Quote of the day—Murray Rosenbaum

If you have a single gun and over 50 bullets, you could be a public danger.

The amount of ammunition you would need to keep your home safe from potential thieves and those who would cause you harm wouldn’t be even close to 100 rounds of anything. A single clip is more than enough to be threatening and protective if worse comes to worse.

Murray Rosenbaum
A eighteen-year-old senior at Columbia Prep in NYC
February 3, 2016
Bullet, Not Gun Control
[Children say the cutest things!

But children with crap for brains like this shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Murray, let me help with your education.

A typical pistol match requires a 100 to 150 rounds.

Last month reloaded, for my own use, just under 2000 rounds. Last year it was 9531 rounds. Later this month I’m taking a class which requires, “2000 rounds of brass-cased FMJ ammunition (minimum)”.

When I took a friend to the range last weekend for a couple hours to teach her how to defend herself she went through about 200 rounds and her education and practice is far from complete. After I get her to a basic competency and comfort level she will probably take this class which requires, “600 rounds of brass-cased, FMJ ammunition (minimum)”. I expect getting her to that level will require another 500 rounds of ammunition.

Murray, you say,

the trick is making bullets more expensive…

I have no doubt there are plenty of other people who would claim that I’m endorsing the destruction of the second amendment. They can say that all they want, but in the end the Constitution says “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

Okay. Then using that same argument I have to conclude you would be unable to find a constitutional problem with a heavy tax on books. The First Amendment says freedom of the press, but doesn’t say anything about you being able to read it. Right?

When practicing I sometimes go through ammunition at the rate of up to five rounds per second. I figure that is about half the speed you can read words. So I propose we tax your use of reading of words at double whatever tax you want to impose on bullets. The number you used as an example in your post figured out to $75 per bullet. So, doing the arithmetic for you just in case your ignorance extends to the area of numbers as well as firearms and constitutional law, that would be a tax of $150 per word.

If you want to inflict a crushing tax on my education and those of others exercising their specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected, rights then you can say all you want, but in the end the constitution doesn’t protect you any more or less than it does me.*


* If you want to claim “books don’t kill people” ask your history instructor about Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book. Then reevaluate your claim before you engage me on that issue.—Joe]

22 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Murray Rosenbaum

  1. I just love how our high school students are so knowledgeable and versed in so many topics. I would love to know Murray’s background, that renders him competent to offer an opinion on what someone else needs or does not need.

    Do you suppose this asshole has ever even seen a gun in real life, let alone held or fired one?

    A typical coastal-elitist in the making: knows nothing whatsoever about the topic on which he is speaking, yet KNOWS what we need and don’t need. Thank you, My Overlord, for deigning to speak to me and telling me my needs and wants. What would I do without your wisdom?

    • “Ignorance is Strength” is more than a pithy phrase.

      Not only does his ignorance raise his confidence and surety via the Dunning–Kruger effect, but it’s a virtue signal to his peers.

      Much like a Landed Gentleman having soft hands and no idea how a boiler works, his ignorance of firearms shows that he’s not tainted like those “rural” people he explicitly talks down about.

      However, Ignorance is not just a Strength on his part. Ignorance is *vital* on the part of his audience and any he hopes to convince.

      Like so many gun control ideas, “bullet control” as they’re trying to call it, works best with people who don’t know anything about guns.

      Of course there’s those who know about guns and hate us anyway… but they’re not above lying to fool the public are they?

    • “Do you suppose this asshole has ever even seen a gun in real life, let alone held or fired one?”

      Murray’s private prep school is just off Central Park West, so, he’s a Manhattanite, and would probably be violently ill if he had to touch one.
      Possession of any sort of gun, in other than criminal, or government hands in NYC is simply inconceivable.

      • Keep in mind that NYC does have CCW.

        It’s exceptionally and capriciously restricted to the well-heeled and connected (and the servants of the well-heeled and connected).

        So depending on the familial wealth of our ignorant writer, he just might have some family and friends who have pistols.

        But as the writer alluded in his comments, the rules for /important/ people are different.

  2. So we’ve got the mass ignorance of the subject they demand have laws changed (oh but he did some research!)…

    And I do mean mass ignorance. Look past the bizarre, wrong terms like clip, bullet-pack, this is a guy that thinks 9mm is used in “any common handgun”…

    demanding laws that will disproportionately impact the poor…

    the classist idea that guns are only for /those rural people/…

    disproportionately impact the law-abiding (here’s a hint, criminals can be just fine with a couple dozen, if that cartridges but people who want to be proficient at self-defense, sport or target shooting could use more)…

    the tacit admission that the background checks that gun control advocates want are ineffective…

    the tacit admission that the gun control advocates want to ban guns…

    the old lie of the “gunshow loophole!” never-mind this is a guy that lives in NYC, which has its own special FOID card for pistol purchase, and is in NY State which has banned private sales since the SAFE act, and has banned private sales at gun shows for even longer…

    But then we get to this bit of brilliance: “Guns are merely a tool while the real killer is the bullet, which is significantly cheaper and easier to buy.”

    Wow! You mean an expendable item made of four components is cheaper than the larger, more intricate device designed to *launch* said expendable item?

    I’m guessing this guy’s not an economics student.

    • Maybe he is an economics student. Economics hasn’t been a serious field of study since Von Mises left the scene.

  3. Given the surname, perhaps we should all chip in and buy him a life membership to JPFO? Might as well educate him on a little heritage.

    Oh, and since there’s no reason for anyone to listen to more than a few songs, let’s charge a monthly fee of, say, $100/song, for each tune on his mobile device in excess of 12 tunes. The funds will go to help tinnitus research and the families of gang members whose shootings were inspired by rap.

  4. You mentioned an excessive tax on books. Since modern youth spend lots of time exercising their free speech on social media sites, perhaps we should add a few costs to those as well:

    1. A nice large fee from their wireless carrier to cover “free speech” expenses;
    2. Twitter should charge a fee for use. Maybe something per tweet;
    3. A fee for every “like” clicked on Facebook;
    4. A selfie tax.

    I expect this to go over like a lead balloon. Or lead ammo.

  5. Blackstone has a definition of arms that includes all the accessories that go with which in his day included powder and shot. Banning or restricting ammo is functionally and legally equivalent to banning or restricting the guns themselves.

  6. An essay like this, by a High School student, is a pretty good measure of what sort of indoctrination the school is providing. Some of us eventually recover at least a small degree of independent thought. Much of the indoctrination in modern education is presented as being somehow transgressive or even revolutionary. This serves to convince the student that these ideas are the result of examining and rejecting old outmoded ideas, thus discouraging the student from further questioning the indoctrination.

  7. Let’s start with government goons like the Secret Service and the protection details for politicians and celebrities being restricted to 100 rounds maximum.

    I remember how dumb I was at 18 despite being book smart. I did have an inkling that I did not know it all so I had a chance to try to address my ignorance. This writer need to take a deep breath and get introspective.

    Oh yeah, let’s add one more book that has caused untold grief and will continue to do so, It’s called the koran and it demands my murder which is more than enough justification for me to be armed to the teeth with a lot of ammunition.

  8. HEY!
    Count me in as public enemy #109,243,897,463,544,321.5!!!
    and DAMN PROUD OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. “If you have a single gun and over 50 bullets, you could be a public danger.”

    That may very well be true. Depends on what the “public” plans to do to me. Said “public” should keep in mind that I have more than one gun and _way_ more than 50 “bullets”.

  10. If you have a car and a half a tank of gas, you could also be a public danger. Who knows what you might do after getting behind the wheel?

    We should limit the sale of high capacity assault gas tanks to law enforcement and military customers only. For the children. If it saves just one life!

    • Michael Z. Williamson wrote a wonderful long blog article describing what car sale and ownership would look like, if cars were regulated as firearms are. Nice tidbits like D.C. requiring you to drain your tank whenever the car is in the garage, and store the fuel in a separate container in a locked cabinet.

  11. >but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.

    And I’m sure you think you’re the first one that’s brought that up, and you’re just oh so clever.

    Fuck off, Matt, you shitheaded little weasel. You don’t have freinds, people just tolerate you.

  12. [here is a little something that I put together to answer dweebs such as this. If you like it please feel free to use it and/or modify it however you need to do so.]

    Approximately SEVEN to TEN BILLION bullets sold in America each YEAR.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202712.html

    If only TEN PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    And that’s STILL far too large of a number – it’s more than double the actual number who die from the misuse of a gun each year.

    So you think that because much less than ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of bullets sold each year are used to harm people each year then a immense tax is reasonable on the 99.999% that are in very safe hands that harm no one?

    And ~this~ Dear Readers, is the mind of the liberal thinker. Punish the totally innocent for the misdeeds of the very few. This is who wants to determine the amount of freedom you have, based on the problems that other people make for society.

    They call it “common sense” and just can’t understand why the public is laughing at them and their “reasonable” proposals.

Comments are closed.