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.
I think that is an appropriate initial negotiation position. I could see allowing for a small amount of compromise if there push back to the point of not being able to get a majority vote.
The most fundamental requirement for a legitimate legal regime is that a person must be able to know what the law requires before being held accountable to it. As a recent case out of New Jersey shows, however, the state’s oppressive laws for gun businesses no longer meet even this minimal threshold.
New Jersey arguably has the nation’s strictest gun control laws; it is difficult even for well-meaning people and businesses to thread their way through them to exercise their Second Amendment rights. On top of those laws, in 2022, the state enacted new requirements for each “gun industry member” to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products.” These “reasonable controls” are supposed to be geared toward preventing bad outcomes from the diversion and misuse of the industry member’s products by criminals.
Yet just what is expected, on top of the mountain of explicit requirements these businesses already face, is not explained. Gun industry members are supposed to figure that out for themselves. The price for guessing wrong, moreover, could be ruinous litigation from the state’s anti-gun office of the attorney general (AG).
…
In resolving the case, in fact, the superior court washed its hands of trying to untangle what reasonable controls the law actually required of Butch’s Gun World in making the sales in question. Instead, it simply held that because the shop hadn’t imposed any additional measures (beyond following explicit statutory laws) in making the sales, the reasonable controls statute must have been violated in some fashion.
You might ask, “Isn’t this unconstitutionally vague?” From the same article:
The court similarly washed its hands of the shop’s contention that the reasonable controls statute violated due process by not explaining its requirements: “This Court is not positioned to determine whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague and will not do so.”
There are some people that need to be prosecuted. This prosecutor and judge are on that list of people.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles.’ But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
It is not huge, but it is another brick in the wall. Each time a case is concluded our team learns a little more. The arguments are tuned to match the precedents of the previous wins. The reluctant judges are herded into corners by the previous decisions on less important cases. They have fewer and fewer options to rule in favor of the dark side. We are winning but it is still a long hard grind to something approximating a total victory.
The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.
And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous. Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws. If it actually came to a showdown with between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered
It appears to me that UnicornForeverK chose their name well. They have only a tenuous connection to reality. The lack of a solid connection to reality shows in their struggle with creating a coherent line of thought.
I could have spent way more time that it was worth to fisk this, but with a little coaxing Copilot did a decent job:
🧨 Debunking a Lazy Narrative: Guns, Murder, and the Myth of Military Supremacy
Let’s break this down and inject some reality.
🔪 “The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.”
Yes, the U.S. has a higher murder rate than most wealthy nations—but it’s not “ridiculously high” in a global context. According to 2023 data:
Country
Total Murder Rate (per 100k)
Jamaica
49.3
Ecuador
45.7
Haiti
41.1
Honduras
31.4
Mexico
24.9
United States
5.76
Canada
1.98
UK
1.15
Germany
0.91
Japan
0.23
Singapore
0.07
Source: World Population Review
The U.S. ranks high among developed nations, but far below many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. And yes, most U.S. homicides involve firearms—about 4.42 per 100k—but that’s not the same as saying “most murders are gun-related” globally.
📜 “And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous.”
This is a vague dismissal of a foundational legal framework. The U.S. Constitution has shaped democratic governance worldwide. Criticizing specific interpretations is fair game—but calling the entire system “ridiculous” is like calling the wheel a bad idea because you don’t like traffic laws.
🧑⚖️ “Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws.”
There is no credible evidence to support the pedophile claim. It’s defamatory and baseless.
As for constitutional violations, presidents from both parties have faced legal challenges. Examples include:
Trump: Birthright citizenship EO, inspector general firings, funding freezes5
But “countless” is hyperbole. Most alleged violations are contested in courts and resolved through judicial review—not proven breaches.
🪖 “If it actually came to a showdown between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered.”
This is the most interesting—and historically naïve—claim.
🇦🇫 Afghanistan Case Study
The Taliban, with ~85,000 fighters, outlasted the U.S. and NATO over two decades. They used small arms, guerrilla tactics, and local knowledge—not tanks or drones—to win through attrition and ambiguity7.
🇺🇸 Now extrapolate to 100 million armed U.S. civilians:
Wealth & Education: Civilians have vastly more resources, technical literacy, and access to logistics.
Veteran Expertise: Millions of former service members with tactical training.
Infrastructure Access: Civilians live inside the systems the military depends on—power grids, telecom, transportation.
Cyber Potential: Insider threats could exploit vulnerabilities in command networks, spoof IFF systems, or jam communications10.
Friend vs. Foe Chaos: Identifying adversaries becomes a nightmare when they wear no uniform and share cultural ties.
Suppressing such a population wouldn’t be a military operation—it would be a civil war. And history shows that civil wars are rarely won by the side with the biggest guns. They’re won—or lost—by legitimacy, endurance, and the ability to navigate chaos.
🧠 Final Thought
This quote isn’t just wrong—it’s dangerously simplistic. It ignores history, misrepresents facts, and underestimates the complexity of power, resistance, and governance. If we’re going to have serious conversations about violence, politics, and the Constitution, we need to start with facts—not slogans.
Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Debt and crime ridden Labor controlled Victoria has borrowed another 13 million dollars to roll out “machete bins”
Yep. They honestly believe an African wondering down the street with a machete down his duds will see these bins and think, Oh fuck man, I better put my machete in the amnesty bin.
Make me laugh, you pack of total fuckwits. What the hell is wrong with lefties. They must have shit for brains.
The mask finally comes off. And we told you, they knew it. We knew it. Everybody knew it. However, they finally decided to say the quiet part out loud as the journey from Democrat to socialist communistic gun grabber is complete. In light of the tragedy that happened in New York 2 days ago, they’ve just jumped the shark on anything because they’ve got to defend their precious gun laws. And what’s the solution, my friends? It’s obvious. Take all the guns from anybody. Anything that can used on a battlefield. Oh, we’ve got all of it. where Democrats and socialists have become one in the biblical sense.
To be fair, for many years the bad guys let people believe long guns were okay. That changed in 1994 with the “assault weapon” ban. They were successful with that line of attack for many years, and to a certain extent they still are. And they don’t say much about handgun bans these days. But it is only because they have an easier time with the evil black rifles.
And now, as should be no surprise, as described in the video, some of them are open about attacking essentially all guns.
The bottom line is they have been telling us for decades what they will do if they can. We should believe them. And most importantly, we should prepare and respond appropriately.
BB Guns Treated Like Real Firearms (New Jersey) In New Jersey, BB guns are regulated as strictly as actual firearms. You need a Firearms ID card to own one, a permit to carry it, and another permit to transport it in your car. Some models are even banned outright.
Microstamping Mandates (California & New York) These states require new handguns to imprint microscopic identifiers on spent casings. Sounds futuristic, but criminals can easily game the system by planting spent brass from other guns at crime scenes.
Hollow Point Bullet Restrictions (New Jersey) Hollow points are banned except in very specific circumstances—like at home or on the way to a shooting range. Even possessing one loose round outside those conditions can land you in legal trouble.
Shooting Range Bans (Chicago & Blairstown, NJ) Some cities have banned commercial shooting ranges, making it difficult for residents to practice firearm safety and proficiency—especially in urban areas with no private land.
Ammunition Licensing (Washington D.C.) You can’t possess ammo unless you’re licensed for a firearm of that specific caliber. One man was convicted for having muzzleloader bullets in his home after a SWAT raid.
Tube-Fed .22s as “Assault Weapons” (New Jersey) Certain older .22 rifles like the Marlin Model 60 are considered assault weapons if they hold more than 15 rounds. Unless registered before 1991, they’re illegal to possess—even though they’re common plinking rifles.
These laws often reflect attempts to address public safety concerns, but they sometimes veer into the realm of the absurd.
I was doing some research for tomorrow’s QOTD and part of one of Copilot’s responses was:
It’s always a pleasure digging through the details with you—sharp eyes like yours keep things honest. Let me know if you want to dig into other historical quirks or gun law oddities. There’s no shortage of them!
I responded with, “Sure, share a few quirks and oddities with me!” And the above was its response.
There is very little I didn’t already know, but having it put succinctly and formatted nicely in just a few seconds made it much more accessible.
Leave it to gun control groups to suggest that half of the law-abiding population of the United States shouldn’t be considered for gun ownership. And it’s the half of the population that owning a firearm for self-defense benefits the most in time of need.
Sure, in the past, women were not the segment of the population that immediately popped in to mind as being firearm owners. But now in 2025, shouldn’t that be different? Women already have the same rights as men – including the right to keep and bear arms. Firearms are a part of the American culture, enjoyed by everyone of any color, race and nationality. And over the past five years, industry data has shown women are the fastest-growing demographic of gun buyer. It makes sense that firearm industry businesses would pay attention to their customers and cater to their needs.
But that’s not how many gun control activists and gun control groups see it and they are now aghast that lawful firearm manufacturers would cater their advertising and marketing efforts to appeal to women.
If even half as many women as men start voting pro-gun, the anti-gun people will be seriously in trouble in upcoming elections. Violent crime against women will decrease. Fewer women will regard victimhood as a virtue.
Some people feel more secure just knowing a gun is within reach. But having a weapon nearby doesn’t guarantee protection – in fact, it often increases the chances of injury or death. Research shows that homes with guns have higher rates of accidental shootings and suicides. Even trained gun owners can make split-second mistakes in high-stress situations.
Do you know anyone who claims, “having a weapon nearby guarantees protection?” The “17 Gun Myths” are filled with crap like this. It is anti-gun ownership clickbait.
I find simple minded half-truths, straw man arguments, and lies to be extremely irritating. I don’t think they are this stupid. I think they are deliberately crafting a narrative to influence people into accepting their lies.
In 2019, a gunman shot and killed 12 people in a Virginia Beach municipal building. His semiautomatic weapon was fitted with a silencer, making the gunshots sound, to one survivor, “like a nail gun.”
If the shots had been louder — if the people inside had been given even 30 more seconds of warning — lives could have perhaps been saved. But muffled sounds from the silencer created confusion and, ultimately, death.
Silencers are dangerous. Now, they’re more accessible than ever.
It is very telling that Ms. Young can only cite one instance of a suppressor being used in a crime. Even though there are millions of them in the possession of U.S. citizens suppressors are almost never used it a crime. Even more telling is that even though she is studying “public policy” it apparently does not occur to her that specific enumerated rights are not evaluated on the basis of how they are abused. They are protected and the people who abuse them are punished.
After reading a little bit about what a “public policy” major is, I see the problem. Public policy majors are taught to see the world through the lens of what government can do to improve society. I cannot say for certain, but it looks to me like a “public policy” of limited government powers is not in their playbook. The solution to all problems is always more government control. In other words, socialism and tyranny.
No, thank you. Ms. Young, you may not have my guns or suppressors. Your move Ms. Young. Please choose wisely.
A federal appeals court this week struck down California’s landmark law requiring background checks and in-person transactions for ammunition purchases, the latest in a string of judicial wins that have gun rights advocates celebrating.
… the opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows closely on a separate panel’s ruling against a California law aimed at regulating the marketing of firearms to minors earlier this month, and on a federal court ruling Wednesday allowing gun rights advocates to continue a lawsuit against concealed carry rules in Los Angeles County.
“We’re on a roll,” said Southern California attorney and gun rights advocate Chuck Michel, who was involved in all three cases.
In its 2-1 ruling against the ammunition background checks, the appellate panel said Thursday that by limiting purchases, California’s law effectively limited the rights of gun owners to have functioning firearms.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
A year ago, I could not have imagined seeing this sort of thing happen. I sometimes think I must be dreaming about how well things are going in the fight for the rights of gun owners. We lived the nightmare for so many decades it is nice to have things turn our way.
The really big thorns in our paws are now:
Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles.
Restrictions on standard capacity magazines.
Permitting of all types.
Waiting periods.
I think these are all relatively easy wins if we can just get them before SCOTUS.
For too long, countless Americans with criminal histories have been permanently disenfranchised from exercising the right to keep and bear arms—a right every bit as constitutionally enshrined as the right to vote, the right to free speech, and the right to free exercise of religion—irrespective of whether they actually pose a threat. No longer.
This has been a sore point for a lot of people. Technically, there was a process for doing this (18 U.S.C. 925(c)) but congress defunded it in the 1990s. It was challenged in court, and we lost.
The worst story I have heard about this is an elderly black guy who had a felony conviction from many decades ago for having a deck of cards with semi-nude pictures of white women on them. No other brushes with the law, and he was denied the right of effective self-defense.
There are probably thousands of other stories with non-violent convictions of people who led a good and productive life for decades and were never able to own or handle a gun.
It is a bit ironic, and I’m not going to say who it is, but there is a very well-known gun rights professional who had a felony conviction for income tax evasion. They were able to get their gun rights restored before the process was defunded. Very few people were as fortunate as this person was.
It is just another small brick in the wall, but this probable change is very pleasing to me.
Unsympathetic defendants make for bad precedents. This is what happened in the Rahimi case, where the Supreme Court opened the door a crack, allowing judges to believe they can create more exceptions to Second Amendment rights. Rahimi is cited as the reason for the upholding of the Gun Free School Zone Act in the Fifth Circuit.
This is why we have to be as aggressive as we can in the courts. We need to flood the courts with sympathetic plaintiffs in infringing areas that are relatively obvious wins. Please consider donating to the gun rights organization who are active in the courts.
