Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?

Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different.

Prohibition was kneecapped by Americans' widespread refusal to stop producing, selling, and drinking booze. Millions of Americans smoked marijuana decades before majority sentiment creeped toward legalizing the stuff. Gays and lesbians not only surreptitiously lived and loved when they were targeted by the law—they also famously (and righteously) stomped cops who raided the Stonewall Inn, ultimately precipitating liberalization. And restrictions on exporting encryption were eased only after cryptographers illegally exported code—even printing it on T-shirts as an act of civil disobedience.

But in the wake of Omar Mateen's bloody rampage in Orlando, gun control advocates think that overcoming the passionate opposition of firearms owners and imposing a ban on a difficult to define class of "assault weapons" is a swell idea whose time has come. This prohibition will somehow be different.

"Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense," President Obama tut-tutted last week. But the moralizer-in-chief failed to make sense himself, calling for the outlawing of a category of devices that doesn't really exist.

"The term assault weapon itself, of disputed origin, is a thorn in the side of gun enthusiasts, who point out that the differences between 'assault weapons' and other semi-automatics are largely cosmetic and don't increase the gun's lethality," explains Slate senior editor Rachael Larimore, in a piece taking the media to task for reporting and editorializing on guns without getting the facts straight.

"Because these guns are really just ordinary rifles, it is hard for legislators to effectively regulate them without banning half the handguns in the country (those that are semiautomatic and/or have detachable magazines) and many hunting rifles as well," adds UCLA law professor and gun control advocate Adam Winkler, who has actually done his research.

Winkler also emphasizes why gun owners are so hardened in their opposition to further legal restrictions: "Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country."

Gun owners' response is best summarized by one of their more popular slogans of recent years: "Molon labe." Usually translated as "come and take them," that was Spartan King Leonidas I's legendary response to the Persian demand that he and his men surrender their weapons before the Battle of Thermopylae.

That gun owners mean what they say in the "assault weapons" context can be inferred from the 5 percent compliance rate achieved by New York's recent registration requirement for such firearms. Or from the 15 percent compliance rate in neighboring Connecticut.

In 1990, even before opposition had become so hardened, California experienced similar resistance to its original restrictions on "assault weapons."

"As a one-year registration period draws toward an end on Dec. 31, only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered," The New York Times reported.

When New Jersey went a step further and banned the sale and possession of "assault weapons," 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That's out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law. The New York Times concluded, a bit drily, "More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce."

Some advocates of restrictions will object that they "don't want to take away" existing guns—they just want to prevent the acquisition of new ones. That narrative becomes complicated when officials like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo muse that "Confiscation could be an option"—a sentiment echoed by the New York Times editorial board.

But let's go with it. So, the government somehow defines "assault weapons" in a meaningful way and bans sales of new ones. How is that going to be effective given the millions of disfavored weapons already in circulation? That includes roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles alone—out of somewhere north of 300 million firearms in general. It's not like they're going anywhere. Plenty of 19th century firearms are still in working condition.

And their numbers will increase, even if commercial production and sales are outlawed. People have been 3D-printing AR-15 lower receivers (the parts legally classified as a firearm) for years. More durable receivers are CNC-milled by hobbyists from partially finished blanks as well as raw blocks of metal. These techniques were developed in anticipation of the laws now proposed, with the specific purpose of rendering them impotent.

Molon labe, remember?

So, a United States the morning after, or a year after, or a decade after a successful effort to ban "assault weapons" will not be the scene of the "domestic disarmament" favored by prominent communitarian sociology professor Amitai Etzioni. It will be more like Prohibition-era America, but with hidden rifles substituting for stockpiled hooch and 3D printers standing in for moonshiners' stills. And probably a bit more tense.

Those defiant gun owners will also be included in the jury pools chosen to sit in judgement of unlucky violators scooped up by law enforcement. That situation will likely replicate the difficulty prosecutors had in getting convictions of Prohibition scofflaws in the 1920s and marijuana law resisters today. "[I]f juries consistently nullify certain types of criminal charges (charges for possession of a small amount of marijuana, for example), this can render an unpopular law ineffective," wrote John Richards at the LegalMatch blog after a jury couldn't even be seated in Montana.

"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," Connecticut Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-District 35), told the Hartford Courant when large numbers of state residents flipped the bird to lawmakers and defied the new gun law.

Well... yes, you do. And like their restriction-inclined predecessors, gun controllers will have quite a mess on their hands.

Photo Credit: Martin Laco Photography/flickr

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

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    One of the puzzling things about statists is that their whole paradigm is built on the truth that a self-selected elite know better than everybody else how to do everything that free men do -- not just the obvious, like when to declare war and what tax rates should be, but what to smoke and drink and eat, how to drive, how to build houses and how much education people have to have to cut hair or paint nails.

    And yet all these damned statists somehow think they will be the elites, that the State power will never bite them in the ass, and it beggars the imagination as to how so many people can be so easily deluded into thinking they are the betters in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    I can only think these idiots have such awful self-esteem that they don't dare actually think for themselves, that they believe that a lifetime of fellating the current betters will somehow magically advance them in the ranks to become the betters themselves, eventually.

    It matches well with their belief that the right Top.Men can work miracles, that government paychecks somehow turn ordinary mortals into proper servants of the Top.Men, that government funding of projects is always cheaper than private industry doing the exact same job.

    I can't imagine even in my worst nightmares being so blinded to reality.

  • thrakkorzog||

    As far as I can telll, they all think that they get to be the top men.

  • TGoodchild||

    "I can only think these idiots have such awful self-esteem that they don't dare actually think for themselves, that they believe that a lifetime of fellating the current betters will somehow magically advance them in the ranks to become the betters themselves, eventually."

    I've always suspected that the root cause of the ideology is a vast insecurity the adherents project onto the rest of society; others' self destruction is easier than ones own self improvement.

  • Arroway||

    Every single LeftistI've ever met believes, deep down, that when the Revolution comes,*they're* going to be the ones walking around with clipboards.

  • BYODB||

    Well, yeah. That's how you get them in line. You tell them all that they will be empowered after the revolution, then laugh as you round them up and execute them afterwards. There's nothing more dangerous to a post-revolution socialist or Marxist government than a true believer. You'll recall that those are the same people that were just a few minutes ago ok with fermenting revolution. You don't want those people in your society afterwards, in that type of revolution.

  • rassik3||

    This is an excellent description of the stark facts about prominent communist and fascist revolutions, incuding the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and the several French Revolutions.

    One small note, I think you mean "fomenting" revolution here, not fermenting. >;o)

  • James Solbakken||

    Prohibition was a case of the people "FERMENTING" revolution.

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    Up with yeast.!!

  • Squinja||

    What gets me is there is now plenty of evidence of how this will end. (See Venezuela). Yet they still keep trying.

    I think part of it goes with being an atheist as well. Without faith in anything greater than themselves they place government in the role of God while forgetting that government is the work of flawed men.

  • dantheserene||

    I'm an atheist and a libertarian and I am not alone by any stretch of the imagination.
    Actual atheists are generally not looking for a god-substitute.

  • Ron||

    Yes but you are an atheist and I think what happens is when the government devalues religion, which most socialist nations do or just outlaw religion you end up with people who are not atheist but godless or guideless and they become the ones to look to the government as their diviner of all things.

  • khm001||

    You are far more alone than you think. Most atheists are very left leaning, who actually have substituted political identity the deeply ingrained need for religious identity. The atheists that I know to be libertarians do in fact subscribe to the fundamentals of Christian faith, being near-Christians. The lack of belief in the theology of Christ, but believing in the tenents taught by Christ, has the same practical effect, i.e., good effect, as having belief in theology of Christ and believing in the tenents taught by Christ.

    The foundations of Anglo-Saxon culture, the culture that has brought the wonderful peace we enjoy and near miraculous wealth we have, i.e., the modern world that began to emerged 200-300 years ago, is built upon Greek and Christian philosophy mixed with Germanic tribal culture (for example that's where our absolute nuclear family institution came from, as well as the right of freemen to keep and bear arms). Libertarians conform to this odd, but wonderful mix.

  • QueerLib||

    LOL! Got to love it when people who believe in an Invisible Sky Fairy invent all sorts of fairy tales to supplement their book of fables about how, without believing that a 2,000 year old Jewish zombie wants you to cast a spell on bread and wine to turn it into his flesh and blood and eat it, there'd be no culture, no liberty, no technology, etc.

  • James Redford||

    Hi, QueerLib. Mainstream physics has proven God to exist. For much more on that, see my following article: James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://bit.ly/1RyMsmn . It details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by said known physical laws. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

    The modern world qua modern eats, drinks, breathes and lives Jesus Christ. All of the highest ideals and ethics which atheistic humanists proclaim are Christ's teachings. Nor are Christ's ethics some given among mankind, but rather are exceptionally bizarre within human history. The only reason many nowadays take them as a given is because we swim in the milieu Christ made possible. Yet the Europe of the ancient Romans thought it the highest of entertainment to throw dissidents to lions and have men hack each other to death in arenas. Such a civilization was destined for the existential garbage pile.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    Mainstream physics has proven God to exist.

    All due respect, sir, but that idea is finest, purest, certified-organic hokum.

    Have all the faith you care to, but scientifically speaking, the concept of God or gods is at best a superfluous step in explaining existence. If everything has to have a beginning, even the Universe, then this principle applies to God as well. Declaring God as the Creator merely pushes that problem back to the next layer.

  • Fancylad||

    @queerlib "Sky Fairy, book of fables, Jewish zombie, spell on bread and wine"
    The same brilliant rhetorical flourishes as "rethuglican", lie-beral" and "dumbocrat". You must be very theologically astute.

  • BYODB||

    Those who worship the government aren't atheists in my opinion since for the most part they aren't looking for something to worship. Of course, I would also say that most atheists aren't really atheists, merely non-conformists looking to stick it in the eye of Christians.

    The few honest atheists aren't necessarily the issue though, although there are those who want to use the government to control the animals (truly, some believe this.) It's that after you make religion illegal, all of those people that are prone to worship things still need something to worship.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Atheists have no desire to outlaw religion. People will believe what people will believe. Their choice, whatever it happens to be. We simply don't want it enshrined in law. Actions are what matter, not the source of the belief.

  • BillyG||

    Atheists have no desire to outlaw religion.

    Pull the other one.

  • Lanceman||

    BYODB? Bring Your Own Dead Body?

  • Fat Hubie||

    When the "revolution" starts, those will be a disposal problem...!

  • QueerLib||

    Atheists aren't looking to "stick it in the eye of Christians." We're just not willing to believe in fairy tales.

    Plenty of different religions are out there -- statism, socialism, Islam, Christianity, etc. They're all irrational, they're all authoritarian, they all use force to impose their will upon other people, and they all call for the extermination of people who don't comply.

    If you're a theistic libertarian, you're 2/3 of the way to emancipation... you're already rejecting the various parts of religious belief that call for you to oppress and kill people who don't agree to accept your beliefs. Once you realize that Jesus never existed, there was no "tree of life," there was no global flood, etc., you can start to fully live in the brief moment that you have on earth, free of all that baggage and nonsense.

  • James Redford||

    Hi, QueerLib. Standard academic historical scholarship accepts that Jesus Christ existed. Regarding the position that Jesus never existed, called the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video: "Shattering The Christ Myth (JP Holding)", exposedatheists (YouTube), Dec. 21, 2010, http://youtube.com/watch?v=BxbYhy76GLQ . The foregoing video is an interview of James Patrick Holding (editor of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008]) by Dr. Craig Johnson.

    Nor did Jesus Christ or any of His followers as recorded in the Bible ever call for the death of anyone. Quite the contrary: Jesus calls for strict pacifism, even unto death. Regarding the politics of Jesus, see my following article:

    * James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://bit.ly/28RpKrS .

  • drmaddogs||

    You are in a minority, and exemplify this fact with every opportunity. Just by demogouging Religion, does not display knowledge, it only detracts.. which is your purpose.. to try to become the majority.
    Humans overall know that a matter of 'conscience' is necessary for group survival, they know belief in a higher authority is essential to having contentious appraisals.
    Those like yourself promote the IDEAL, that this can happen all on its own, that Humans are quite capable of acting contentiously without religious over tones.
    As if history isn't replete in demonstrating the opposite.
    This means in end analysis, you simply wish to do for yourself.. fine.
    But don't make the pretense that in any way the bulk of Humans will be satisfied with the attendant behavior Humans display when loss of conscience imbibed from religious teaching is abandoned.
    The biggest destroyers in history have not bee religious participators, but the biggest destroyers in history have been those in power without real conscience directing citizens.
    Now, pander to others with like IDEALS, that conscience can be attained simply by stating you have it.

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    Science is the study of the interaction of known.
    Philosophy is the study of the boundaries between the known and the suspected.
    Theology is the study of the projection beyond the suspected and the chaos of the unknown.

    Just because you see no face when you look into the chaos, doesn't mean you aren't describing it when you say nothing is there.

    I personally believe the Church of the Empty Throne needs as much protection as any other.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    I describe my religion as math and physics older than I am . Beyond that is mystery .

    But that's a very difficult religion and takes years of study of the life obsessions of unending generations of individuals trying to figure out as an old Hindu buddy would say : What Is Happening ?

    I inevitably end up being a bleeding heart libertarian , too .

  • zazoo||

    Sorry but no. The freedom to chose one's religious belief, or not have one at all, is just as much of a right as another other one espoused by a Libertarian.

    The notion that if someone has a different religious view to you must be suspicious is a statist view.

    Or possibly just a plain ol' fascist view.

  • TBlakely||

    What makes you think that a Venezuela ending isn't what they're secretly hoping for?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Choose reason. Every time.

    Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance.

    Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for backwardness, superstition, gullibility, and bigotry.

    By ostensible adulthood it is no excuse.

    Choose reason. And education, tolerance, modernity, science, inclusivity, and progress. Avoid backwardness, bigotry, superstition, insularity, dogma, and ignorance.

    Choose reason. Be an adult. Or, at least, try.

  • Vapourwear||

    Dunning Kruger.

    It's also why progressives are so smug all the time, I think.

  • Akira||

    "And yet all these damned statists somehow think they will be the elites, that the State power will never bite them in the ass"

    When "progressives" dream of power, they see themselves putting Tea Party members on the terror watchlist, shutting down opponents' political ads with "campaign finance" restrictions, and charging their opponents with "hate speech" for criticizing a black president.

    I don't think they even have a tiny chance of learning until those same laws they favor are used against them; when Black Lives Matter members are placed on the terror watchlist; when Hillary's campaign ads are shut down for being "electioneering"; when one of their "white privilege" rants get them slapped with a hate speech charge.

  • NoVaNick||

    "I don't think they even have a tiny chance of learning until those same laws they favor are used against them; when Black Lives Matter members are placed on the terror watchlist; when Hillary's campaign ads are shut down for being "electioneering"; when one of their "white privilege" rants get them slapped with a hate speech charge."

    Pigs will fly before that happens. Extreme arrogance and narcissism is what defines a progressive and they will only be too happy to torture their opponents, guilty of crimes against children. the planet, women, etc., if given the chance. They themselves will be exempt from their own laws in the world they envision.

  • LarryA||

    When I get the chance I have a thought experiment that I use for liberals:
    1. Suppose the current government passes all the restrictions you want on campaign contributions, freedom of speech, terror watchlists, etc.
    2. Suppose people don't like it, and vote in a right-wing government.
    3. Suppose that government gets captured by fundamentalist Christians.
    4. Suppose that, since they believe they are running the country with the approval of God, they no longer need the People's approval and cancel elections.
    5. So one fine morning you wake up in a religious dictatorship.

    Now, are you just going to say, "Well, that's what folks voted for?" Or are you going to want to borrow a gun?

  • James Solbakken||

    Liberals don't do thought experiments. Because, such experiments require thought. Liberalism and thought do not intersect. I live in San Fran Psycho, Bayarrhea, Kalifornia, and I can tell that the response of a liberal around here to what you propose would be to say, "well, that would be different," but somehow without bothering to explain what was different about it. Also, let me add, as a Protestant I can tell you that my peeps have some historical experience dealing with tyrannical religious dictatorships. We used to call it Popery and the Inquisition, (nobody expected it, by the way), but whatever they call it in the future, it will be up to other religious people to take down the religious dictatorship.

  • Episteme||

    ALICE MORE: Arrest him!
    THOMAS MORE: Why, what has he done?
    MARGARET MORE: He's bad!
    THOMAS MORE: There is no law against that.
    WILLIAM ROPER: There is! God's law!
    THOMAS MORE: Then God can arrest him.
    ALICE MORE: While you talk, he's gone!
    THOMAS MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
    WILLIAM ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
    THOMAS MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    WILLIAM ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    THOMAS MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
  • Stephen Lathrop||

    No problem. You have hypothesized an illegitimate coup. One of two outcomes lies ahead.

    1. Premised on your new tyrannical government enjoying initial broad-based popular support, it wins. But with a confused and confusing claim to sovereignty, it won't likely last very long. Doesn't mean what happens next will be even a little bit good. Extended chaos is a possibility. Oh well, unwise choices lead to lousy outcomes. Likely, after a while, this process delivers the nation to the next scenario, No. 2.

    2. Premised on the new tyrannical government as a power grab by a distinct minority, the people rebel. They do what rebellious people have always done to get arms—ambush their oppressors and take their arms. Also, find foreign nations hostile to the new dictators, and get armed support from them, including imports of arms for the rebels.

    Zero need to bankrupt the citizenry by stockpiling arsenals against contingencies so vague and paranoid that the contingencies themselves are indistinguishable from threats of illegitimate dictatorship down the road. Peace and prosperity need at least as much planning as insecurity and chaos do. Choosing the latter risks crippling the former.

  • QueerLib||

    I have a number of progressive acquaintances on social media, and during the Oregon wildlife refuge sit-in, they were in full-bore "I want DEATH for them" mode.

    They wanted wholesale liquidation of the protestors -- napalm, bombs raining from the sky, the whole nine yards.

    On Twitter and Facebook, there was also a HUGE progressive contingent applauding the guy who tried to grab a cop's gun and shoot Trump.

    They LOVE the idea of having a monopoly on deadly force and using it on their enemies.

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    But to make it clear "They" won't use it. They will let those others use that force, others that of course are correctly subservient to the law leased and Kenneled safely away from real people like themselves. Unless they are the ones holding these servants leash.

  • Akira||

    "And yet all these damned statists somehow think they will be the elites, that the State power will never bite them in the ass"

    When "progressives" dream of power, they see themselves putting Tea Party members on the terror watchlist, shutting down opponents' political ads with "campaign finance" restrictions, and charging their opponents with "hate speech" for criticizing a black president.

    I don't think they even have a tiny chance of learning until those same laws they favor are used against them; when Black Lives Matter members are placed on the terror watchlist; when Hillary's campaign ads are shut down for being "electioneering"; when one of their "white privilege" rants get them slapped with a hate speech charge.

  • J Neil Schulman||

    Gun controllers? The moron lobby.

    Molon labe.

  • Agammamon||

    What is an assault weapon Dajjal? Is it a gun 'designed to kill a lot of people quickly'? Is the 'design' the important part? What do you do about guns that are *capable* of killing a lot of people quickly but aren't *designed* to do so?

    What is it about a semi-auto rifle that is so scary that doesn't trigger the same fears when those features are in a semi-auto shotgun or carbine? What is it about the 5.56mm round that scares you that 7.62 NATO or other, larger, caliber rounds don't share.

    What is it about a small caliber rifle that is incredibly difficult to conceal that bothers you, while you give a pass to small caliber, easily concealable revolvers and pistols - you know, the sorts of weapons that actually kill more people than any of the other firearms?

    What *practical safety* would a ban bring? If I can still accurately (within a hundred yards) bump off two rounds a second with .38 special, 10 round fixed tube magazine - that can be topped off at every break in the action and you don't need to wait for a magazine to empty before adding more rounds, lever action rifle then what how much safer would we be when a single strain of equally lethal weapons is banned?

    The thing is, banners never ever want to answer these questions. Because they do not want to address the situation in a rational manner - that White Man's logic is to cold and impersonal - but just want to cry out and have someone comfort them.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "banners never ever want to answer these questions."

    Those promoting an "Assault Weapons" ban don't want to answer those questions, because at base they hope to pass a bill so vaguely worded that they can confiscate or attempt to confiscate just about anything.

    The idea of an assault weapon ban is based on several things;

    1) A large number of people who believe that an "Assault Weapon" is the same thing as an assault rifle.

    2) A not-quite-as-large number of people who believe the fairly common Hollywood fantasy that a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle can be converted to fully automatic in five minutes by a mouth-breathing idiot with a nail file.

    3) A smaller but still disturbingly large number of people who believe that the end (more power for their wonderful selves) justifies the means (lying every time they breathe).

  • prolefeed||

    2) A not-quite-as-large number of people who believe the fairly common Hollywood fantasy that a semi-automatic version of an assault rifle can be converted to fully automatic in five minutes by a mouth-breathing idiot with a nail file.

    Well, more like a thick paper clip, a nail file, 4 minutes, and a non-idiot. The result of 5 seconds of Teh Googles:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Zjs44WvVA

  • prolefeed||

    Pliers, not a nail file.

  • prolefeed||

    With a rickroll at the end, since showing how to do this would be legal evidence against one.

  • derpules||

    There's more to it than that. There are ways to simulate full auto, and even temporarily convert semi to full, but there are some pretty important structural changes to that need to be made to the internal mechanisms. You might get a few mags out of a 'mouth breather' conversion, but the rifle simply won't hold up. It'd be like adding nitrous to your taurus, sure it'll work, and you'll get a boost in performance...until the thing blows up.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Re: #2

    Bump fire stocks "simulate" full auto while still being perfectly legal as they don't modify the firing mechanism or trigger assembly.

  • ravenshrike||

    Long rubber bands are also perfectly legal and probably affect accuracy significantly less.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think his point is that you are for banning things without critical thought. You're talking about removing individual choice based on no logical criteria. If you want to put forth laws that will have the effect of removing freedoms, those laws can't be arbitrary. Those aren't gotchas, those legitimate debate points that "grabbers" should be prepared to rebut.

  • Lee G||

    It's a sock.

  • Agammamon||

    We know its a sock - this is for the lurkers who read and don't comment.

  • Agammamon||

    What 'gotcha' is there? That I'm asking you to explain your position. I get that you don't think a ban would make a difference - yet you still support one.

    Why?

    And, as always, I'm still confused as to what you think should be banned. What is an assault weapon? What makes it so much more dangerous - so much more dangerous that it shouldn't be in private hands (is it OK if the police still have them? An AR-15 is what *they* call a 'patrol rifle') compared to a 20 gauge pump action or a .38 special lever action or a 30-06 rifle? What is it that defines that particular strain of rifle and distinguishes it from other semi-auto, magazine fed rifles?

    Is it the detachable magazine? Because there are lot's of rifles with fixed magazines that can be reloaded nearly as quickly - rifles like the Mosin Nagant.

  • Agammamon||

    These people advocate for doing something, the least they could do is actually lay out what they want to do. They keep saying we need to have a 'discussion about guns' - but what can we discuss when one side simply refuses to tell us what their plan for dealing with the problem is. Refuses to address problems pointed out in that plan, refuses to provide justification for the action they want to take.

    Like 'universal background checks'. I think that's one that doesn't need explanation - its pretty obvious what is wanted here, every gun transaction must go through the same verification check that it does when buying from an FFL.

    But when you point out that all these mass shooters *passed* that background check - that Mateen was a prison guard (passing a state criminal history background check - which is more stringent than the gun one), was an armed guard (passing yet another CHB check for *both* the state and his employer), and the FBI even came 'round *twice* to take a look at the guy - and no one found any evidence that the dude was a danger.

    So if that's what we've got for background checks, that they don't work, then why bother with them? They're expensive, inconvenience law abiding people, don't inconvenience criminals, and the people who are going to shoot up places can pass the checks anyway.

    Or is this the standard 'the government has failed, therefore we need to give it more money and resources so that it will fail harder in the future' thing?

  • Agammamon||

    Personally I think its the 'we must do something!' people crying out and expecting someone to 'do something' and they don't care what, because anything done is done to make them feel better and solving the problem is irrelevant.

  • jack sprat||

    ^This times 100.

  • josh||

    marco rubio had the great point when he was running for president that none of the proposed legislation, and this is going back years, would've actually stopped the shooting that inspired it. the washington post was incredulous that such a thing could possibly be true, but when they fact checked it, guess what? he was right.

    it begs the question, what are they really trying to do?

  • as08112||

    The Other problem is that the Gun Controllers LIE!!

    'universal background checks' is a LIE. It is ALWAYS sold as checks on SALES. The Law ALWAYS is checks on TRANSFERS!

    You can't loan a shotgun to a friend to go skeet shooting without going through a Background check at an FFL on both giving the shotgun and receiving it back.

    No one is going to do that. So the law creates 1000's of felons. Also since they don't know WHO has the firearms it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. So the NEXT step for them is to say they have to have registration so that the law can be enforced.

    And people wonder WHY we don't trust anything the gun controllers say.

  • BYODB||

    I just wanted to comment on one of the graphics I've seen put forward by the left included a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine in it's definition of 'assault weapon' as long as it held 10 rounds. Just...wow.

    Making up imaginary classifications of weapons is for one reason and one reason only. It's because they know a lot of people have absolutely no idea what various types of firearms are, or what they do, and they correctly believe that people will assume 'assault weapon' equals a fully-automatic style gun which is absolutely not the case.

    When I point out a fully-automatic weapon is comparatively difficult and prohibitively expensive for most people to bother with I usually get a blank stare, followed by a denial that it makes any difference.

    You would be hard pressed to get one of them to admit that so far, one of these 'fully automatic weapons' hasn't been used in a 'mass shooting' yet, unless you want to include actual criminals who used them in the commission of crimes. Like, say for instance, 1930's Gangsters or some modern gangs. And guess what, they didn't go through the permit process to get their guns genius. How would making an illegal thing an illegal thing change a single damn thing, I wonder?

  • Diane Merriam||

    The last "mass" killing/shooting I know of that actually *used* a full auto weapon was the North Hollywood bank robbery. The team had AK-47s and body armor.

  • josh||

    "Making up imaginary classifications of weapons is for one reason and one reason only. It's because they know a lot of people have absolutely no idea what various types of firearms are, or what they do, and they correctly believe that people will assume 'assault weapon' equals a fully-automatic style gun which is absolutely not the case."

    this is forgivable, until you realize a lot of those people are also in the u.s. congress.

  • NYC2AZ||

    So, you propose to put non violent people in jail for owning an icky black rifle, but you think it's just too much effort to define what exactly constitutes the type of icky black rifle that is verboten?

    Fuck off and Die... slowly, in a ditch, with hungry rats.

  • cavalier973||

    But how will he feed the hungry rats if he 's dying....oh.

    Oh!

  • cavalier973||

    But how will he feed the hungry rats if he 's dying....oh.

    Oh!

  • Vapourwear||

    I bet people with a working thinker ARE terrifying to you and your lot.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Let me answer your questions succinctly: No one needs an AR-15.

    Boom. Try to rebut that.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Try to rebut that.

    I shall.

    Ahem.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Animal||

    ^This.^

  • Haha, charade you are||

  • KissofRoses||

    Let me rebut your silly argument:
    1. Who are you to dictate to me what I can and cannot own?
    2. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is NOT deer hunting, target practice, or home defense. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to insure that the US citizenry is at least minimally equipped to fight through the US Army, storm the capital building and shoot the traitorous SOBs inside as a last defense against tyranny. Obviously, wannabe tyrants such as yourself would object. Tough.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    New here?

  • KissofRoses||

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Any problems?

  • This Machine||

    Easy there, killer.

    Fist of Etiquette was being sarcastic, but I can see how it definitely wouldn't seem that way to a newbie. There's a lot of unlabeled sarcasm here, and it even bites the regulars in the ass from time to time.

    At any rate, welcome aboard! Feel free to stay awhile, please don't feed the trolls.

  • KissofRoses||

    LOL, thanks for the heads up. If I sounded harsh, please understand that I am so fed up with that "you don't need them for any good reason" argument that it is like waving a red cape at a bull.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    I am so fed up with...

    I like this guy gal individual. Should do well here.

  • Longtobefree||

    Trolls gotta eat, same as worms - - - - - - -

  • CorruptionMan||

    Re: 2...I don't think I've ever seen that so succinctly & eloquently put.

  • JayWye||

    America is NOT about government determining our "needs". that's communism.
    If you want that,move somewhere else.
    I suggest Venezuela. Or China.

    I also suggest you go and re-read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    BTW,
    During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" (Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifles) to hold off the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their shops/homes. that's just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own them.
    it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold off a riot mob.
    Not that we need any justification.

    And in more recent times,we've had the Ferguson riots.
    With the possibility of more riots occurring,thanks to Comrade Obama's racial division policies.

  • Lanceman||

    I don't disagree. Especially as long as the AK47 is readily available and makes a larger hole.

  • Mark6||

    Here's a rebut!! No ones needs the right to remain silent, after all if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't you spill you guts?

  • brokenprism||

    To the question "Do you really NEED an AR-15...?" I like to say "Well... ask me on the day I really need it. Not the day after." The presumption that no circumstance will ever arise in which I may need to deal with multiple threats is just dumb. Things happen, times change, the center doesn't hold. I've lived in 7 different decades so far, and the long view has shown me that if there was ever a time I needed to worry about a multiple threat scenario, it's this time, now. Our society is unraveling, and when we're not importing sharp objects by the millions, we're disaffecting batches of them domestically -- BLMatter, OccupyWS, hooded leftist anarchists, etc. Not comforted one bit by the current crop of lawless, entitled, self-absorbed animals, or their king.

  • ravenshrike||

    No one needs a vehicle that will go faster than 30mph either or any sort of motorcycle. Yet we still have them even though it would be much, much, much easier to enforce a prohibition against them and save orders of magnitude more lives than any sort of gun ban.

  • Michael Price||

    It's the Gorbachev delusion again. Named after Mikhail Gorbachev who attempted to restrict alcohol consumption in the USSR without figuring out that people can make alcohol with anything sugary, the Gorbachev delusion is a belief in the ability of government to do forbid things that common sense says can not be effectively banned.

  • epsilon given||

    There's something to this "Gorbachev delusion", but it's a lot more subtle than just "you can make alcohol with anything sugary". It's the fact that Gorbachev can look at the Russian people doing awful things, and then say to himself, "I can fix that!" and immediately tries to, by going after the symptom -- in this case, alcohol consumption -- and not the cause.

    In this case, Russians were driven to drinking, suicide, and a general disregard for their own safety and the safety of others, because of decades of Communism telling them that their lives were of no value. Of course, if the individual mattered, then there would be no need for the State telling everyone what they needed to do, so it's naturally just easier to go after the alcohol...but it's delusional to believe that State can by fiat make life better for everyone anyway....

  • The Grinch||

    What will they do? Maybe they'll send the cops by at 3:00 AM to kick in your front door and confiscate your weapon. Maybe you'll be thrown in prison after you catch a felony charge. Maybe you'll eat a bullet when a nervous cop puts one in you during the aforementioned raid. It'd be an absolute disaster and I don't know how many people would be willing to take those risks.

  • Agammamon||

    Lots of people were during Prohibition. Lots of people are during the WoD, lot's of people are taking that risk right now in states with mandatory registration.

  • Will4Freedom||

    I guess it comes down to how deeply you love Liberty. Would you rather risk the consequences of defiance or live like a shivering subject to the state?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Do you actually think that police officers will be kicking down doors to confiscate illegal guns? They do not have the balls.

  • Mark6||

    I would add to any confiscation law that any politician voting for it will be required to be the first one through the door!

  • funkymonkey||

    I do not believe they will kick down doors, But I do believe they will confiscate firearms.
    It will be done a little at a time.
    first. They will try buy backs,
    then they will ban certain firearms, And ask that you turn them in.
    This is where the upstanding law abiding citizen screws himself, Because he is an upstanding law abiding citizen
    he will turn in his guns. so far till this point, they have collected 25% of the guns
    next, will be threats of severe punishment, few more guns will come in
    then their will be a lull, as the police conduct illegal search's and stop and frisks
    gun shop owners pawn sop owners will give up their records of sales and pawns
    more demands for guns, more threats
    then, the door to door will start, after the citizens have become accustom to the idea of confiscation

    it will not be all at once

  • Longtobefree||

    Tell that to the people of New Orleans.

  • Drake||

    That'll only work if:

    1. The local cops are willing to do it. A mixed bag from the ones I've talked to.

    2. The local population tolerates it - instead of finding where the cops live and returning the favor or setting up ambushes.

    3. Or, they use federal cops - and it does't lead to armed revolt.

    Might work in Stamford CT, probably not in Waco TX.

  • thrakkorzog||

    From what I've seen from mandatory registration followed by confiscation in places like Canada and Australia, an overwhelming number of people just went out hunting, and whoops, dropped their guns in a lake.

    Who wants to be the cop proving that they lied?

  • Drake||

    Yeah - my evil HK was lost in a boating accident.

  • Akira||

    Hey, at least you only lost one... I had every single one of my guns out on the boat when the damn thing sank! Now I'm just a sad-sack with no guns in my possession at all... ;(

  • brokenprism||

    Always buy at least two. One to carry, one to bury.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

  • BYODB||

    Hmm...well do you recall Waco or Ruby Ridge? I think it's pretty obvious what their solution will be, when push comes to shove.

  • Cocoa Toasters||

    I'd rather die with my rifle in my hands than live with my rifle in yours. Kinda extreme, but the point stands I hope.

  • Mark6||

    Kinda like "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death!" Spoken like a true patriot!

  • JayWye||

    the answer is to NOT WAIT until they come to your door.
    Once they enact such an unconstitutional law,and the courts uphold it,then it's "open season" on the legislators,judges,and other high officials who are responsible for this law. They should not be safe ANYWHERE.
    If you wait until they're at your door,it's too late.
    You'll end up like the people at Waco,and you won't be shooting at the right people.not the ones who deserve it.

  • ebola131||

    Did you know that only 3% of the population of the Colonies actually fought the British for liberty and freedom.
    Did you know that there are 2 million ex military who are experienced in the arts of real war and won't take kindly to having their weapons removed.
    There will be no frontal assaults....that would be suicide....Sun Tsu's "Art of War" will be the guide for defeating the tyrants.
    Bill Clinton's 'Revised Rules of Engagement for Bosnia" will be adhered to.....that means that ANYONE, in any profession, who supports the tyrants will be targeted. You don't go after the leaders, you go for the underlings who will then turn on the leaders when they know they are no longer safe.
    Both Cumo and that Ct Commie and his sidekick have been told by their respective police forces that they will not attempt to enforce the new gun laws....they like coming home from work and enjoying their families.
    So, good luck to the gun banners. You're about to discover that we are still a tribal species who will defend our God given rights to the end....of you.

  • ravenshrike||

    The only way that gun confiscation would be successful in the US is if the left emulated Hydra, bult Helicarriers with railguns, and killed anyone suspected of having a gun or sympathies for those who do.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Considering that the compliance rates with recent attempts to ban certain types of guns have run between 5% and 15%, it sure looks like a whole lot of people are willing to take those risks.

  • Lanceman||

    Once a few test cases are confirmed, their jobs will suddenly become more dangerous. You think people hate cops now? Wait until they attempt to take our serious rights.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Once, in a debate on gun control, I asked what would stop people from smuggling firearms into the United States, as they do with drugs. No one even took a stab at answering the question; instead, people either changed the subject or called names.

  • Brochettaward||

    Obviously, a border fence which is more humane than the border wall Trump wants.

  • UnCivilServant||

    A border fence of monomolecular wire - a few cubed migrants will make the rest think twice.

    /updated mongol lifesaving strategy.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Meh that happened to Daffy Duck all the time. He seemed to recover from cubing ok.

  • Anarcho-Woodchipper||

    Fuck it, I'm going full Godwin this morning...

    "Trump is literally the next Hitler!!" says the crowd that actually wants to do Nazi things. Ya know, like raids and confiscations. And they would not shed one tear for a single gun owner killed during a raid.

    Fantastic article though. Well done with all the historical links.

  • Doctor Whom||

    the crowd that actually wants to do Nazi things

    Trump is on the right. They are on the left. Therefore, they and Trump are exact opposites. This is the level at which many people actually think.

  • Anarcho-Woodchipper||

    I'm fully aware. I'm just mad at myself for still being surprised by it...

  • Diane Merriam||

    The more pertinent dichotomy is between authoritarian and liberty. On that scale, They're both on the same end.

  • Ben1234||

    Yeah.... If they want to create second class citizens based on a secret list of potential enemies, they should go ahead and be open and honest about it, and require everyone on the list to wear yellow stars in public.

  • LV||

    I'd be fine with that as long as they wear bright targets on their persons. Just makes it easier, you know training in how you fight, fight like you trained, and all that.

  • Rich||

    What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault Weapons' Ban?

    Use *Their* 'Assault Weapons' To Round Up Those Criminals, Duh!

  • Jackand Ace||

    Last week JD your suggestion was that more people should have been carrying in that nightclub, to the point that reality would then be everyone was carrying. And I told you that was insane.

    Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, was sharper in his criticism of Trump's stance. "No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms," Cox said on ABC's "This Week." "That defies common sense. It also defies the law. It's not what we're talking about here."

    And Wayne LaPierre said something similar.

    I guess for once I agree with the NRA...you're nuts.

  • Jackand Ace||

  • Jackand Ace||

    But hey, JD, you and Trump on the same page. Congrats!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I guess for once I agree with the NRA...you're nuts.

    Burnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

  • Jackand Ace||

    Yeah, that was a tough one. Had to do it

  • Crusty Juggler||

    You have a gift.

  • Citizen X||

    ...if by "gift" you mean "a giant wen on the side of his nose that makes him difficult to look at," then, yeah.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    You have a gift.

    You could even say that it's something he was born with.

  • ||

    Right, because the only,people that go to night clubs are that drink to excess while out.

    Nobody goes there and doesn't drink. Nobody ever takes a designated driver or someone that likes to danc but doesn't like what alcohol does to them.

    You're an idiot if you think every single person there had been drinking to excess.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell it to Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    You can't argue with that, Sloopy.

  • JayWye||

    YES,I can. LaPierre is the WORST spokesman the NRA ever had. The NRA's current spokesmen are unable to respond competently at the spur of the moment. They invariably screw up. LaPierre even begins stammering. They just don't come prepared.

  • Citizen X||

    Oh snap. TELL IT TO THOSE TWO DUDES. You just got serverd!!1!

  • ||

    I'm telling it to you, dickhead. I'm giving you a chance to listen to reason and walk back your idiotic comment.

    I see that you've decided to double down.

  • Jackand Ace||

    That's right...I think one of the main purposes of a club like that one is serving alcohol, and no matter how few there choose not to drink, by far most will.

    And I think NRA is correct...it defies common sense to allow firearms in such establishments.

    Congrats on joining JD in defying common sense!

  • ||

    Oh, so now we make everybody go in unarmed because "the main purpose" is to serve alcohol? The concept of a sober person in a bar (legally or absolutely sober, either works) is foreign to you? The concept of a group of gays not having a single member drink in moderation or not at all is inconceivable?

    Is the main purpose at schools to serve alcohol? Do you believe in legislated gun bans at schools?
    Is the main purpose at concerts or sporting events to serve alcohol? Do you believe in legislated gun bans at those events?
    Is the main purpose of public libraries to serve alcohol? Do you believe in legislated gun bans at libraries?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Indeed I do.

  • ||

    People like you are alive simply because it is illegal to kill you.

  • Agammamon||

    But - *why* does it defy common sense? What is it about drinking in a club that is so obvious that *everyone* knows its bad?

    You're not answering that question, you just keep going back to 'its common sense'.

  • BYODB||

    Well, everyone is perfectly aware that the law prohibiting taking a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol stopped Omar from getting it. The law is like a physical barrier to guns, you can go in but it simply can't. (And sorry jerkwad, I know plenty of people that break the law by taking their conceal carry into bars. So far they have shot zero people and been arrested zero times.)

    Much like how every school shooting in U.S. history actually never happened, because you see there is a law that forbids it therefore it doesn't happen.

    When confronted with the logic they are presenting, these types usually fall back on 'ok, well since our 'common sense' measures clearly don't work we're just taking all the guns'.

    So, you see, every logical point that's brought up to show how this ideology is vapid and achieves no results just means that we are more wrong than ever each and every time. That is the type of brain you're dealing with here. The type that can not admit that it is wrong. It just can't be, because 'common sense' says so even though this 'common sense' can not exist in the same space as facts.

    *waits for the inevitable 'well if it saves one life' argument*

  • Drake||

    I'll be surprised if, after things calm down or the next Exploding Mohamed goes off in a different way, Florida doesn't change the ban on CCW in bars to allow non-drinkers / designated drivers to carry.

  • Agammamon||

    No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms," Cox said on ABC's "This Week." "That defies common sense. It also defies the law. It's not what we're talking about here."

    Why does it defy common sense?

    I've been drinking and carrying on multiple occasions - haven't shot anyone yet. Haven't been shot at. Haven't even so much as gotten into a heated argument with anyone.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Not every state prohibits carry in restaurants/bars or while consuming alcohol. No mass shootings in bars in Oregon due to concealed carry.

    I've said it before, these people including the NRA are falling into that trap of everything not prohibited, must be mandatory. Fuck them.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    It doesn't. People fall back on the appeal to "common sense" ironically when the opposite tends to be true and they simply don't have a good, logical argument.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Those people you speak of is the NRA.

  • Agammamon||

    OK - here's a mind-blower for you.

    THE

    NRA

    IS

    WRONG

    ABOUT

    THIS.

    How's that? Did you need time to get a towel to wipe up the exploded brain matter when your head popped upon finding out that not every militant gun-owner supports every position the NRA holds?

    Hell, I even support some of the work the ACLU has done and does.

  • JayWye||

    there's good reason why there are OTHER pro-gun organizations,like Gun Owners of America,JFPO,etc.
    The NRA is too easy,too willing to compromise,have LOUSY spokesmen who aren't prepared for media appearances. They're responsible for some of our LOSS of gun rights.

  • dantheserene||

    Virginia CHP has allowed (and I hate using that word) non-drinkers to carry in places that serve alcohol (for stupid and complex reasons, we don't have bars in VA) for several years. I'm always the designated driver anyway, so I can always carry legally in such places.

  • dantheserene||

    The NRA HQ is in Virginia, which by law exempts police, judges, and commonwealth's attorneys from an prohibition on carry while drinking. Clearly, he means some subset of "people" when he talks about defying the law.

  • LV||

    If they didn't want us drinking and carrying arms WTF did they name it ATF? Seems like a natural to me.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Well, for one thing, the law preventing patrons of the club from carrying on the premises apparently also prevented security from being armed, so there's that. For another, the only people who that law disarmed were the people who didn't go there with the express purpose to kill everyone they could. And finally, the NRA isn't like a union for gun owners. It doesn't speak for all gun owners, who themselves don't necessarily all march in lock-step. I know plenty of gun owners who don't think people should be allowed to carry in bars. I also know plenty (including myself) who believe it should be up to the bar, and not a matter of law. After all, I (and you, if you go to bars) have definitely been in establishments where at least one of the patrons was armed. And nothing happened. In fact, I'd hazard that you encounter more people in your day to day than you think who are carrying a concealed weapon and not murdering people.

  • This Machine||

    And finally, the NRA isn't like a union for gun owners. It doesn't speak for all gun owners, who themselves don't necessarily all march in lock-step.

    This cannot be stated enough. It's like when gun control advocates tell gun owners, "But but but Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban!" - so what? You think every gun owner is a sheep who'd agree with everything a former president wanted to do, just because he was on their TEAM? It's bullshit, but it's exactly what one can expect from idiots (like joe from lowell) who don't know how to think for themselves.

  • Agammamon||

    But wait, I thought James Porter was the Pope of Gun owners - like Jesse Jackson is the emperor of black people.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'd hazard that you encounter more people in your day to day than you think who are carrying a concealed weapon and not murdering people.

    Unpossible. No one can resist the magical siren call of a gun to randomly murder as many people as possible. IT IS KNOWN.

  • JayWye||

    Actually,in Florida,employees of bars or nightclubs CAN be armed,IF the owner permits it. That usually doesn't happen,due to liability concerns. Usually,the manager carries(if they're smart),because they deal with cash receipts,once the place closes for the night. But having armed bouncers is stupid,because they're no different than an armed,uniformed guard;usually the first one shot,because they're KNOWN. The killer/terrorist plans to deal with them. OTOH,patrons inside,carrying concealed,are an unknown element,and can't be planned for . The perp never knows from which direction a shot will come,terminating his spree. Plus,by being there at the beginning the armed ODCs KNOW who the bad guy is,unlike police who arrive later,in the middle of chaos. They're not going to shoot each other,they're going to shoot the guy shooting patrons. And all it takes is one or two shots,shots that actually HIT the perp,unlike that "off-duty policeman working security",who fired an unknown number of rounds and never hit once.

  • Akira||

    Plus, many of these mass shooters are giant cowards who will kill themselves or run away at the first sign of armed resistance.

  • This Machine||

    RRRRETARD.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  • JayWye||

    "to the point that reality would be everyone was carrying"? what reality is that?
    There's plenty of people who will not carry a gun no matter what. Nor should they have to. There's enough people who are not mentally capable of using lethal force,even if it means their lose their life. America is not a nation that forces people to do such things.
    You "progressives" always carry things to extremes that just don't hold up in reality. We say "let people carry",and you folks apparently hear that as "everybody must carry". We say "let school employees carry in school",and you folks hear that as "lets arm the children",or "make teachers carry".
    What's wrong with you folks? I guess the saying" liberalism is a mental disorder" is true.

  • JayWye||

    have you never heard of "designated driver"? If a person can go into a bar,not drink,and then be the driver to see his friends home safely,then why can't a lawfully armed,permitted gun owner be in a bar and not drinking?
    In Florida,people lawfully carry into restaurants that serve alcohol,have a couple of beers with dinner,and then go home without misusing their firearm. They do this all the time,perfectly legal. It's demonstrated safe,over decades of concealed carry.
    you "progressives" just are not rational.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Drinking and carrying arms? No. Simply being in a bar/nightclub? Why not?

    From what I've been able to find out, many, if not most, of the states that have no limits on where you can carry do have wanton endangerment laws for being armed similar to drunk driving. Don't drink and carry. No problem with that.

  • Lanceman||

    Really. Go into a tittybar or black club and try that shit. I guarandamntee you a good percentage of goers are armed. legally or not. Here in Florida, being armed in a bar is only a second-class misdemeanor. Provided you have a weapons permit of course. And it's not like the bouncers may search you. Nor the cops. Your weapon would have to expose itself to be of use in court.

    Like Pizza Hut drivers, shut your mouth and carry anyway. Obviously you need to be more vigilant in avoiding trouble. In Tennessee you may carry into a bar if you're not drinking, from what I understand. They haven't become Rifleman Saloons.

  • Mark6||

    Yeah, but the designated drivers, etc. are legally allowed to carry in bars in many states since they consume no alcohol.

  • Steve Bumgardner||

    I think LaPierre and Cox are suffering extreme recto-cranial inversion. It would appear they're not alone.

    I live in Indiana. There's no law against having a gun in a place that serves alcohol. Or drinking while carrying.

    Guess what? No shootings. Ok, there was one in 2012. There are occasional shootings outside or near bars. Rare, but occasionally it happens. Considering the proliferation of guns, the shootings you fear are in the small fraction of a decimal percentage.

    The problem for your and their arguments is that it really isn't a problem in a State that allows it. In fact, the entire State has far fewer shootings than a few square block area on the south side of Chicago. You remember Chicago, where they're still trying to keep the honest folks from having guns. Where all of Obama's gun controls dreams have been in place for years.

    So, why are you pro-terrorist? Why are you pro-gang banger? Why are you pro-rapist? Why do you want to make life easier for criminals?

  • CJR||

    Yeah, they don't mind high levels of non-compliance. Most gun control proposals are aimed towards destroying the gun culture, more than anything else.

    So yeah, the feds pass an assault weapon (or whatever) ban, they're not going to go door-to-door. There will be a couple of big, well-publicized raids, and after that, not much. But at the same time, you can't take your contraband assault rifle to the range (so your shooting skills degrade), you can't sell it, you can't tell your friends about it. The culture thus is steadily chilled.

    Then you die, and your kids turn your guns in for scrap. That's the long game.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    This.

    It's over, people. All done but the dying and the crying.

  • CJR||

    I didn't say that it was all over. Quite the contrary. I just think it's important to understand how the enemy thinks.

    One thing that we have going for us - guns are useful, fun, and empowering. The antis have been singularly unsuccessful in counteracting that meme.

  • Drake||

    My son is already fully assimilated into shooting culture. To my wife's annoyance, he's pushing me to buy more and better stuff.

  • UnCivilServant||

    How old and what's next on the shopping list?

  • Drake||

    He's 15. He would like a high-end AR or similar. I'm leaning towards an M1A1 - helps that it is a rifle I can buy in NJ without mangling it to comply with the evil-features rules.

  • CJR||

    Nice. I'd go for the AR15, though. The M1A is a cool rifle, but really it's time has passed. The AR is better at almost everything.

  • Number.6||

    The correct answer, of course, is *both*.

  • MikeP2||

    except knockdown, and penetration, and longer ranges.

    But other than those....yeh.

    Unless your talking about upmodding to a larger bore system like .300 blackout, but then the M1A will probably compare quite favorably, particularly with the vastly more common accessibility of ammo.

  • Number.6||

    In NJ, you're unlikely to see one of the huge benefits of an M1A over an AR platform, and that's effective range. ARs are pretty much maxed out at 300 yds, even with something competent like the 300 blackout, whereas the standard M1A is very capable to 600, even if the shooter isn't.

    The trouble with the M1A vs AR is ammo cost. You're typically paying twice the price for 308 over 223 and if you intend to actually travel around on foot, you can haul a lot more 223.

    That being said, shooting my M1A is a real treat. Shooting the AR-15 I nearly bought was kinda tame. Not like a bazooka at all.

  • EvilWayz||

    The AR is maxed out at 300 yards? I call bullshit my friend. the Marine Corps shoots out to 500, and if you can't get past the rifle range in boot camp, you can't be a Marine.

  • EvilWayz||

    With NATO 5.56 rounds no less.

  • Mark6||

    with good match ammo an AR-15 is effective and accurate past 600 yards

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Only advantage to the AR that I can see is number of rds (up to 100 with a Beta-C mag), the lower recoil makes it easy for the wife to handle, and the shorter length does make it more convenient to move around with.

    Against that is range and stopping power.

    Frankly if I can see you at 600 yards (assuming open sights - with a scope that increases) you're not going to get close enough to me for your more rounds to help you.

    It might be the best weapon for a Marine squad that has artillery, air, and tanks to back them up, oh, and a 7.62 long-rage weapon also (refer to the "designated marksman" program).

    I have 4 ARs. If the SHTF I'll carry the M1A while the wife backs me up with the AR. If I'm alone I'll stick with the M1A.

  • JayWye||

    any such fighting is going to be done in an URBAN environment,and you won't have 600 yards between you and the enemy. Besides needing to "shoot and scoot" before they home in on you with armed drones.

  • JayWye||

    Consider a Ruger mini-14 Ranch rifle. Walnut stock,looks just like any hunting rifle. Works the same as an AR-15,same cartridge.

    and once you have it,you can buy aftermarket stocks,all sorts of goodies to customize it.

  • Rich||

    Gee, hope your wife doesn't, um, *snap*.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Exactly. With alcohol or drugs, you can consume (benefit) from those in a private setting. Possess an illegal weapon, you effectively can't use it. Defend yourself from a criminal? You're fucked as soon as you use it. And anytime you come in contact with police (pulled over for suspected drunk driving, burglary at your house, etc.) is an opportunity for a simple situation to turn into a felony arrest and conviction. How many would continue to risk it?

    Full auto weapons manufactured post 1986 are effectively banned from private ownership. How many otherwise law abiding gun owners possess post-86 full auto weapons? Every couple of years, the ATF nails someone doing that or makes some illegal modification. Where's the revolt when those happen??

  • cavalier973||

    Well...um...officer; it's like this: this dead fellow on the floor brought the weapon, but I managed to wrestle it out of his hands and shoot him with it. Where is the weapon, now? His buddy grabbed it and took off, headed east. If you hurry, you can catch him!

  • ace_m82||

    Possess an illegal weapon, you effectively can't use it. Defend yourself from a criminal? You're fucked as soon as you use it.

    Shoot, shovel, shut-up.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Better tried by 12 than carried by 6

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Exactly. That's what the concealed carry revolution saved us from.

    They don't mean to go door to door having firefights with NRA members. They mean to make owning a gun such a drag that the next generation doesn't take it up. And the number of gun owners declines to the point where all of us being single issue voters wouldn't be enough to swing an election.

    Then maybe they massacre a few people during the cleanup at the end, but it's just making gun ownership a pain the rear that's expected to do the heavy lifting.

    That's why the petty harassment laws are actually a bigger threat than outright bans, in the long run.

  • ||

    wrote John Richards at the LegalMatch blog after a jury couldn't even be seated in Montana.

    I got a malware alert when I tried following this link. Anyone else?

  • UnCivilServant||

    I don't follow thinks, so I did not get any such alert.

  • Drake||

    This article is written as a theoretical piece. It has already happened in California and several Northeast states. I live in NJ and we have a completely senseless "assault weapons" ban.

    Many of the scary guns on the market 20 years ago were named in the ban - including the M1 Carbine. "Features" were also named - flash suppressor, pistol grip, and detachable magazine. Any new unnamed rifle cannot have more than 2 evil features.

    Nobody turned in their M1 Carbines or Steyr AUGs, they just keep them locked away and take them to Pennsylvania or other freer states to shoot. If anyone ever came asking for them, they were lost in a boating accident or sold to a guy in West Virginia.

  • Drake||

    The NJ thing of registering their "rifles as sporting guns for target shooting" was a one-time chance to get your M1 Carbine grandfathered in as legal. You still can't sell it or buy another one and I don't think it applied to any of the more evil rifles named on their ban list. If a cop sees you with it at the range, he could still seize it until you prove you were grandfathered in.

    (The cops at my gun club are fairly low-key as we have an unspoken agreement that nobody does anything too crazy, and they don't get too curious while we let them shoot for free)

  • rocks||

    So you are trading favors with government goons, that is being part of the problem. I am sick with all the perks some individuals get just from having a badge.

  • ||

    In other words, they can be bribed on the cheap.

  • Longtobefree||

    In other words, they have read the constitution.
    My nephew was a deputy, and told the sheriff on a few occasions he would not enforce laws clearly unconstitutional. (note: WAS a deputy)

  • derpules||

    Those boating accidents are a bitch. Gun owners have the worst luck around boats!

  • HolgerDanske||

    This article is written as a theoretical piece. It has already happened in California and several Northeast states. I live in NJ and we have a completely senseless "assault weapons" ban.

    Except people didn't stop legally buying modern sporting rifles during the last nation-wide ban, and people are still legally buying new MSRs in every state, including NJ, NY, CA, etc. Sure, some of them look goofy, but they are nearly functionally identical.

    Your options aren't great, but you can certainly buy one that is legal in your state, and that you don't have to hide.

  • uunderstand||

    some of them look goofy,

    You have to be one of the beautiful people now to buy a gun? Most people can't help how they look.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Yes, and all those gun restrictions have done wonders in our fine cities, haven't they? Newark, Camden, Trenton...all centers of civility and good conduct by all.

  • Number.6||

    I defy you to find *even* a 'goofy looking' MSR that is legal to purchase new in Connecticut.

    Only way is to find someone who has some pre-ban items who also wants to sell 'em.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Or drive a few miles to where they're still legal.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    What will they do? Why, they'll do up a hashtag campaign on Twitter! So we'd better watch out!

  • spqr2008||

    I thoroughly enjoy how the left doesn't understand on this, and many other issues (as does the right, on social issues) the military advice, "Never give an order you know won't be followed." Do they really not understand how much this kind of thing undermines the legitimacy of every other thing the government does? If I cannot respect the laws that exist (and mostly its ignorant people who do have high levels of respect for the law, since the law is such an ass it's incredible), why should I remain compliant? If I'm screwed if I come to the notice of the government anyways, what do I have to lose by obeying the law?

  • ||

    I need to get that outfit that lovely model is wearing for my wife - a skimpy halter top and AR-15 semi-automatic rifle would look fantastically sexy on her.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    I need to get that model. You can keep the outfit.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't own any guns and if I did I would happily turn them in to any AG who asked for them.

  • This Machine||

    YES. I AGREE WITH ALMIGHTYJB. I DO NOT HAVE ANY GUNS. I THINK THEY ARE SCARY.

    *winks, resumes burying guns in PVC capsules in the back yard*

  • Dixon Sider Woodchipper||

    If it's time to bury 'em, it's time to use 'em

  • ||

    I don't own any guns and if I did I would happily turn them in to any AG who asked for them.

    I can only assume serious AGs would provide their 15-digit FFL number and/or their private address so that any eager gun owners could send their guns directly to them via USPS post haste.

  • kbolino||

    Why would they want a paper trail for their gun running operations?

  • Agammamon||

    Its not like you need an FFL transfer in Mexico, is it?

  • simplybe||

    Better question to ask is why the Obama administration is arming all the all the Federal agencies with the very weapons he constantly riles against. This of makes him the hippocrite in chief.

  • Mark6||

    How else is he going to control the riff-raff>

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "We'll just have to stomp the boot down harder." - gun grabber 'tards

  • BYODB||

    I'm disappointed that my hometown of Gonzales, Texas wasn't mentioned anywhere in this article despite the fact that 'Come and Take It' is on their town flag (yes, I know...) and the fact that it was the first 'battle' of the Texas Revolutionary War.


    I suppose Sparta predates Gonzales though, in all fairness. Also, the Battle of Gonzales amounted to firing a cannon at an army that ran away. Then the town residents burned down their own town and buried the cannon. So, not exactly the greatest beginning to a revolutionary story I suppose. ^_^

  • Haha, charade you are||

    "Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense," President Obama tut-tutted last week.

    Perhaps you could explain your stance on LGBT and same-sex marriage to these victims and their families, Mr. President. Or will you pull a Clinton and blame your actions on the Republicans?

  • R C Dean||

    Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense

    I'd actually be happy to do exactly that. Especially if we could do so at the range, and get some shooting in.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, I'm not sure what he was thinking on that one.

    "See, the next time someone threatens your family you point this end at them and squeeze. No more threatening evil person!"

    I'm not sure that victims think the way Obama thinks, given that they've already been at the receiving end of the governments negligence as the police clearly did not make it in time, and probably never will. Even if guns are 100% illegal, guess what, people will still get them. Only in that scenario, every target is a soft target.

  • Ron||

    If no one follows a law does the law exist?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    *sound of one hand clapping*

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Its gonna get real fun when people start modding their ARs to be full auto as well. If you're going to go to prison anyway, why not go out in a way that scares the ever-loving fuck out of police-state goons? Or when they decided to start geeking politicos that make these asinine laws. We've already seen where the backlash from these laws lead to the names, addresses and phone numbers of the people who wrote some of these laws. Predictably, the douchebags screamed like babies when they discovered that the plebs were sharpening their knives to come carve them a slice of faggot-wings out of their hides.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Damnit...."when they decide to start geeking politicos"......

  • Hank Phillips||

    Publishing the names and numbers is fine, but the reason geeking is bad policy is that you end up creating an environment in which only people who do not value their own lives run for office. Also, the approach was tried in Colombia in the 1990s, and the Soviet I mean US government sent men with guns and gear into Colombia to murder pro-sovereignty politicians to even the score. Look at the kind of governments they have in Europe, where communist anarchists shot politicians like there was no bag limit or size restriction. 'Nuff said?

  • as08112||

    Full Auto ARs, you have to be kidding. Even the army realized that was a mistake. They went to 3 round burst, harder to do. Why go to 3 round burst? Because they found that 1 round wouldn't take down the bad guy, they have to use 3. Kind of kills the IDEA of the 5.56 doesn't it. It was supposed to give greater fire power. With 3 round burst you have 10 shots with a 30 round mag. Just think 1 round of 308 does the job.

    Any way, There are ONLY certain very specific times when you NEED Full Auto. Most are Holy (&*^#$&)*^*$#%%&) I'm dead times.

    That is why very few really care about full auto. It just isn't needed and mostly wastes ammo.
    Just look how effective the Jihadi are with full auto AKs.

  • brokenprism||

    Ever see those guys shoot? No wonder they use explosives. If they could turn an AK sideways and gangbang it, they would.

  • Bette||

    "When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong....every single time"-----From 'The Giver'

  • MikeP2||

    "What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault Weapons' Ban?"

    Swing from lamp-posts.

  • Arroway||

    Hoplophobes: It's too late.  It's a lost cause.  Give up. The public sentiment is not with you on this. We're too goddamned unruly.  And it's a literal impossibly.  There are already so many, and a huge portion of them would drop from official existence the instant mandatory registration was on the horizon.  You will have then created a black market for a durable, resellable item that will fetch huge prices from highly motivated buyers and will only increase in value as the supply dwindles. Add in a terrified, resentful, and newly defenseless population. And this of course presumes that there is no clandestine manufacture of new weapons.  There will be a massive incentive for technological advancement on that front,  with desktop manufacture leading the way. The draconian measures required to enforce this plan will only validate the claims of self defense advocates. The instant a man is convicted of defending himself from a home invasion with an illegal gun, there will be riots, inshallah. You will tear the country apart. Drop this. You lost.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Plus we mustn't forget the borders. Thousands of people and tons of drugs cross our borders at will; why wouldn't guns likewise be smuggled in, especially as the government will have helpfully created a lucrative black market for them?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    I think awareness of this reality vis-a-vis prohibition explains a lot of the saccharine marketing slogans like gun 'control' or gun 'safety' or some-such.

    But note there is never - no matter the gun-grabber faction or character - a call for a 'war' on assault weapons or guns of any kind. The connotations with prohibitions past and present with the 'war' phrasing are too radioactive for even the grabber nuts to miss, even subconsciously, so one never hears it.

  • Darth Soros||

    Instapundit answers that question: "Why, they'll send in men with assault rifles!" Because guns are only bad when they're in private hands. In that hands of our dear leaders and their enforcers, guns are only the tools of Progress, Brotherhood, and other Good Stuff.

    As in this classic image, which sent shivers of orgasmic delight down the spines of statists: http://a.abcnews.com/images/In.....x9_992.jpg

  • josh||

    i like mentioning that handguns are actually the weapon of choice in most of these shootings, and ask why, if we must protect even one innocent life, no one is suggesting we ban those instead of assault weapons. there's usually silence on the other end or they work around that inconvenient fact. the occasional brave soul says we should just ban everything.

  • enviro414||

    More gun control laws would stimulate illicit traffic in guns to terrorists and other crazies. (How did prohibition and the laws against heroine work out?)

  • mbecker908||

    The best part of all the whining by gun-controllers (who, in reality are just "controllers") is that it seems they want to start a war. Legal gun owners on one side and their state police on the other. They fail to understand that IF the police start breaching doors with SWAT teams coming after legally owned firearms and start spilling blood it goes two ways.

    We know who the most vocal are. We can find them. They don't have guns. They don't have a clue about self-defense.

    They really don't want a war. They just can't process what will happen. Progressives are not in touch with the "law of unintended consequences."

  • RodgerMitchell||

    America has too much gun violence. No one can dispute that.

    There are five ways to reduce gun violence without taking guns away from the public. These five partial solutions to gun violence are listed and discussed here: https://goo.gl/6ui8XL

  • kbolino||

    There are five ways to reduce gun violence without taking guns away from the public.

    ... all of which amount to, "let's take away other freedoms first, so that we can more easily take guns away from the public". What a wonderful little fascist you are.

  • ravenshrike||

    I'm not seeing end the drug war on there skippy. You fail before the discussion even begins.

  • ranrod||

    New Yorks 1,000,000 new illegal gun owners..
    http://www.ammoland.com/2014/0.....un-owners/

  • JayWye||

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

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

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

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

    For Congress to enact laws banning these arms is tantamount to a declaration of war on American citizens.
    They will have violated their Oath of Office. The US Code has -severe- penalties for that.

  • Diane Merriam||

    The biggest problem SCOTUS had in Miller is that by the time it was argued in court, Miller was already dead and no one showed up to argue his side. Therefore, even though the justices knew that a sawed off shotgun *was* a common military weapon they were not able to take "legal" notice of that fact. Very specific legal terminology they used.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    No, the biggest problem they had was that it was after "the switch in time that saved 9", when the Supreme court gave up on opposing FDR out of fear of court packing. They were totally cowed at that point.

    That the government would win in US v Miller was a given.

    Miller being dead and unrepresented actually let the Court rule in favor of the government on the absolute weakest grounds possible. If he'd been represented by somebody competently arguing the case, we'd still have lost, but in extensive detail, establishing horrible precedents.

  • JayWye||

    Color of law;

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Thank you for a most useful and germane bit of info. Google "constitutionality of ABM treaty" and you will see another Second Amendment application not mentioned since 1986

  • Alan@.4||

    Roll on the floor, scream and yell, have temper trantums, that sort of thing, I expect.

  • SteveC||

    The question is why gun owners don't steal gun-grabbers' ammunition by acting to reduce the real underlying causes of America's high homicide rate. The obvious first target is Drug Prohibition, but the one nobody talks about is the public schools. Americans of all persuasions--left, right, and libertarian--have no clue how much their government schools differ from those in Europe. American government schools are like monstrous factory farms, but with a tribal culture and status hierarchy guaranteed to produce a high percentage of angry, alienated, and aggressive young men.

  • JayWye||

    FEDGOV can't even keep track of their own guns.

    FEDGOV is "missing" several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. TSA alone is missing 100s of their guns. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV in 2009,and years later,it still hasn't been recovered. Orlando Orange County Sheriffs Office (OCSO) has "lost" 2 AR-15 kits,and had 4 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
    Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers. One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.
    guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

    Jul.14,2015
    in Casselberry,FL,suburb of Orlando,an Orange County Sheriffs SWAT team member had an M4 assault rifle,an HK-UMP machine pistol,a Glock 21 and a Glock 23 stolen from his car. I saw it reported on the local WKMG-Ch6 and Fox35 news. It seems the dummy left his SUV unlocked overnight,with two machine guns inside. the Sentinel claims the M4 is a semi-auto gun.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com.....story.html

  • EvilWayz||

    Not just thousands. HUNDREDS of thousands. Of automatic weapons. http://www.washingtontimes.com.....-of-missi/

    40% of the weapons sent ot Afghanistan went missing.

  • JayWye||

    I was not including military-issued weaponry,only what civilian FEDGOV has lost.(and state and local police.)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Looters tried the same thing in Brazil. Trouble is the locals expected looting sprees to go viral. Sure enough in the neighboring bandana republic of Venezuela--elected mainly to spite the US--the predictable is all over the news. Nobody in Brazil is going to turn guns over to Congressional robbers running 33 subsidized parties and themselves under indictment.

  • Akira||

    "Some advocates of restrictions will object that they "don't want to take away" existing guns—they just want to prevent the acquisition of new ones."

    And that's supposed to mean that such a ban is not an infringement at all and is totally OK?

    OK then - I propose a ban on new gay marriages, but those who are already married can stay that way. Or how about a ban on any new abortions, but those who have already made the appointment can go ahead and go through with it? What about a ban on voter registrations for anyone born after the year 2016?

    Since outlawing any new instances of something is not at all tantamount to banning it altogether, these laws would be totally cool, right?

  • Michael Murray||

    It's about a monopoly on the use of force. Molon Labe indeed.

  • PavePusher||

    I've started asking: "How many people will it be acceptable for the government to kill to enforce whatever restrictions you want to enact?"

    No-one has answered the question yet....

    Hmmmm....

  • The Pessimistic Shrink||

    I don't know. I'm fine with people owning guns of various sizes. But if I found out (oddly enough) that my neighbor felt safe to have a personal-dose of anthrax, I'd be quite gleeful to hear "the government" breaking down his door at midnight, even if it meant scaring the shit out of his family, including the baby and puppy. Dogmatic libertarians seem to believe that principles exist in reality, when in fact they exist in psychology -- they are attitudes that you've coated with concrete to feel solid about yourselves. Individual rights distill to feeling-attitudes of self-preservation. You can call your personal attitude "the right to bear arms." I can call mine "the right not to live next to a wingnut idiot neighbor."

  • kbolino||

    Why would they bust down his door and terrorize his family over anthrax? That doesn't even make any fucking sense. You catch the guy when he's out of the house then send in a hazmat team. Unless you have reason to believe he's booby-trapped the place, but then the only thing you would do differently is call in the bomb disposal team first.

    You're just a fucking creep who wants to watch his neighbors get terrorized.

  • kbolino||

    Also, your conflation of anthrax with firearms reminds me of the conflation of political speech with "shouting fire in a crowded theater". It's the rhetorical resort of those who have no other leg to stand on.

  • The Pessimistic Shrink||

    Good gracious what dogma dopes you two are. I admit -- anthrax isn't as heavy or metallic as a gun, and is much more powdery. That certainly kills the analogy (idiots).

  • The Pessimistic Shrink||

    And by the way, I was not in error, believing two individuals had replied to my original comment, when in fact there was just one name, kbolino. My assumption is that the second listing was the person, identically named, whose arse you'd been cloned from.

  • SDN||

    Oh, they have an answer for that : if they have any evidence that you might have ever had a gun, until you turn them in and convince them you're disarmed, that's grounds for denying employment, health insurance, voting (because until you prove you aren't, you're automatically convicted felon ), automatically struck from juries, etc.

    Might as well go ugly early, and shoot first.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    When the come to confiscate those banned "assault weapons", they will be easy to find.....
    behind every blade of grass.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans"

    Tench Cox in the Pennsylvania Gazette 2/20/1788.

  • DanielT||

    Americans aren't like any others. Tell us we can't do something , and we're hell bound and determined to find a way around your silly rules.
    We won't go easily like the Europeans or Australians.

  • drmaddogs||

    The actions of Congress re for self advancement, in its entirety, There should be signage at every exit of the Highway 495 circle entering into the main city of', "Abandon all honesty, all whom enter here".
    This is evidenced not in the politicians description, 'Congress approval', but is exemplified in the Citizens, 'one cannot trust government'.
    If everything the Central Government wished to promote via the Congress happened tomorrow in where every single item was approved for every wish list, tag on legislation and every simple social program entitlement added to,,,,
    the citizens would still believe, 'one cannot trust the government'.
    It isn't a case of 'do nothing congress' or the congress 'doing something', it is entirely a case where everyone sees the government doing for itself first, foremost and always for self aggrandizement and wealth accumulation.
    At this time, no American sees a change, in that they are serfs to elected officials and the corporations the officials represent.
    Our middle class has shrunk by half and there is no one expecting the depredation of the consumer class to diminish.
    One cannot trust the government.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault Weapons' Ban?
    Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people's unwillingness to obey. This time won't be any different.

    The doubters will placed in the gulags along with their families for re-education and enlightenment via beating, starvation and torture.
    But it's for their own good.
    They'll thank their oppressors later.
    Or else.

  • eamonkelly||

    Correct me if I'm wrong but our representatives receive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If there isn't consent beforehand, should they pass laws...hmm?

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is where consenting to force everyone to vote for government subsidized candidates in elections where the looter kleptocracy gets to count the votes reveals its worth. Australians were frogmarched into letting the Gestapo have their pieces after politicians gave the Gestapo power enough to frogmarch them to the polls to re-elect those worthy of wampum.

  • ||

    www.NationalAR15day.com because ARs have feelings n need love, too

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • Johnny855||

  • LifeStrategies||

    You need an assault weapon, a long gun to resist an invading army at a distance. Whereas handguns are mostly of value close up. Is the idea to make us unable to defend ourselves at a distance?

    Since people do what they think is right, what do Obama, Democrats, and RINOs such as Georgia's Governor Deal know that they're not telling us? Do they have a hidden agenda, what is their true objective?

    http://www.DiscourageCriminals.....he-fiction

  • ha91070||

    I imagine that a debt of gratitude is in order for the valuabe data and bits of knowledge you have so given here. Combat Firearms Training

  • Hank Phillips||

    When granddad was discharged after Woodrow Wilson's war on war loan welshers, he got to keep his long gun and his Colt 1911--designed to shoot mohammedans in the Philippine Islands. By 1931 citizens were giving the dry agents as good as they got and the Feds quit publishing the score in gunbattles.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online