Gun makers are increasingly competing for a decreasing market share. That’s why you see this push for an aggressive deregulatory agenda … That’s what animates this attack on the NFA.
What you see is here is a very strong indicator of a Marxist. The attribution of something they see as bad in the world as due to “corporate greed”, “capitalism”, etc. You used to hear organizations like the Brady Campaign insist that gun manufactures were “flooding the streets” with guns.
It seems beyond their comprehension that markets drive the direction of corporations. Apparently, in their minds, people do not have free will or ability to decide for themselves what they want to spend their own money on. And that extends to people pushing legislators to pass, or repeal, laws that further the interests of individuals. Do they think corporations vote instead of individuals?
Gun violence can’t happen where there aren’t guns, and guns are not inevitable.
The organization is probably just one person, Igor Volsky, and is only of significance because it demonstrates the Marxist tell in how they frame the view of gun owners being allowed to purchase gun accessories with fewer restrictions.
Gun owners already know what it’s like for the government to penalize them for crimes they did not commit. We shouldn’t even consider such an extreme response to heinous act committed by one disturbed individual, much less implement it, no matter how horrible the crime. The deranged Minneapolis killer is no longer a threat to anybody, and we needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.
The ironic aspect of this controversy is that some in the liberal media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgenders from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Perhaps they will learn something from this.
The government, no matter who is in charge, must understand that enumerated rights protected by the Constitution cannot be stripped away for what amounts to a publicity stunt. If we allow that to happen to one minority group, it could happen to another group, and then another, until the right becomes a distant memory, especially for those of us who have worked so hard to protect it. This is a bad idea, and it needs to go away immediately.
Mark Smith has a different take, which I think is more likely. And I would not be surprised if Gottlieb also is inclined to believe Mark’s take but plays it straight to score points with the rights are for everyone concept.
The TL;DR; version from Mark is that Trump is trolling the political left to get them to proclaim gun rights are for people of all sexual orientation and the Trump administration is going to violate the constitutional rights of an oppressed minority.
Assuming Mark has the correct angle on this, I could see this causing a few heads to “explode”. If it doesn’t, it was still a good try.
You have to be honest, and say what will actually work, which is what nobody wants to hear, which is that there are just simply way too many firearms, and they are way too accessible.
And they’re too powerful, even handguns too, again, that’s why in Australia … It doesn’t matter if it’s not politically acceptable to say it. I’m not here as a politician or anyone who works in politics. I’m a journalist. Whether or not you like it, the only thing that really works, if you really wanted to bring down gun violence, was to do what Australia did and to do what many other countries in Europe do.
Whenever someone starts a conversation with something to the effect of, “I’m going to be honest with you…” Then that, almost for certain, means their normal state is dishonesty. Furthermore, they are being dishonest now and trying to convince you to believe their lies. Here, Spies* is demonstrating a minor variation on that maxim.
Heinlein once made a similar observation with, “Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash.”
Also, never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
* One has to wonder, is his dishonesty so embedded in his ancestor’s behavior that they were given this as a family name?
You see this all the time in various forms. People will make some statement or series of statements that sound good, but do not include details. It might be better roads and bridges but no details about how it will be paid for. It might be affordable housing but do not mention they intend to take money from other people to pay for the housing.
Politicians are great on broad stroke statements. But they either don’t understand details are important, or they are deliberately hiding the devil in the details of what they intend to do.
Events like these should not be our ‘normal.’ The simple solution is to pass sensible gun control. Without that, these tragedies will continue to happen, and children will continue to die.
In these days there is no excuse for not knowing that gun control is not the answer. It just doesn’t work.
I’m reminded of H. L. Mencken’s famous quote:
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Because he has not excuse for saying something that stupid. I have to conclude it is a deliberate lie to further some unstated agenda. Therefore, I would also like to suggest Representative Thanedar read 18 U.S. Code § 242.
When a patient comes into an emergency room, the doctors may or may not know what happened. They just know the patient was shot. Maybe they get some story from the paramedics about what happened, but that’s still only a small sliver of what’s really going on in the world of guns.
The doctors don’t see the 97-year-old woman who is only able to sleep at night because of the revolver in her nightstand. They don’t see the stalking victim who no longer fears for her safety after buying a Glock 19. They don’t see the guy who got shot dead by a father after the dude broke into the daughter’s bedroom in order to sexually assault her. They don’t see the mugger who ran away when his 30-year-old female target produced a firearm.
They don’t see any of that.
What they see is an unfortunate sliver of what all happens on a daily basis with guns.
More than that, how the shooter got a gun is never part of what they see in the ERs and ORs of this country. That comes later, and they’re often pontificating on the dangers of gun rights, all while being clueless about the fact that the shooting victim they treated was shot by an 18-year-old convicted felon with an illegally obtained handgun.
They don’t know nearly as much as many of them believe, but they’re so blinded by their own self-important arrogance that they can’t accept there’s more to the story.
Of course, some people have a far less nuanced view of things. There are people who see a violent criminal with a gunshot wound no different than an innocent criminal victim. It has been a while but as I have explained before sometimes these people view the general population as livestock. As a cattle owner, you don’t really care which cow started the fight. You don’t want any of them to be injured. They are, generally, of equal value to you whether they have a very pleasant personality or they are bullies to the other cattle in the herd.
I suspect the doctor Knighton was writing about is one of those people. As a doctor he is relatively smart and knows how to read and research. Yet the gunshot victims he sees are a gun problem and not a people problem.
Common sense dictates that the right to bear arms requires a right to acquire arms, just as the right to free press necessarily includes the right to acquire a printing press, or the right to freely practice religion necessarily rests on a right to acquire a sacred text. Legal interpretation follows that common sense….
The burden imposed by a cooling-off period is brought into sharper focus when considered in the context of other constitutional rights. A carte blanche one-week cooling-off period to publish news stories? Unconstitutional. Temporary closures of churches during COVID-19? Unconstitutional. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” If a criminal defendant had to wait thirty days after his arraignment before he could seek legal counsel so that he would not unduly resist his prosecution? Unconstitutional, of course. See Rothgery v. Gillespie Cnty. (“[C]ounsel must be appointed within a reasonable time after attachment to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage before trial.”). The Second Amendment is no different.
As Justice Thomas said in June of 2015, “Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.”
I am seeing more and more evidence that the lower courts are getting a clue. It took, metaphorically, a clue by four to get their attention but they are starting to come around.
Today, March for Our Lives is in disarray. Funding shortfalls and a rift between its board and younger staffers… have strained the organization. And a recently filed federal lawsuit accuses the board of racism and retaliation.
On March 20 of this year, just before the seven-year anniversary of its celebrated rallies, MFOL terminated 13 of its 16 full-time employees.
As I said the other day, our recent progress has to be putting pressure on donations.
At this point MFOLs has to be rendered powerless to cause us any damage. I think it is extremely unlikely they will recover. They are just dust in the dustbin of history.
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
Reality is tough. And when reality contradicts what you firmly believe, it is even harder to see and accept. I have to give Libresco a lot of credit for this.
If there is such a thing as a good shoot, it is really just one of the least bad outcomes, this is one of them:
An Illinois mother shot and killed a man accused of breaking into her home at night, police say.
The break-in happened at about 10:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 15, the Joliet Police Department said in a news release.
According to police, the woman heard what sounded like someone forcing their way into her home, so she hid in an upstairs bedroom closet with her baby, and armed herself with a gun.
When the man went into the bedroom, she opened fire, hitting him in the head, police said.
Officers arrived to find the man “unresponsive,” and he was confirmed dead at the scene, according to the department.
The man was wearing gloves and had a screwdriver, police said, adding that there were “signs of forced entry.” The woman told police she didn’t know the man.
Even with the early retirement, someone made a very poor career choice that night.
Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
The anti-gun people have to be getting very depressed. Not just because of the lost ground but because this is going to reduce donations. Why donate money when progress toward a full gun ban is completely blocked?
On the other hand, our side should be donating money to the groups most effective in the courts. The momentum is on our side. Let’s push this as fast as we practically can.
Permitting laws are nothing less than a burdensome tax on law-abiding citizens who wish to self-defend. Having North Carolina become the 30th permitless carry state is something these lawmakers should be proud of. We appreciate Representative Penny’s leadership in committing to an override, and we salute all the other legislators who are resolved to end a policy that’s deeply rooted in a racist past.
Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment. Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.
In the movie Tremors Burt Gummer was originally supposed to have an NRA sticker on his truck however his actor Michael Gross objected not because he refused to play an NRA member but because he said Burt was WAY too pro gun to be in the NRA
Yes, the claim appears to be true based on available information. Michael Gross, the actor who played Burt Gummer in Tremors, reportedly objected to an NRA sticker on Burt’s truck during the film’s production. His reasoning was that Burt Gummer’s extreme pro-gun stance and extensive arsenal went beyond what the NRA would typically endorse, especially in the context of the 1990s. Gross believed Burt’s character was too radical in his gun enthusiasm to align with the NRA, which might have been seen as more mainstream or cautious in comparison. This sentiment is reflected in posts found on X discussing the matter.
However, without direct confirmation from Michael Gross or primary production sources, this should be considered plausible but not definitively verified.
Back twenty years ago the quiet conversation at the gun range or late in the evening after the “women folk” had gone to bed it was commonly said, “If the politicians think dealing with the NRA is bad, they really aren’t going to like who they will have to deal with if the NRA fails.”
If there were a gun show loophole and an AR-15 chambered in 22 LR capable of doing this that could be pulled though the loophole into reality, then it would have a high-powered rail gun projectile velocity booster with a nuclear power plant for the power source. And even then, the projectile would be vaporized at anything more than a range of a few yards. Still, a lead oxide cloud at some small fraction of c might make for an interesting variation of a shotgun.
Last weekend, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City and stabbed 11 innocent people in a random, brutal act of violence. The scene was horrifying—but thankfully, everyone survived.
The media covered the initial shock. The politicians issued generic statements. But something’s missing — something that always seems to go missing when the narrative doesn’t fit: no one is talking about “knife control.” Why is that?
…
This is an important moment in Michigan and across the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the tool is the problem and start focusing on the truth: dangerous people are the threat. And guns, in the hands of the right people, save lives.
They aren’t talking about knife control because at this point in the game they are playing it sounds absurd. But had we continued down the path outlined by the most recent Democrat administrations we would have seen our future in England.
