they're moving the capital from Jakarta. It took me a while to realize that this person really couldn't tell the difference between some politician making an announcement and 10 million people abandoning their homes and businesses.

                    State legislators propose things and say things all the time. Whether those things are actually implemented is another question.

                    The other thing you seem to be conflating is the state level stuff with national level stuff. Because legislators did something in Arkansas is no reason not to vote for Trump. The Green New Deal and Medicare for All--the Democrat candidates for president who have signed on to some version of that aren't running for state office. They're running for a national office that will sign off on any legislation that clears both the houses of Congress.

                    If you want to stop Arkansas from implementing abortion restrictions, that might be a great reason to vote for a Democrat in Arkansas, but I don't know why what some state legislator in Arkansas is saying about abortion should make you vote for a Democrat for national office--not when the Democrat is fighting to pass the Green New Deal and Medicare for All at the national level. Not when the Democrat in question is openly hostile to free speech, freedom of religion, and gun rights--at the national level.

                    1. P.S. Here are some interesting stats--especially look at "Support for Broad Abortion Rights by Party ID 1975-2018":

                      This is the percentage of people by party ID who believe that abortion should be "legal under any circumstances" in 2018:

                      Republican: 14%
                      Independent: 30%
                      Democrat: 46%


                      The interesting thing is that even among Democrats, 54% of them support some restrictions on abortion.

                      How much you want to bet that a larger portion of Democrats in states like Arkansas support abortion restrictions than the national average?

                      I doubt the Republican vs. Democrat model is as clean cut as people imagine in a state like Arkansas on a question like abortion. Is it really safe to imagine that the laws in these states would be different if there were more Democrats elected by the locals?

                      P.S. Anybody else remember gay marriage being shot down in flames in California by way of Proposition 8?

                    2. Because legislators did something in Arkansas is no reason not to vote for Trump.

                      There's plenty of reasons to not vote for Trump.

                      The interesting thing is that even among Democrats, 54% of them support some restrictions on abortion.

                      The even more interesting thing is that Roe v Wade allows state intrusions and restrictions during 2/3 of a pregnancy. Which is why precisely 49 out of 50 states have some restriction

                    3. None of which suggests that the threat social conservatives present to our rights is anywhere near the same magnitude as the threat average Democrats present to our rights on the national level by way of their open hostility to free speech, religious freedom, gun rights, and capitalism.

                      And if there's a better way to blunt that threat than to vote for the guy most likely to defeat their attempt to win the White House, I'd love to hear about it--but pointing out that Nazis are just as far away from libertarians on the Nolan chart as communists isn't about to do it.

                      Change the theoretical systems to social conservatives and Democrats, and we're onto something substantial. Theories with few people behind them, like the social conservatives, aren't much of a threat to actually influence policy, but socialist Democrats are enjoying a tremendous amount of influence and support within the Democratic party. Pretending that doesn't make a difference is ridiculous.

                    4. You're deluding yourself if you think Rs are more of a threat than Ds right now.

                      Period. It's not unfair to say the Rs might fuck up a thing here or there... But on a 1-10 scale, they'd be like a 2 on the fucking things up scale... And Ds are like a 9.5 if they get all the crazy shit they want.

                      Also, as Ken mentioned, the things the crazy wings of the GOP want are simply not gonna happen, even within the GOP. They're too small a minority within the coalition, whereas the commies are a huge part of the Dems coalition.

                      Pull your head out of your ass. You're basically worrying about fascism sweeping the world in 1965, when communism was clearly the far greater threat. It's not that there were NO fascists in 1965, but the threat was so clearly less than that from communism it's not even debatable.

              2. Is there any other issue you're worried about--other than abortion--or is abortion the only one?

                If abortion issues were decided in the courts and in the legislatures of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina <10% of the country?), I'm not sure that would have much of an impact on the rest of us. Not at all like what would happen if free speech, freedom of religion, and the Second Amendment were no longer respected throughout the country--and socialism in the form of the Green New Deal and Medicare were inflicted on all Americans everywhere.

                And that's not a false dichotomy. After all, Donald Trump isn't campaigning on ending abortion, but Democrats everywhere seem to be widely in favor of hate speech laws, forcing religious people to bake cakes against their will, as well as both the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. They want to implement these solutions everywhere, too--not just at the state level in five states with relatively low population numbers. If anything, it's completely irrational to pretend that these threats to our rights and economy are equal. They're not.

                One of them is clear and present and marching in the streets, and the other is mostly only happening in your head.

                1. State intrusiveness re abortion is far more profound than any other sort. And in ways that go way beyond abortion. eg 12 states will automatically invalidate all provisions of a living will for all pregnant women with no exceptions. I assume that also means eliminating all prearranged medical power of attorney. 18 others mandate life support until viability - 14 of them even with the infliction of pain. Only 5 states will explicitly honor any pregnancy-specific language in a living will. 15 states don't have any statutory language on that - yet. Which isn't surprising since living wills are pretty rare among the young - but half of those are abortion-hostile so it's only a matter of time before they get their reason to legislate.

                  IOW - those pro-lifers who rail about 'state death panels' when it comes to say Medicare for All - are already perfectly happy with mandating them. They are perfectly happy taking medical decisions and life/death decisions out of the hands of the individual and granting the state jurisdiction over that. Why should I or anyone else gives a rat's shit what those self-righteous hypocrites yap about ANYTHING related to other people's healthcare? They are non-credible in the extreme. As is everyone who associates with them since lying is also part of their m.o.

                  And I have no doubt that if/when they win re abortion, then they'll head to step 2 of their theocratic notions. With the neat little benefit that they will have already implemented complete state control over life and death. Hell of a lot you can do once you got that arrow in the quiver.

                  1. "State intrusiveness re abortion is far more profound than any other sort."

                    You still can't seem to get it through your head that voting for Donald Trump is unlikely to have any impact on the support for abortion at the state level. Do you really not understand that you're obsessed with a red herring?

                    The Green New Deal is purse socialism in every way.

                    Medicare for All is pure socialism in every way.

                    Here's a short list of the Democrat candidates for the Arkansas legislature President of the United States who support both some version of the Green New Deal and some version of Medicare for All:

                    Joe Biden
                    Liz Warren
                    Bernie Sanders
                    Kamala Harris
                    Cory Booker

                    . . . there are others, but haven't I made my point?

                    The point is that if any of them wins the White House, the only things standing between the Green New Deal and Medicare for All will be Mitch McConnell in the Senate, who's never taken a principled stand on anything his whole life. He even supported TARP!

                    There is nothing to fear from the social conservatives that way--certainly not at the national level.

                    Again, I'm not convinced flipping the Arkansas legislature to the Democrats would necessarily make any difference in their abortion laws. Democrats aren't pro-abortion without reservation just because you say so, and even if the states were capable of outlawing abortion completely, I doubt more than a handful would do so. 90% of the country may live in an area where abortion remains legal. Why would I think that's a direct threat to our rights and economy like what average Democrats are fighting to get at the national level? It doesn't make sense.

                  2. Soooo you actually think abortion, as a single thing, is more important than economic freedom, the right to self defense, freedom of speech, etc...

                    Are you fucking serious? I think abortion should be legal. Not up to birth like some crazies, but probably pretty well into gestation. But it simply IS NOT as important as all that other stuff. Not even close.

                    If abortion were illegal everywhere tomorrow, the world would carry on fine. There'd be a few more babies up for adoption, and our population might stop declining. At the end of the day 90% the people that had the babies would probably end up being glad they did. I've met lots of people who regretted never having kids... Never met one person who regretted having them.

                    But yeah, it would be an inconvenience to some people. But it wouldn't descend our nation into chaos. Society wouldn't fall apart. We wouldn't turn into a 3rd world country. Or a dictatorship.

                    All those things ARE possible if the leftists get what they want. You really need to learn figure out proportionality bro.

              3. Last time I checked, you could move away from one of those backwards states, or at least travel to one of the abortion friendly states.

      2. "as long as we ignore all the theological crap "

        This argument was stale 20 year ago.

        Stol pretending it matters now and get on with your life.

      3. Activist Christianity is a left wing ideology. It started out with the Christian Women's temperance movement terrorists, and found continual support among the KKK. We right wingers suffer the indignity of being lumped in with the Jerry Falwells of the world only because around 1960 the left realized their permanent underclass was about to become middle class and they needed a new batch of dupes to exploit, so they co-opted the sexual revolution, finding special success with the queers.

        No one who actually understands limited government or capitalism actually gives a fuck about your twink fetish. No one.

    5. Leftism DEMANDS the existance of a non-consentual power structure designed specifically to violate property rights.

      Actually, that's the coercive state you're referring to. And in case you hadn't noticed, both Team Red and Team Blue enjoy growing government for their own purposes.

      Right wing thought is equally predicated on one axiomatic principle; the advocation of the property rights of every living human.

      Except if you live on the border.
      Except if you want to buy booze on Sundays.
      Except if you want to smoke certain plants.
      Except if you want to hire someone lacking the correct government papers.

      1. Even Jeff gets this.

        1. Except jeff is too fucking stupid to realize a large amount of anti drug legislation, 3 strikes for example, came from the left. Two of his examples are his open border idiocy where he refuses to acknowledge any negative externalities from an influx of low skilled and low educated workers. he ignores the costs to welfare, crime, and other areas of externalities. Honestly I think Jeff is open borders mostly for the influx of low educated people. Jeff is so desperate to sound smart to someone he will do anything to get there.

        2. His examples are pretty fucking pathetic.

    6. Sheldonius Rex
      June.22.2019 at 9:40 am

      ^I like this guy

  7. I know it's a fact that not everybody who wants to own an AR-15 is an old, white, redneck, and that this fact may be important to a lot of people who don't necessarily make decisions about whether they support gun rights on a rational basis. Dealing with such people and that reality is an important part of winning the argument to support our gun rights, I'm sure.

    Something might get lost, however, if we fall into "big-eyed bunny syndrome" completely. The authoritarians and socialists use these tactics almost exclusively--their tactics are popular because they're effective. They find a victim of whatever they don't like--preferably one with the cutest, biggest, saddest eyes you ever saw--and make their case all about protecting those victims. Their objective is different from ours. They're trying to jerk people around emotionally to break them "free" of their principles and push them to act. We're about liberty and justice.

    Liberty and justice aren't always pretty. Sometimes guilty people go free because of principles. On principle, racists have freedom of speech rights that need to be protected. Homophobes have freedom of religion rights that need to be protected. Oh, and racist, homophobic "gun nuts" have Second Amendment rights, in principle, too. It isn't really about the aesthetics of the victims of gun control or how we feel about them.

    Feeling comfortable with the ugly facts is what true tolerance looks like, and if people's support for things like gun rights hinges on which side can find the cutest bunnies, then I'm not sure what we're really accomplishing. We might even be hurting ourselves . . .

    A future in which people are denied the right to own a gun (among other things) because of what they've written on social media in the past--against things like affirmative action (racist) or against things like gay marriage (homobhobic)--is both feasible and plausible. Is there any doubt that the social justice warriors who run the Democratic Party right now think that people who are supposedly racist or homophobic in that way shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

    Yeah, non-homophobic, non-racists own AR-15s, too, but if our First and Second Amendment rights are about the freedom to make choices for ourselves about what we say, believe, and whether to own a gun, I can't help but wonder if we're shooting ourselves in the foot by emphasizing the diversity of people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects stupid speech and stupid religions--there's no getting around that fact. I'm not sure there's any getting around the fact that the Second Amendment protects the rights of stupid and ugly people, too. That might even be the heart of what it's all about.

    1. Blah blah blah...Jesus and lobsters....blah blah blah.

      1. I just scroll right past Ken's comments.

        1. Maybe you shouldn't... A lot of his posts are long, but usually thoughtful. Like this one.

          Personally, I think we should use the tactics of the left to win. We can argue from principle AS WELL AS arguing using doe eyed trannies who own guns. The left wins so often because many people are emotional idiots who can't think rationally. Sane people need to manipulate peoples emotions to achieve positive ends, because if we don't the leftists will manipulate their emotions for negative ends.

    2. They find a victim of whatever they don’t like–preferably one with the cutest, biggest, saddest eyes you ever saw–and make their case all about protecting those victims.

      like Kate Steinle?

      1. Jeff thinks she is the only one ever harmed by an illegal immigrant because Jeff is an idiot.

      2. Oh noes, my enemies are learning my strategies cried the idiot.

    3. I’m an old white male from the South and have no interest in owning an AR15.

      An AR10 in 6.5 Creedmoor, now...

      1. After the first line I was going to post "LAME!" in response... After the second line I am not going to post "AWESOME!" in response.

    4. As usual, Mencken said it best:

      The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
      H. L. Mencken

  8. I think the left has the answers to a lot of the problems with guns: health care, helping out the poor with various services, the robust welfare state we've seen in parts of Europe that's worked pretty well. But not with gun control. I think they're just taking the easy way out. They're not taking responsibility and trying to ask the hard questions

    Really doesn't get it. Those may be answers on a voluntary basis. But the left epitomizes "not taking responsibility" -- they want people to be dependent on them, ie government, to avoid any kind of individual responsibility.
    What he refuses to understand is that when people sign up for insurance, that is voluntary collectivism which includes taking responsibility for making the hard decisions he claims to value so much. Deciding how much you want to risk on a personal basis is exactly what statists don't want people doing. Hell, statists won't even take any responsibility or make any hard decisions for the spending their vague undefined plans would require.

    He really needs to get out of that lefty bubble he's so enamored of.

      1. SQRLSY?! HAHA. You've lost your fucking mind! WTF is wrong with you, boy?

      2. Oh, and fuck off, Hihn.

  9. This article triggers me.

    1. Needs more hot gun babes. Now that would definitely "trigger" me...

      1. Right?

        How did they not throw in a hot blonde, that's an actual woman, with giant tits in a pair of daisy dukes?

        Mega fail on the part of Reason.

  10. If democrats thought outlawing certain types of weapons worked, they would've going after handguns, not rifles. Compare rifles to knives, blunt objects, and hands/feet. It's about control and authoritarianism, not public safety.

    1. That is a battle I might welcome, since pistols are specifically referenced as protected in Heller. The anti-gun "movement" is all about power, image (or illusion), deceit, and control. Guns are just a "symbol" for them. Should they be successful in their efforts, I feel quite sure that "assault knives" will be the next item on their menu (in many areas, it already is).

      1. They won't do it because they don't want to have an honest conversation. They only want to fear monger for money and votes.

        1. Ya think? 🙂

      2. I agree with your symbology ideas. That type of thought is always associated manipulation and power control. Pretty scary stuff, really.

        1. Mao said it best: "Power comes from the end of a rifle." Or something like that. But, as with all tyrants, he only wished "his side" to have access to them.

      3. Pistols were only specifically mentioned in Heller because the gun-grabbers had claimed that handguns weren't historically military weapons and therefore unprotected according to the Miller interpretation of the prefatory clause. The majority took the time to thoroughly debunk this lie - but did not follow the gun-grabbers own logic to point out that if individual-issue military weapons are protected by the prefatory clause, shoulder-fired machine guns like the BAR and M16, short-barreled rifles like the M4, grenade launcher attachments, RPG's like the Bazooka, and ammo for all of these should all be freely available to any adult without a criminal record, no license fees or waiting period.

        1. I think the here is "military issued" rather than "possessed/owned." Even before the gun control act of 1934, fully-automatic weapons were far, far from "commonly possessed." Production figures from the manufacturers show this. Even when I was younger, which was quite a while ago, when it was still relatively easy to get a full-auto weapon, they were very rare. Like today, I suspect most of them were owned by fairly collectors. Don't get me wrong, the GCA of 1934 seriously needs to be revisited. But even members of the "organized militia" (another words the "well-regulated" part of the militia, mean the NG), do not own the weapons they are issued.

          Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of bans by the States on short-barrelled rifles, shotguns, silencers, that are regulated by the act.
          But expecting SCOTUS to write-off the act when they didn't have to do so, isn't very realistic. SCOTUS, almost always, makes their decisions as narrow as possible. Since the subject at had was a handgun, they based their decision on that. At least for now.

      4. See the UK if you want to know what the nanny state will try to ban if they ban guns... Basically any knife or other thing that can be used as a weapon... Including acid now! Because primitives from 3rd world countries who moved there are accustomed to doing acid attacks on their enemies!

  11. Custom built M-16? Bullshit.

    1. I am curious... why "bullshit?" Is it the "M-16" part or the "custom-built" part?

      1. Probably the combined part. An M16 is a military specific rifle, so making a custom M16 is like making a custom Ferrari - without Ferrari’s involvement. It just doesn’t mean anything - and M16 is necessarily a specific manufacturer and model, anything else is an AR pattern rifle.

        Another way: all M16s are AR part rifles, but only AR pattern rifles made by Colt (whoever’s making them now) for the military in the full auto or select-fire are M16s.

        He could have just been referring to the automatic fire part though, because it’s illegal to manufacture this new, and old ones cost $10-$30k.

        1. I agree. Full-autos are legal in Utah, as they are in most States, and yeah, they are pricey, to say the least. But I do have friend in Nevada who owns a full-auto, M-16 type rifle. Due to the nature of the platform's design, are all very easily "customized," so I will forgive his referring to it as a "custom" M-16, as least if it is full auto.

  12. Dan Baum wrote an interesting and deeper analysis of diversity and gun ownership in Gun Guys: A Road Trip.

  13. Teach your children well.

    The Talmud says that it is obligatory to give your child basic education. We all have an idea of what that includes.

    There are some other things not taught in school. Teaching them how to swim is an obligation.

    So we do not need to be told most of this. In our world riding a bicycle, paddling a canoe, catching a ball, lots of stuff we show our kids.

    Then when they are old enough driving a car.

    Basic firearms is one of those.

    1. "There are some other things not taught in school. Teaching them how to swim is an obligation."

      As long as you're not teaching your kids to carry things balanced on their heads. Forget that experts tell us we can carry 20% of our body weight without appreciable additional expenditure of energy if the load is balanced on our head.

      "Basic firearms is one of those."

      Why about basic knifing? I only learned a few years ago that the kidney was THE preferred target when knifing someone to death. Unfortunately far too late to be of practical use.

      1. Knife or other bladed weapon or anything like a club or baseball bat.

        First line of defense is run away.

        I am not talking about teaching children self defense in the advanced sense. That might be something more individual that parents and children will choose. Just as some kids gravitate to one thing or another.

        Just how to operate a basic rifle and handgun when they are old enough seems like a good idea. If nothing else it takes away the fear factor and replaces it with some basic understanding. What they do with it after is up to them.

        Like fishing. Or riding a horse. You have to show them a few times at least. Then they know what it is.

        1. Riding a horse?

          These days that's more of a luxury then a working skill.

          1. Yeah don’t know why I threw that in. Maybe because it was one of those things my parents took me to for lessons. Did not keep up with it.

  14. "Guns Are for Everybody"

    Well, they aren't for people who don't want them--and some people don't want them.

    And gun rights are more for when the government tries to take guns away from the people that "everybody" hates. If the government will never try to take your guns away, say, because you'll never own any guns, then gun rights aren't really for you.

    It works that way with pretty much everything. Freedom of Speech is for people who say the things that you hate. People who are just saying nice things that don't offend anyone, they don't generally need their free speech rights protected. If you never say anything offensive, then free speech rights aren't really for you. Freedom of Religion is for people who believe things that you hate, too. If you don't believe anything that other people hate, then freedom of religion isn't really for you.

    Isn't that okay? Does everything have to be about you? Look at it a little differently and maybe it it is about you! The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and that's often about protecting us from each other. If you're somebody who wants to use the government to go after people's rights because you hate what they say or believe, then the legitimate purpose of government really is to protect people's rights from disgusting people like you.

    In that sense, maybe the First Amendment and Second Amendment aren't really for you--but they're there because of you and the fact that you suck. I don't know why social justice warriors work so hard to pretend that "Hate speech isn't free speech" or twist the Second Amendment into saying something other than what it says. I don't know if they think they're trying to trick us of if they're just fooling themselves, but they might get more mileage if they came out against these rights--rather than run around trying to pretend they say something other than what they say.

    We were talking about a couple of honest liberals that might still be out there (Masha Gessen, et. al.), but there used to be more. All that "honest liberal" shit aside, has anyone ever come across a credible social justice warrior? Is there a legitimate argument suggesting that hate speech is consistent with the text of the First Amendment? I'd listen to it if there were one, but then I once sat all the way through to the end of a Transfomers flick.

    1. Yup. Compliant slaves have no need of rights, because they comply... Rights are for those that hold opinions that differ from those in power, or in some cases the mob.

  15. I really don't get one thing about US gun culture. The attempt to conflate 2ndA with testing the limits of what is brandishing v what isn't. It is immature and counterproductive as hell - and esp done by the AR crowd who want to project an image of being Rambo where everyone else is a threat. It is no wonder that the immature then take that notion - and repeat it in a place they themselves are familiar with - like the fucking schools.

    Even 30 years ago, I don't remember this notion existing. It is a serious American psychopathy.

    1. A couple things
      Thirty years ago if 25 people held an 'open carry' rally you probably never would have heard about it unless it happened somewhere near where you live.

      Also, thirty years ago organizing grass roots level stuff was kinda hard, and making it happen on a national level was even harder.

      I used to live in Illinois and ISRA (Illinois State Rifle Association) pretty much was limited in reach to its members via snail mail. If they wanted to go in a group to the Capitol they'd get a couple dozen people to show up if they were lucky in the 90s.

      By the mid 00s with email, and the ability to partner with other online communities (IllinoisCarry) they were able to get 8k to 10k people to Springfield on a single day each year for several years in a row. They can also now get a couple dozen people to show up in person for committee hearings on almost any given day on short notice.

      1. That makes sense. In this case though I wasn't thinking so much about open carry as about a military patrol/guard position. I know these are just posing for the camera - but there is a massive difference between gun in holster/sling and gun in hand.

        1. Much is written about "open carry" and all, but, in reality, it seldom happens. I live in an "open carry" State (Oregon), where anyone can walk down the street with a loaded AR or pistol in about 90% of the State. Unloaded "open carry" is permitted in the other 10%. Yet, in reality, it seldom happens. In fact, the only time I have seen anyone carry openly is at a gun show. And even that seems to be quite rare (though I seldom do gun shows any more). Excepting for some tiny minority of gun owners, the "psychopathy" you refer to is largely an invention of the media. And even then, it is probably not deserved. The Black Panthers used to open carry in Oakland, where I grew up. It was not "psychopathy," but rather, "protest." Firearms are a powerful symbol, for sure.

          1. Panthers are actually the example I was thinking of where it (gun-in-hand) proved counterproductive. They had a very legitimate protest - and the legal right then in CA to carry in hand. But in choosing the symbolism of Malcolm X's Ebony cover and 'by any means necessary' and moving it out of the home and into the street, they turned 'protest' into 'intimidation'. Magnified when they marched on Sacramento in 1967 in opposition to a racially motivated gun control bill. The legislation overnight became more intrusive/restrictive and immediately passed. Followed in the aftermath of the MLK/RFK/riots the next year by federal gun control. Policing remained as racist and oppressive as always - and NRA is still notably silent on that. The Panthers were successfully marginalized as criminals. At an objective minimum, this should be judged a complete failure to achieve the goal. The same applies today because in fact intimidation is NOT protest.

            Contrast that with MLK and Robert Williams. MLK was recipient of continual death threats. His and Ralph Abernathy's house and 4 black churches were bombed in the first month of the Montgomery bus boycott. He was denied a concealed carry permit in AL (again a gun control law that NRA supported) and he had heavily-armed bodyguards for his house after that. But the bus boycott and all his protests in public became strongly and philosophically non-violent after that. Which succeeded hugely in gaining sympathy outside the South but didn't do shit inside the South. Inside the South, Robert Williams' strategy of armed defense is what worked to reduce violence against blacks - which is what enabled MLK to protest in the South without a one-sided massacre. But he generally was not part of public demonstrations or protest (and had to flee the US in 1961) and his militias were not prancing around posing for photos. The two strategies worked very well together even though they were separate and didn't get along.

            1. Yep. A gun-in-hand-type of protest can often backfire. I remember when those idiots staged a take-over at that national refuge a few years back. They took their guns. But, the way I see it, that wasn't what made them idiots. The fact that the they took loaded guns was their problem. In all likelihood, if they had made it perfectly clear that the guns were not loaded, they would still have succeeded in gaining national attention for their "cause."

              Then there was Gandhi. While his protests were non-violent, the Brits were keenly aware that there was a fully-armed modern army, perhaps 40,000 strong, "waiting in the wings." What was it that TR said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick" ?

              1. Loaded guns kept the feds from breaking down the door and arresting/killing them on the spot.
                They were only apprehended/killed when they left the refuge after holding it for months.
                Obviously, that's not a moral our state media wants to focus on.

    2. "I really don’t get one thing about US gun culture."

      No one cares. Just shut the fuck up and get out of the way.

    3. 30 years ago, it wasn't a big deal for Billy Bob to drive to school with a hunting rifle and a shotgun on the rack of his truck. Hell, in some parts of the country, it's still not.

      1. 'Rack of truck' is not 'in hand'.

        1. I've seen plenty of people carrying guns over the years in rural areas... It never once made me uncomfortable. Quit being such a pussy.

      2. I wonder what very public event happened 20 years ago that might have changed how folks felt.

        1. The one that has mostly turned into a problem because of making schools gun free zones, and the media pumping every incident up like crazy?

          If the media stopped covering school shootings, and making every single one of those nuts famous, I bet the numbers would drop 90%. If guns were allowed back on schools, like they were when my dad brought his to school, that would probably take care of the other 9.9%.

  16. There's a big story happening right now in Oregon, and when you see the coverage, this is probably a great time take what they say with a grain of salt.

    The headlines everywhere are reporting that threats from militia groups have shut down the Oregon state capitol today. Oh those goddamn white militia people with their AR-15s! They've actually managed to shut down the state government with their violent threat!

    Buried behind those national headlines, you might not get any headlines like the ones from within Oregon yesterday"

    "Oregon’s Democratic governor, Kate Brown, has dispatched state troopers to find missing Republican senators and bring them back to Salem to legislate.

    All 11 Republican senators are in hiding, at least some of them out of state, in order to prevent the Senate from having the quorum it needs to operate. They can’t abide the Democrat-backed carbon cap and spend bill that is up for a Senate vote today."

    ----The Oregonian June 21, 2019

    I don't know what militia is involved or what they threatened to do, but the capitol was already effectively shut down yesterday--with the governor sending the state police out to arrest all the Republican lawmakers and bring them into the capitol building against their will.

    I don't know how bad the environmental bill they introduced was, but if it's bad enough to make Republicans in the state act like that, it probably wasn't very good.

    1. I saw this same story somewhere else, part of the problem is that the new bill amounts to a higher tax on rural areas. I didn’t approve of legislators leaving the state when it was the Democrats leaving Wisconsin and I don’t approve now, but if they are out of the state what authority can the state troopers use to compel them to return? I can see Idaho politely telling them to go pound sand.

      1. The headlines I'm seeing aren't even mentioning the Republican lawmakers--just that the militia shut the state capitol down.

        It was already shut down!

        I don't even know what what threats were made by "the militia", whomever they are, but the governor sending out the police to arrest lawmakers for refusing to come to work--that's problematic by itself.

        If the voters in Oregon want to reelect a governor who arrests lawmakers who won't come to work, that's their business. And if they want to reelect lawmakers who refuse to go to work because it's the only way they can stop a socialist carbon tax bill, that's their business, too. Seems to me that they should find a way to work together--or not--without anybody being arrested. If the state constitution won't let them pass bills without establishing a quorum, then the Democrats need to change the constitution or water their bill down to the point where Republicans can at least live with it passing over their objections.

        I've got no sympathy for a governor who arrests lawmakers for not showing up to work, and I've got no sympathy for militias that use . . .

        Well, actually, didn't the framers put the Second Amendment in place because they wanted lawmakers to be a little scared of their constituents. Hamilton wrote the defense of what became the Second Amendment in Federalist papers, and it was all about people being able to rise up against the standing army of a political class that moves against the rights of the American people. And he was Washington's right hand man during the war! He knew a knew a little something about militias and what they're for . . .

        All that being said, threats of violence from the militia may well be terrible, but arresting lawmakers for not coming to work? Imagine the response in the media if Trump did something like that to the Democrats in Congress! They'd be calling him a dictator and threatening to start a civil war.

        1. Basically one of the state senators said in a tweet that if the troopers come to drag him away, they better be prepared for a fight. A militia group simply said that if any Republican people in hiding needed support/guards they would be glad to help and to contact them.

          So this went from Dem governor forcibly arresting opposition party politicians to drag them to a place against their will... To Dems are the victim!

          It's so outrageous. The level of propaganda in the media is INSANE.

    2. How does "send bachelors and come heavily armed" sound as a threat?


  17. Guns are tools designed to rip apart animal and human flesh.

    If you want to worship them, knock yourself out. Just don't call anyone crazy who worships jellyfish or rocks or what the fuck ever.

    1. Tony. I have been shooting for 53 years. I have, over the years, owned many firearms. I have shot untold thousands of rounds of ammunition. I even have the audacity to reload most of my own ammunition. Given that, at one time, I had about a dozen firearms in my collection, some might call me a "gun nut." I could be a poster child for the "anti-gun" crowd. Yet for all my years of shooting, excepting for one ground squirrel about thirty-five years ago, I have never ripped apart any flesh of any animal or person. On the other hand, an empty soda can at 450 yards is in serious jeopardy of being shredded by my .220 Swift. The shooting sports are fun.

      1. There is indeed a tendency to conflate 2A and the shooting sports in general with hunting [not mentioned at all in the Second Amendment], as well as with criminal violence. That is a very limited POV largely held by the urban crowd. They just can't see a good use for them because they know them not. And that is supposed to be good enough.

        1. The shooting sports have nothing to do with the second amendment, and nothing to do with violent acts committed using firearms. No more than the numerous, very large, and sharp, carving knives my wife utilizes every day have anything to do with "knife crimes." And no more than my chainsaw has anything to do with an incident in some small town in Texas which was made into a movie franchise. I use firearms for sport, and my current collection of firearms (3) reflects that. None would be a "first choice" for any criminal, or for law enforcement, or for self-defense. But hey, in a pinch, they will do just fine.

          1. I agree with you AlbertP, except that the shooting sports has nothing to do with the second amendment. Were it not for that constitutionally enshrined right [for which certain organizations constantly engage in advocacy], we would likely look a lot like Japan in terms of being able to engage in such activities.

            1. Well, no argument there. Auto racing wouldn't be very popular if only the police were allowed to use them. 🙂

    2. No Tony you're being stupid and wrong again.

      Guns are tool designed to create a rapid expansion, in order to move mass of material, or create sound and light.

      Flare guns, for example, don't tear apart flesh.

      Congratulations, you stupidly swallowed propaganda again like it was the emanantion of one of your tricks.

  18. One of my favorite lines from The President's Analyst: "Know when we'll disarm? When those radical right wingers disarm."

  19. “I’m very happy that the Supreme Court decided not to review the case because it brings a definitive end to this terrible project which would have caused devastating damage,” Dean Wallraff, a lawyer for the pro-environment Sierra Club said in an interview.
    Don’t copy ” ++ ” with web address

  20. So, we've had some time for the dust to settle after the stories hit the national news, yesterday, about how Oregon's legislature had to be closed down, over the weekend, because of threats made by militia.

    I'm calling shenanigans.

    No threat has been made by any militia groups that I can find anywhere, and the police statements explaining why they shut down the state capitol aren't claiming that there was a threat made by any militia group.

    The world "threat" seems to have been used in a tweet from a Democrat legislator in Oregon. That tweet has since been taken down (probably out of embarrassment), but a local NBC affiliate news station posted a capture of the message online:

    "The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate President of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow"

    ----Steiner Hayward, Democrat

    No militia group made a threat, and the police never claimed that any militia group made a threat. Rather, the police decided that there was a "threat" that militia groups might come to protest at the state Capitol over the weekend. Incidentally, I've invited some friends over for bbq'd beef ribs later today--and a number of them have "threatened" to show up and eat them.

    If the police shut down the legislature because they were afraid people might show up and protest the governor using the police to round up lawmakers who are unwilling to form a quorum, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

    Meanwhile, any presidential candidates who are condemning right wing militia groups for shutting down the Oregon state legislature with their threats are making fools of themselves. Anyone who can be so easily manipulated by non-events is probably unfit to be President.

    1. But... but... but... don't you realize that the Republican Senators boycotting the session ARE an armed, dangerous, fanatical militia? (sarcasm font off)

  21. This story remind you of the singing PSA, "VD is for everybody"?

    1. Come to think of it, All In the Family tied these PSAs together by asking, "How many people want guns? Now, how many people want VD?"

  22. You can find all Gun and accessories products review on the Best Gun review. They are best Best Gun Review

  23. "It's not just about being able to run fast, or jump obstacles, or jump from big heights. It's also that sometimes you cannot just run away. Maybe there's someone with you, like your girlfriend or a kid that needs protection, and they cannot run away, because they're not as fast as you. What are you gonna do? You're gonna fight.

    "When I started shooting, I thought, Hey, I can handle this. It's a better weapon than my fists. This works on bigger distances, can stop a threat even without actually engaging them—just by showing it—and stuff like that.

    "I heard that kung fu should be translated as—how do you say it in English?—'the way of the work,' 'the way of the labor.' Basically it means the way of someone who works hard toward the goal that's maybe not very achievable, but the way itself is the purpose. It's always about getting better. It's always about being safer, being a better person. And really, shooting is just another martial art for me. It's just my kung fu. It is a discipline.

    Yep, there are times when one must stay in a single spot and keep one's shoes off.

    1. What are you talking about? If government treats these rural folks so shitty, why don't they move into the city?

  24. Yep, guns are for everybody. Even those the government calls "criminals".


  25. I have an acquaintance who is transexual, still trying to learn how to walk in high heels after her op. "Stop walking like a dude!" I would yell at her. Anyway, she is an active member of Pink Pistols, which has a quite active chapter in the area (San Jose).

    There motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed".

    The lefty idea that guns are just a white male privilege designed to keep the Chosen Identities submissive is fucking bullshit.

    1. "The lefty idea that guns are just a white male privilege designed to keep the Chosen Identities submissive is fucking bullshit."
      Yep. From Pew Research:

      "about four-in-ten men (39%) say they personally own a gun, compared with 22% of women. And while 36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%) and 15% of Hispanics say they own a gun."

      1. Who we really need to work on with gun rights is the Asians! Projected to be the largest immigrant group over the next few decades, and they all come from places where they were slaves to their governments.

  26. Y'all do know that the plural of "ancedote" isn't "data", right?

    Here's some actual [Data] from Pew.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.