Quote of the Day
Our rights should not be held hostage by the failure of Democrats to control crime in the cities they run. Baltimore, one of the cities suing Glock, is a perfect example. That city represents 9% of Maryland’s population, but 38% of the state’s gun-related homicide. Ya guys, sure, Glock did this to you.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, April 24, 2025
This type of thing happens so often. You might think they let crime run rampant on purpose, so they have an excuse to ban guns.
Okay. Sure. That is one of the leading hypotheses as to why the crime rates are so high. The other promising hypothesis is the culture in Democrat run cities is defective.
To be fair, one of the unaddressed issues of gun control, in my opinion, is that of cities vs. rural communities.
There’s no question that city folk have just as much right to defend themselves as country folk, and they have just as much need to do so… but the parameters are different. City folk are crowded together. Over-penetration is a serious problem. Two-legged predators are much more common than the four-legged sort.
I’d like to see more of a discussion on this among gun owners — if gun laws are to be different for cities than for rural communities, how should that work? (For example, I could imagine a sensible legislature that REQUIRED city-based gun owners to use hollowpoints, to avoid over-penetration. But I’ve never seen a US city mandate this.)
A good-faith debate is possible, but only if both sides discuss in good faith.
Hollow-point mandate, goes with “shall-issue” laws.
Any questions?
Robert, that is a terrible negotiation.
You have a cake. You propose to surrender a portion of your cake, of in return they agree that you may keep some of your cake.
Tomorrow starts a new negotiation.
How about this: that each person who operates a firearm be held personally responsible for each and every projectile so fired.
Damn the governmental requirements. Seriously, how is such requirement not an intrusion upon your individual liberties?
Ol Ben Franklin had something to say about sacrificing one’s freedoms for a bit of (alleged) security.
Good grief you people
Oh, okay. You’re being reasonable. But know this, there is no reasoning with government. Hasn’t history taught anything?
With most folks, you’d be right.. Don’t give anything away. UNLESS you get something back.
Reread my words.
WE get back the stolen right to public concealed carry.
Here’s the broader principle on cooperate/defect:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/axelrod.html
Decide: If we really CAN’T have good faith dealing, then it’s time to go 1776 on them. Period. Nothing in between.
Rights are non-negotiable. God given rights, natural rights, endowed by our Creator; however one wishes to refer to them, belong fully and without sanction to them who are alive. One’s existence is the sole qualification.
Therefore, I give nothing, of any value, or of no value; neither of any portion, or at any time, to secure to myself these rights.
Anything else is an grave intrusion upon my person. Preservation of my rights includes my right to defend up to death of the oppressor.
Okay, so there is a negotiation; their death for my rights. That is the only allowable negotiation.
Respectfully, I see major logistical problems with this. How will ‘urban city/area’ vs ‘rural city/area’ be defined? Population density? What happens to people who live in unincorporated areas? Will people living in a small town have their RKBA curtailed overnight if a development boom increases the population too much?
What about cases where there are multiple cities all jigsawed in right next to one another? Take a look at the city of Los Angeles on Google maps, for example. It sprawls and wiggles and twists all over the place. It completely encloses the cities of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. There are dozens of directly adjacent cities where all you have to do is cross a street and you’re not in LA anymore. Cross Alameda at, say, Slauson, and you’re in Vernon — a city of about 5 square miles with a population just over 100. There are places way out in the sticks with a higher population density than Vernon.
No, no, no, no.
There is no such thing as a two day old sensible law. Any such law is nothing but an opening of the door to an increasing number of ‘sensible’ laws.
Ex: today it seems sensible. Tomorrow someone says, Well what about this? So the sensible law is sensibly amended. After several cycles, it becomes apparent that another ‘sensible’ law is required. So it goes.
Do you honestly think that most, allowing that some may be purely out of spite, of the thousands of laws already on the books were not ‘sensible’ at some time in their existence?
Yet, still is the cry for another ‘sensible’ law. Good grief.
Government in this role is in a position of opposition to your individual liberties. Nay, the acts of government in this context is adversarial to your liberties.
The ideal of self-governing seems to have slipped from the minds of even professed ‘conservatives’. To live up to the name, I suggest conserving – to fight for, to foment – the ideal of self-governing.
God help us.
Your two possible hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.
Arguably, the first is just a subset / aspect of the latter.
Cities are all but deliberately designed to make people crazy and make having and raising families difficult. I say they are where gene-lines go to die.
Well, have you ever known a movement that identifies a problem and then makes laws to solve the problem without making it worse?
I suppose it could happen, but not very likely.
Having grown up in a rural area and then lived in a large metropolitan area during my working career and now retiring to a rural area again, I do not think that it is realistic to expect metropolitan governments to establish any kind of “gun control” that will be effective in reducing violence nor do I think they would ever be able to create any active scenario or program that would not infringe on not only our 2nd amendment right but out innate right to self defense. For me, this is first and foremost a question best answered through developing an attitude of self reliance tempered by a respect for the dignity of mankind. Obviously, self reliance must be much more than selfishness which is where criminals operate, both individuals and government actors. Self reliance requires a willingness to work hard and often make sacrifices of going without something now for something better at a later time. Respect for dignity of mankind means, in this context, that there is an active concern for avoiding actions that will damage others but being willing to personally support actions that promote improvement and progress for individuals without taking their power and right of choice from them. Respect for others however does not mean that inappropriate behaviors that impact other people are to be tolerated. Those behaviors are the definition of criminal behavior, whether codified or not. Should such behaviors threaten the life or threaten injury, the the appropriate response is effective self defense, selected by the person threatened or someone immediately available that can assist without concern for some arbitrary limit pronounced by another person(s) removed from the immediate situation. Those behaviors that are codified by laws as illegal MUST be addressed without variance. Those that are not codified should be addressed by social sanction. What this really comes to is the development of a culture that merges respect for individuals and society simultaneously. Not necessarily an easy thing to bring about but it would be effective and worth making the effort for. However, it will need to start at individual and family levels. There is no way that morality can be legislated; yet those bent on power aggregation will forever attempt to do just that. Active repudiation of such actions will always be required by any society that truly wishes to remain free.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » OUR RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD HOSTAGE BY THE BUREAUCRACY OF THE DEEP STATE, EITHER: Holding Our R