Another front in the war on gun owner rights

Interesting approach:

Democrats and advocates seeking to address gun violence argue that owning a gun does not make your home safer, a case for false advertising, and that marketing offensive “tactical operations” with military-grade weapons constitutes unlawful use of the product.

They will never give up, will they? First the Second Amendment and now the First.

Perhaps they should demonstrate the truth of their claim by disarming the police for a few years and see what their safety record looks like before and after the disarming.

Another suggestion is that they put Gun Free Zone signs up around their property and stickers on their vehicles

As long as they don’t self identify as unarmed I consider people who don’t own guns as freeloaders on those that do arm themselves.


6 thoughts on “Another front in the war on gun owner rights

  1. “…. I consider people who don’t own guns as freeloaders on those that do arm themselves”

    That’s been the case for, well, ever, and for just as long it’s been an unrealized opportunity on which gun owners have failed to capitalize.

    There was a recent article – I forget where I ran across it – that pointed out based on the way the human brain operates “factual data” does not have the motivational impact of “linked emotion” which appeals to established beliefs, including beliefs that are easily demonstrable as incorrect and usually, completely incorrect.

    “Parasite” is too harsh a term for the public discourse required despite being quite accurate, but it describes the benefit non-gun owners and gun haters receive from those of us who do go armed; we’re the ones incurring the expense of firearm purchase, associated training and practice, potentially expensive legal liability for our actions and the media, governmental and public abuse being responsible for oneself entails.

    Insurance companies diffuse their liability across the spectrum of policy holders through the practice of cost: homeowner’s insurance costs more in Florida than Nebraska because Florida has semi-frequent hurricanes and Nebraska doesn’t (not to mention the ubiquitous and substantial (2% to 5% additional based on insured value) “Florida wind storm deductible” applicable when NWS uses the word “hurricane” in a forecast only to those who must endure hurricanes).

    Why should there not be a cost for sharing the benefit of going armed? A simple tax, levied against those who cannot show a valid CWP and paid receipt for a firearm, of, say, 1% of income, used to defray purchase, training and practice costs for those who incur the associated expenses? At the very least, abolition of sales taxes on guns, holsters, and ammunition and partial compensation for travel, lodging and ammunition associated with training would seem worthwhile.

    As to the issue of those who get a CWP but never carry – which seems in a great many states to be a large majority – who will parasitically receive the financial benefit, I don’t have a simple solution, other than the direct cost they may eventually incur for living unarmed.

    • I’m reminded of Neil Smith’s graphic novel “Roswell, Texas” in which the Republic of Texas required inhabitants to go armed, unless they paid for and obtained a “permit not to be armed”.

      It’s a good story, by the way; lots of fun.

      • I didn’t know that. In my ‘Republic of Texas Navy’ book series, one of the requirements for voting eligibility is to own and demonstrate competence with a rifle.

        (This is mentioned in Book 2, which I’m almost finished writing. Hope to have it out by mid September.)

        • Neat. BTW, I see in your blurb mention of the lines of Sarah Hoyt and Larry Correia. I wonder if you know Rolf Nelson; he’s done a bunch of military/SF stories. Also a fascinating hard to classify novel “Heretics of St. Possenti”.

          • Actually I have read his ‘The Stars Came Back’ books, and I think I have ‘Heretics’ but I haven’t read it yet.

    • Very good, when one looks at a crime map of the USA. You start removing certain cities from it. Crime drops dramatically. It would be nice for those with the problems to pay for their own problems.
      Such is not the communist way unfortunately.
      As for “gun violence”, There is no such thing. Guns aren’t violent, we are.
      And we need to get in the habit of correcting communist every time they open their mouths. The first words they speak are reliably 99% of the time lies. Because they’re always prefacing their argument to hide their agenda.
      Ever notice how quickly we use communist talking points ourselves?
      They want to talk about gun violence. So, we start talking about gun violence. Why? (It’s a dodge. Otherwise, we have to talk about the feral human assholes they created.)
      Next you will always end up answering why you should be allowed to do something. On defense. And communists know one rarely wins anything from a defensive position.
      We need to change ourselves. And remember civility is a veneer for communism. Not a lifestyle like it is for you.
      We all need to start channeling our inner Sgt. Plumley.
      Good day sargeant major!
      How would you know what kind of God-damn day it is?

Comments are closed.