Support for stricter gun laws has declined significantly over the years, while the desire for more relaxed laws has grown. In 1990, a substantial 78% of Americans favored stricter gun control, with only 2% wanting more lenient regulations.
By 2010, support for stricter laws had dropped to less than half (44%). However, it rebounded in 2020, rising to 57%.
In 2023, opposition to gun control reached a two-decade high, with 15% of Americans wanting less strict regulations.
The support of the courts for the right to keep and bear arms is not enough. We must also change the culture. The trend is in the right direction, but we are far from where we need to be yet. We need a solid majority in opposition.
Here are some ways you can do that:
Come out of the closet as a gun owner and Second Amendment advocate.
Be active on social media and make sure the comments to anti-gun advocates are politely and factually ratioed.
Gun ownership is a civil right. Be a civil rights advocate.
Consider shaming those opposed to civil rights.
Take a new shooter to the range.
Introduce people virtually and/or physically to Boomershoot. The KING5 Evening Magazine video is the most effective introduction to the shooting sports I know of. It is a completely different reality from the world of gun ownership the mainstream media feeds them.
Attend town hall type meetings of your politicians and politely confront those who want to infringe upon our rights.
Gun control is Icarus…and it got too greedy, arrogant, and flew too high. There’s only one ending to this story and looking at cases around the country…fantasy is almost up. Enjoy losing.
Johnny Silverhand @MegaManX1984 Posted on X on December 21, 2023
A little something is lost without the entire context, but I wanted to have the above in case any of the below disappears. Here is the entire context:
Gun control is Icarus…and it got too greedy, arrogant, and flew too high. There’s only one ending to this story and looking at cases around the country…fantasy is almost up. Enjoy losing. pic.twitter.com/hZogNdLHDG
It is very telling that she thinks her ignorance is nothing to be concerned about. Her willful ignorance will only cause her more pain.
After the Heller, and especially the Bruen decision, the only screams we will be doing are victory screams. The long-term screaming into the void will be by the likes of ToutdeSuiteLaSinner.
Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.
It prevents citizens from expressing their own purchasing choices in the marketplace, and forces them to conform and contribute to government choices instead.
This is an interesting way to think about it. I can’t say that she is wrong. But I’m not sure there is practical alternative to at least some limited form of government.
If you survive the blast, and you survive the fallout, you’re going to have to survive the constant threat of mass home invasion from those whose disaster planning is just 3 days.
This is an excellent point. But once made, you realize there are going to be some exceptions. Maintain a large buffer zone between yourself and the hordes with poor planning. Doing this can minimize your risk of contact. The risk can be driven to almost zero.
Let time, distance, and others “thin the herd” before the Seattle hordes reach your underground bunker in Montana. Give yourself some good alarms and a thousand yards of open space in every direction. Then, with the right guns, ammo, optics, and shooting partners, you should not have a problem against the low life.
Global security leaders are warning nuclear threats are growing as weapons spending surged to $91.4 billion last year. At the same time, private bunker sales are on the rise globally, from small metal boxes to crawl inside of to extravagant underground mansions.
Critics warn these bunkers create a false perception that a nuclear war is survivable. They argue that people planning to live through an atomic blast aren’t focusing on the real and current dangers posed by nuclear threats, and the critical need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, government disaster experts say bunkers aren’t necessary. A Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-page guide on responding to a nuclear detonation focuses on having the public get inside and stay inside, ideally in a basement and away from outside walls for at least a day. Those existing spaces can provide protection from radioactive fallout, says FEMA.
I have to know. Does it require special training to be that blind to incongruent statements? Or are some people just naturally impervious to irrational thought?
It is times like this that I could be convinced that our society has made life too easy. It was a mistake to prevent stupid people from removing themselves from the gene pool with demonstrations of their stupidity. I must conclude Idiocracy was brilliantly prophetic. And we should do almost anything to prevent that prophecy from happening.
Another thing to point out is that “government experts” are telling you that you don’t need an underground bunker. I wonder if anyone they have told that to has asked if they have access to an underground bunker?
And/or tell them to convince all the politicians they don’t need an underground bunker. And if they are needed, politicians must come after those necessary to rebuild a post-apocalyptic world. This would include all the construction workers, miners, and factory workers. It would also include teachers, engineers, and medical care people. Law enforcement, bankers, and business leaders are essential too.
I believe politicians should know they will not have access under any circumstances. It is the job of politicians to prevent us from getting nuked. If they fail at their job, they should pay a higher price for that failure than anyone else. This policy ensures they have the proper incentive.
With just over one month remaining in his disastrous term, Joe Biden just couldn’t restrain himself from once again rolling out his one-size-fits-all gun control wish list in his statement from the White House. Demanding that Congress quickly pass universal background check (registration) legislation and ban so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines’ in response to this terrible crime is one of the stupidest, but expected reactions from a career gun prohibitionist whose history of gaffes is legendary.
Joe Biden knows 15-year-olds can’t legally buy handguns anywhere in this country, so a call for background checks is irrelevant. Police have recovered a handgun which was used in the shooting, so calling for a ban on semiautomatic rifles and their magazines is also irrelevant and dishonest. Indeed, such demands underscore just how irrelevant Joe Biden and his gun ban agenda have become.
To be fair, I doubt Biden had any input into that statement. It is most likely some intern. Someone who does not know the difference between an AR-15 and a Glock 17. Of course, they know even less about the law. They just did a copy and paste from the “School Shooting” page in their playbook.
women are the only hope for this wretched world. But even women have been brainwashed by moids for too long theyve internalized the patriarchy and turned on each other, always begging for for male approval and validation. Its disgusting. I realize the truth men are iredeemable. radfem hitler was is fucking vindicated now. They cant be reformed or redeemed. Theyre a fucking scourge upon the earth. The only solution is to total exterminate them and every foid who worships these fucking parasites. Every single male must be wiped out, from babies to the elderty. Only then can women be free to create a new world, ill be a pioneer, ill be the first to take the first step. i dont care if theyr fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, teachers, police, and especially niggers or politicians.ive been craving to kill them all. This is my mission. only when their parasitic sludge has been expunged from this earth is when Then the world will be clean and women can start over. It’s the only way. in aproximately 10 mintue si should be dead, its strange but it feels good.
Oh, look at your little plastic girly guns in all those pretty colors! Those will definitely tell the world that you have nothing in your pants. Hahahahahahahahaha!
Oh, look at your little plastic girly guns in all those pretty colors! Those will definitely tell the world that you have nothing in your pants. Hahahahahahahahaha! pic.twitter.com/SWOUbxTTIC
Instead of teaching you something and measuring how your brain changes, we wrote a new category into your brain that would have appeared had you learned it yourself,
The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has renewed the debate over “ghost guns,” according to some news reports. More accurately, the usual control freaks are using the killing as a convenient hook on which to hang their authoritarian arguments. While there’s plenty to find horrifying in this crime, that alleged murderer Luigi Mangione made his weapon using a 3D printer isn’t one of them, no matter that a few people see in the act an opportunity to advance restrictive legislation.
…
People make their own guns because they want them and somebody in power seeks to prevent them from possessing weapons. The result has inevitably been people who arm themselves in defiance of the law, using whatever tools and materials are available.
The murder of Brian Thompson would have been no less horrible if the weapon was a legally purchased firearm, a knife, an incendiary device, a club, or any other of the many means of destruction humans have historically wielded against one another. The fault lies with the criminal, not the tool.
And people, being clever and defiant towards authority, will always gain access to forbidden objects that they want, including weapons. They’ll do so even if they have to manufacture them at home.
From a legal standpoint, people have long been making their own guns without restrictions. They did this long before and after the 2nd Amendment was written. That, among other things, makes it unconstitutional to impose a prohibition on them now.
From a practical standpoint, passing a law against private manufacture only creates a victimless crime and morally innocent “criminals”. It does nothing to prevent the person with evil intentions from committing their already prohibited evil acts. If they are willing to violate laws prohibiting violent crimes, the law fails to deter them. It only inhibits those who use homemade guns for lawful purposes. It does not deter genuine criminals.
Hence, we know those who advocate restrictions of homemade guns do so with the intent of harming innocent people.
The very individuals who have long championed gun control as a solution to gun violence are now celebrating the tragic killing of a CEO by someone who was radicalized and used a 3D-printed firearm. These same voices once lauded an attacker who nearly assassinated Donald Trump. Such reactions reveal obvious inconsistency, suggesting that their stance on gun violence are politically motivated rather than rooted in principle.
“… politically motivated rather than rooted in principle.” is a good hypothesis. I would like to contribute another hypothesis.
These are people who decide right from wrong almost entirely based on their emotions. Children who are victims of a mass shooter causes them to feel bad and this means guns must be bad. If someone they don’t like is murdered with a gun, then they feel good. This associates guns with their good feelings, and they have no wish to condemn the gun.
I think there is a more important point to be made here. There is a nothing but a thin veneer of civilization over these people. The threshold for them to accept the murder of someone is shockingly low. This can explain riots, lynch mobs, and genocide. Blood lust is a real thing and only barely suppressed in some people.
Overlapping school zones can make it literally impossible for people to legally carry firearms, and this is exactly the situation in Billings, and similar communities all over the country. People living in, or moving through these communities can be charged and prosecuted, permanently costing them their Second Amendment rights. Such restrictions clearly make the law unconstitutional.
Canada has taken significant strides in tightening its gun control measures, announcing the addition of 324 firearm models to its existing ban list. This move, revealed by Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, aims to restrict access to firearms deemed unsuitable for civilian use, claiming they are more suitable for battlefields than communities.
…
Interestingly, the Canadian government is also exploring possibilities of donating these newly banned firearms. Defense Minister Bill Blair stated discussions are underway with Ukrainian authorities about potentially transferring the guns to assist in Ukraine’s defense against Russia. “Every bit of assistance we can offer to the Ukrainians is one step toward their victory,” he emphasized, highlighting the intertwined nature of domestic gun control and international humanitarian efforts.
As other people have point out, it is telling that the Canadian politicians want to confiscate their citizens’ firearms. They intend to give those same firearms to the Ukrainians so they can preserve their freedom. What does that tell you about Canadian politicians’ intentions for the citizens of Canada?
The U.S. should have imposed sanctions on the Canadian government for human rights violations decades ago.
The House on Dec. 6 passed the Crucial Communism Teaching Act with a vote of 327–62. The bill, introduced by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and cosponsored by 33 members of the House, seeks to address a gap in the education system related to the history of communism.
“Communism is one of the most destructive political ideologies the world has ever seen,” Rep. Salazar said when reintroducing the bill earlier this year.
“The Crucial Communism Teaching Act is important because our youth must remember the crimes of the communists, including those inflicted upon my constituents and their families in Florida’s 27th district.”
I’m shocked it passed 327-62. I expected far more legislators were in support of communism. The 62 would be an interesting list to study.
My understanding of the constitution is that Congress was not granted the power to pass this type of legislation. This power, if it exists at all, is reserved for the states.
That said, this is not the bill I’m going to take a stand on to make that case.
In the November 14 edition of the Miami Herald, in an article titled: Report: Majority of trafficked guns in Caribbean are from the U.S., shipped from Florida, reporters Jacqueline Charles and Jay Weaver claim a lack of restrictive gun laws in the United States cause high murder rates in Caribbean countries. From the article:
A new report from the U.S. government’s lead investigator on gun trafficking in the Caribbean area is confirming what region leaders have long said: Most of the firearms wreaking havoc in their vulnerable nations and being used in 90% of the homicides are coming from the United States.
Note the premise included in the misuse of the English language in the opening sentence: the firearms wreaking havoc.
Firearms do not wreak havoc. This is Orwellian distortion of the language. Firearms are inanimate objects. Firearms do not cause harm. Firearms do not have a will of their own. The correct usage would be: People in vulnerable nations are wreaking havoc with firearms. This is important. Semantics are important. You must correctly understand cause and effect if you are to solve a problem. If you confuse cause and effect, your attempts to solve problems will almost certainly fail. You will attempt to change an effect rather a cause. Occasionally, simply by chance, an action taken with the wrong assumption may line up with a real cause.
Firearms do not cause murders and violent crime. The evidence does not support this assumption. Firearms numbers vary wildly across the globe, and in the Caribbean. Firearms laws vary wildly across the globe and the Caribbean as well. Murders and violent crime vary wildly as well. There is no correlation between them.
People can sometimes find a correlation between firearms laws and murders/violent crime committed with firearms. This does not show firearms cause crime. It shows a truism. Firearms can be used in crime. Firearms can also be used to defend against crime. There is no good evidence to show a decrease in overall murders or overall violent crime when/where extremely restrictive firearm laws are implemented. If overall murder rates or overall violent crime rates do not decrease when firearms laws are implemented, the laws have failed in their stated objectives.
Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic steel ocean liners? Why do we spend thousands equipping our vehicles with airbags? Why do we wear seatbelts and place our infants in safety seats? Why do we build storm shelters under our homes? Why do we install ground-fault interrupter outlets by sinks and bathtubs? Why do we get painful inoculations? Why do we voluntarily undergo sickening chemotherapy? And why do we protect ourselves with firearms?
…
Sadly, there are those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens’ individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class. Seeking ancient laws that may partner well with a present-day infringement on a right proclaimed in the Bill of Rights without reading it in conjunction with the aforementioned history is nonsense. The Statute of Northampton cannot in the least bit be used to vex the rights of Illinois citizens in the 21st century to keep and bear arms. The oft-quoted phrase that “no right is absolute” does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges.
Stephen P. McGlynn U.S. District Judge of the Southern District of Illinois November 8, 2024 Barnett v. Raoul
McGlynn writes some great stuff in declaring “assault weapon” bans illegal. But his “permanent” injunction was stayed upon appeal. It will probably take SCOTUS to put an end to this nonsense. For now, it is just words and not the force of law.
