Let me enlighten him and other readers about what it takes to buy a new handgun from a dealer in California.

First, you must be 21 years of age or older. You must possess a “Firearm Safety Certificate,” which requires that you pass a written test and pay a fee of $25. You must demonstrate that you can safely load, unload, and handle the gun. The handgun you want to purchase must be on a list of “safe” handguns approved for sale in the state. This list is suspiciously short. You must fill out state and federal forms – fees are required.

Your gun will be registered. You must have proof of identity and residence. You will have to wait 10 days before you are allowed to take possession of your gun. When you take your gun home, it must be unloaded and locked in the trunk of your car or in a locked carrying case.

Or maybe the writer is just suggesting that we need more ineffective and unconstitutional laws that don’t reduce crime but do hinder law-abiding shooters. Yes, that must be it.

Tim Bengtson
September 3, 2015
More gun control? We have enough already
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

It is no answer to ban protected firearms because they might on occasion be used for an unlawful purpose. Abusus non tollit usum – abuse is not a valid argument against proper use.

BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Certainly, gun control can’t prevent every problem… we’re too immature and irrational as a nation to earn that right to bear arms without very close scrutiny.

Wayne Witkowski
September 2, 2015
Editor’s Corner: Shootings show need for tighter gun control
[“…can’t prevent every problem”? The only “problems” I know that it has prevented is the resistance to tyrants by their victims.

Witkowski is speaking for himself when he says “we’re too immature and irrational”. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and state constitutions don’t have to be earned. If he had matured enough to read and understand the constitution he would know that. If he was rational enough to reason his way through the concept of “close scrutiny” of people exercising their rights he would realize that casts a chilling effect upon the exercise of those rights and is unconstitutional.

But Witkowski is an advocate for gun control. And we already know that is a very strong indicator for the presence of immaturity and irrational thought.—Joe]

There is a clear correlation between gun saturated America and its rates of violence and suicide. We don’t need to legislate away evil – but we sure as heck can legislate their weapons of choice. Melt all confiscated guns, limit gun ownership to those who can pass a proficiency and safety test (like cars) and force the owners to buy insurance for the damage their guns cause. Mark ammunition and trace it. Limit types of guns available and limit ammunition. But – weak cowardly men who can’t be bothered to actually DO something will always throw their dirty hands in the air, shrug their sloping shoulders and grunt “there’s nothing we can do.” Empty headed puppets – like Noir.

Chelonia Testudines
September 1, 2015
Comment to NRA spokesman tells parents of slain Virginia journalists not to be ‘so emotional’
[H/T to Sebastian.

I’m pretty sure this is the same person. I went looking for them because some of the things he said were so outlandish. Perhaps they were deliberately trolling or something. I strongly suspect they are serious because I found similar simple solutions (which have no hope of actually working) to complex problems there.

The proclamations of solutions in spite of an ignorance and lack of the facts, lack of rational though process, and of course the insults are clear indicators they not only don’t know what they are talking about but don’t want to know what they are talking about. They despise private gun ownership and gun owners and no rational argument or facts can convince them we are deserving of respect or even tolerance. They are a prejudiced bigot.—Joe]

There are people out there whose minds we will never change. If you are a parent, if you are a mother, if you have children — how can you look your child in the eye and say we are willing to allow you to be collateral damage in order to keep what some people perceive to be their constitutional rights? If we as a society are willing to accept that, what kind of society are we?

Barbara Parker
August 30, 2015
Alison Parker’s parents on gun-control fight: ‘We cannot be intimidated’
[Answer to the first question: It’s not just a perception of a constitutional right. It is a specific enumerated right which all nine justices of SCOTUS agreed was an individual right. And we can look at our children and say, “We are going to defend your right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your loved ones, your community, and your country even when grief stricken friends and relatives attempt to infringe upon our rights. And we can do that even as we feel and express our sympathy for their horrible loss.” Other than keeping and driving cars is not a constitutionally protected right this is no different than the situation where someone uses their car to deliberately hurt someone else. And in my personal experience this is more common that people using guns to hurt innocent people.*

Answer to the second question: We are a society which knows our rights are important and protect them from violation even when people, overwhelmed with emotion, are unable to think and act rationally.

And I don’t know anyone that wants to “intimidate” these grief stricken people. We just want them to respect us and our right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

*Ry encountered someone driving straight toward him on the freeway at a high rate of speed. Ry narrowly missed being hit by leaving the freeway over the shoulder. He stopped in the grass beside the freeway, got out of his vehicle and vomited. The driver of the other vehicle continued on down the freeway in the wrong direction, and connected with a semi-truck and killed the driver of the truck.

My cousin Johnny and his friend Lonnie were struck head-on by a car going the wrong direction in their lane. Johnny reported the guy was alert, looking directly at them, and corrected when they took evasive action. Johnny and Lonnie were seriously injured but survived and mostly recovered. The other driver was killed in the attack.

I don’t know any friends or family who were shot by another person other than during military combat.

When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns.

James Craig
Detroit Police Chief
August 2015
Packing heat in Detroit: Motown residents answer police chief’s call to arms
[It’s a great article.—Joe]

If you just shut up, you can beat almost any straw purchase charge.

John Risenhoover
Former ATF special agent
August 21, 2015
Amid Dearth of Federal Action on Straw Buyers, States Forge Ahead on Their Own
[And that will never change without universal gun registration. And of course that is essentially impossible, illegal under the Bill of Rights, would be widely ignored, and if push came to shove the odds of it escalating to something much higher on the force continuum would be very likely.—Joe]

The days of wetting your pants to ward off rapists are coming to an end. The days of shooting center mass are emerging. This is a positive trend.

GLaDOS
August 21, 2015
Comment to Packing heat in Detroit: Motown residents answer police chief’s call to arms
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Kelly and Giffords, both gun owners themselves, actually do not support “gun control” in the traditional sense of the phrase. Instead they are in favor of “gun responsibility.”

Sean Quinn
Staff Writer
Essex News Daily
August 20, 2015
Former WO astronaut lobbies for gun responsibility
[It is an interesting sequence of names these type of people use:

• National Coalition to Ban Handguns became Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• National Council to Control Handguns became Handgun Control, Inc. which became Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence which became Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
• Violence Policy Center which only concerns itself with guns which it insists most should be banned.

The general trend is they used to openly state they wanted to ban guns. Then it was just “control” them. Then it was “prevent gun violence”. Then their goal was “gun safety”. And as of yesterday we know the next deceptive phrase they are going to use to try and infringe upon our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is “gun responsibility”.

They should just give it up. We aren’t going to be fooled by this attempt to sucker us either.—Joe]