ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Cause for hope or warning sign?

I can see both in looking at this graphic of the changes in gun laws from 1986 to the present, courtesy of Jeff Dege via the Volokh Conspiracy



On the one hand, this looks exceedingly promising.  State legislatures are moving towards freedom and individual liberty, and the Supreme Court is not standing in the way.  And yet, most of the legal changes we've seen at state and federal level are moving in the opposite direction, supporting the embiggening of the central government and its control over the individual.

How to explain this dichotomy?  My suspicion is that even white liberals are secretly scared to death about the demographic changes that have taken place since 1986 and they are unwilling to remain disarmed given their growing suspicions that the social changes they are still too proud to openly abandon go badly awry.  Just as many anti-gun liberals own firearms despite their loudly proclaimed principles, I suspect that many pro-immigration liberals and conservatives alike view their firearms as an insurance policy in case the Great Diversification turns into the Multicultural Wars.

Labels:

81 Comments:

Anonymous anewt July 11, 2013 1:06 PM  

more likely a back door way to get a database of gun owners.

Anonymous dh July 11, 2013 1:12 PM  

Nope. You are totally wrong. Shooting guns is a culturally cool thing to do. It has been getting so for 25 years. Liberals like cool things. Shooting guns is a fun thing to do with your friends. Old people who don't like fun things keep dying off, and being replaced with people who think it's cool to shoot guns.

No one in the mainstream is at all concerned about a multicultural gang war or whatever.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2013 1:13 PM  

in case the Great Diversification turns into the Multicultural Wars.

In case? There is no "in case." There is only the point at which historians will some day draw the line to say "it began here." There is a fair argument (more than fair, really) that they have already began and that everything from here on out is just escalation.

Anonymous Despair July 11, 2013 1:13 PM  

2 Great Book titles:
The Great Diversification
and its sequel
The Multicultural Wars

Anonymous dh July 11, 2013 1:15 PM  

I would also point out that once again Vermont - the socialist stronghold - has substantially more freedom than Texas on this issue.

Anonymous Josh July 11, 2013 1:22 PM  

Vermont might be the weirdest state in the union

Anonymous dh July 11, 2013 1:23 PM  

(It's also entirely white)

Anonymous civilServant July 11, 2013 1:30 PM  

My suspicion is that even white liberals are secretly scared to death about the demographic changes that have taken place since 1986 and they are unwilling to remain disarmed

If this were true then we would see a movement towards "may issue" not "shall issue". Observe that liberal bastions California and New York remain unchanged at "may issue".

Anonymous jay c July 11, 2013 1:37 PM  

I just listened to the Fox News pundits poo-pooing the idea of riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. Almost word for word: "None of the African Americans who correspond with me are talking about riots or revenge. The sheriffs departments that are going on about it are just putting ideas into people's heads."

I won't embiggen myself by pretending to any great prognosticatory skills when it comes to human behavior, but I'm thinking these people--like other liberals--are so deep in denial I don't know how they can breath.

Anonymous jay c July 11, 2013 1:37 PM  

lol

Anonymous patrick kelly July 11, 2013 1:45 PM  

@dh: "I would also point out that once again Vermont - the socialist stronghold - has substantially more freedom than Texas on this issue."

Not quite. AFAIK Vermont does not have a state preemption law. This means local jurisdiction may impose more strict firearms regulations. This in practice may be a bigger headache for firearms owners trying to obey the law while visiting or travelling through various counties, cities, and towns in the state.

Even the California state preemption prevents local jurisdictions from enforcing stricter laws than the state gov't and has been upheld by the CA courts.

I have not kept up with all recent changes in these laws, so my understanding may be out of date.

Anonymous jack July 11, 2013 1:45 PM  

I'm surprised it took Texas until 1996 to CC. But, then, never under estimate the influence of the folk in Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Those places are very liberal, especially Austin. Thats where the people count is the most.

Anonymous Anti-Gun Liberal July 11, 2013 1:54 PM  

Vox; Trolls like you usually miss the point that being an ”anti-gun liberal” doesn’t mean you are against gun ownership

Anonymous Other Josh - the prophet (not really) July 11, 2013 1:55 PM  

What you are seeing is the "setting of the stage" for America's descent into sectarian violence. The government is pursuing a ridiculous agenda that angers a large portion of America, and is very brash & arrogant about it... but the population remains armed.

I don't think this is intentional, but it will be the end result. I really believe civil war will erupt. Whether it will be along racial lines, political lines, or geographical lines... I don't know.

Anonymous Matthew July 11, 2013 1:59 PM  

Anti-Gun Liberal: is that akin to being George Washington owning slaves?

Anonymous RP-in-TX July 11, 2013 2:06 PM  

"I'm surprised it took Texas until 1996 to CC"

CC in Texas is how George W Bush became governor. Ann Richards was still popular here. However, the legislature passed a bill that would have allowed a state wide vote on CC and she vetoed it. That single issue is how he won.

Funny thing is that even though we had strict handgun restrictions before 1996, rifles and shotguns were unrestricted. You could walk in bars back then and see Winchesters leaning against the bar and tables. And we all used to carry our shotguns to school and leave them in racks in our trucks during pheasant season when I was a teenager in the 80s.

Anonymous Anti-Gun Liberal July 11, 2013 2:08 PM  

Matthew; what it boils down to is “anti-gun liberal” is a label that is incorrectly applied by folks like VD to anyone who supports ANY law creating ANY restriction to gun ownership at ANYONE.  It’s not illogical or hypocritical to own a gun and favor something like expanded background checks, which most Americans do.    

Anonymous dh July 11, 2013 2:10 PM  

Not quite. AFAIK Vermont does not have a state preemption law. This means local jurisdiction may impose more strict firearms regulations. This in practice may be a bigger headache for firearms owners trying to obey the law while visiting or travelling through various counties, cities, and towns in the state.

You are flat wrong:

Vermont Statutes Annotated Title 24, § 2295

"Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate hunting, fishing and trapping or the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of…firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition. This section shall not limit the powers conferred upon a town, city or incorporated village under section 2291(8) of this title. The provisions of this section shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of a municipal charter."

and

Vermont Statutes Annotated Title. 24, § 2291(8)

"[f]or the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience,” a town, city or incorporated village shall have the power to “regulate or prohibit the use or discharge, but not possession of, firearms within the municipality or specified portions thereof, provided that an ordinance adopted under this subdivision shall be consistent with section 2295 of this title and shall not prohibit, reduce, or limit discharge at any existing sport shooting range, as that term is defined in section 5227 of title 10.”

A town may only merely regulate the discharge of a weapon.

OpenID wfgodbold July 11, 2013 2:13 PM  

@Patrick Kelly:

Vermont's gun laws stem from its state constitution, which the state supreme court interpreted in 1903 (State v. Rosenthal) to outlaw carry licensing or bans, whether at the state or local level (Vt. Const. Ch. 1 Art. 16).

So Vermont doesn't have legislative preemption, but Vermont courts strike down local attempts at gun control for violating the state constitution.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 11, 2013 2:22 PM  

I was wrong about that and am gladly corrected. My understanding was from what I had read in other blog threads by obviously less informed people, including myself.

So yes, those damn Yankees in Vermont are freer than Texans in this respect.

Anonymous dh July 11, 2013 2:25 PM  

So yes, those damn Yankees in Vermont are freer than Texans in this respect.

I recommend anyone who has a simple vision of liberals in their head to spend some time in Vermont. It is not your usual place.

Anonymous Josh July 11, 2013 2:31 PM  

Vermont = American Scandinavia

Blogger Polynices July 11, 2013 2:34 PM  

Keep in mind that Vermont has been absolutely flooded with hippies and their ilk since the 1970s. There's a conservative rural substrate that's been overwhelmed by flatlanders (as real Vermonters call them).

Anonymous Frederick303 July 11, 2013 2:39 PM  

Anti-gun liberal:
The reason folks distrust folks who call themselves “anti-gun liberals” is because of their past actions.
Back in 1962 the anti gun folks said all they wanted was to restrict mail order pistols and that any law would allow states to opt out if they wanted. This was the stated goals of the first Dowd hearing in either late 1961 or early 1962. By the time the 1968 GCA was passed all arms were banned from mail order, so were large bore rifles (over .50 cal, became NFA) and all ammunition sales had to be registered. President Johnson and the anti-gun Liberals in congress were trying to pass a licensing sachem for all arms right after, but the election of 1968 put an end to that.
In the early 1970s the anti-gun liberals tried to ban so called Saturday night specials, basically an attempt to ban inexpensive arms. They loudly said that they had no intentions of going after long arms at all. Really…it was only long arms. They did manage to sneak in a automatic gun manufacturing ban in 1986, which is still with us. This was a ban on the most regulated arms in the US, with a registered base of ~250,000 arms with zero criminal offenses by any of those registered guns as of 1986
After failing miserably throughout the 1970s and early 1980s in banning pistols, they then moved on to so called assault rifles. From 1989 to 2004 there was a hard fought battle to ban self loading rifles and shotguns by the so called anti-gun liberals. They won some and lost some and in many states have restricted the rights of law abiding folks for no good reason.
In the last year we have seen the efforts of these anti-gun liberals once again. We have seen such pro gun democratic senators such as Senator Manchin of WV and Senator Casey of PA turn around and suddenly become anti-gun banning zealots.
So the fact is “anti-gun liberal”, no one with half a brain trusts anyone who says they are anti-gun, because the past 50 years have shown they never keep to their word and will attempt incrementally to ban everything. Never does the anti-gun side say “this is enough” it is always “this is a good first step”.

Vox simply called a spade; a spade.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2013 2:42 PM  

Matthew; what it boils down to is “anti-gun liberal” is a label that is incorrectly applied by folks like VD to anyone who supports ANY law creating ANY restriction to gun ownership at ANYONE.

Except for "incorrectly", that pretty much sums it up.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 July 11, 2013 2:44 PM  

Vermont produced the 20th century's only decent U.S. president, so there's something to be said for it.

Anonymous Anonymous July 11, 2013 2:52 PM  

old white guy says..... having the ability to carry and the courage to use what you carry, against those whom you should use it, is lacking in all americans.

Blogger ajw308 July 11, 2013 2:56 PM  

How to explain this dichotomy?
Individual rights are enforcable at the state level, if people organize and demand them. Local politicians do want to get reelected. At the Federal level, rules are made up based on wishes, unicorn farts and dreams of dead 3rd world socialists who may, or may not, have gotten a young American girl pregnant.

The dichotomy is understandable, just as understandable as the knowledge that they are not compatible and one will have to give way to the other.

Anonymous Anonymous July 11, 2013 2:58 PM  

old white guy says..... may or shall, who gives a rats ass. you have the RIGHT to own a gun. period, no question mark. any and all requirements by government, any government, that requires a licence or registration is in violation of the second amendment. do not get to intellectual on the whole thing.

Anonymous Anti-Gun Libtard July 11, 2013 3:00 PM  

Fred; I’m not sure I know anyone who call themselves an “anti-gun liberals”, except me, facetiously, on this blog, for this moment. However, I’ve heard the term thrown around a lot by folks like Vox, who believe the wild west gun ownership model is the most appropriate model for a civilized society.

Anonymous ridip July 11, 2013 3:03 PM  

Other Josh,

So true. I have an old cop friend in a big city, one of the few good ones. Spent most of the last 10 years in the Ummah. Back home for good now. His eyes are so wide open he's just dying too find enough people with enough mettle to start taking it back. Still hopes it can occur peacefully, but I'm not holding my breath. One way or another he's a good guy to have by your side.

Anonymous, you have no damn idea. Ever been in a fight? Ever had your life hanging threatened by an armed assailant? At least some of us have. Responding with sufficient force even deadly force is sometimes the only option. Those decisions are made in advance. What reaction? Under what circumstance? It's rehearsed in the mind. It's reflex. There is no would you? Could you? You already have. And when the time comes not only can you, you do or you die.

Blogger CarpeOro July 11, 2013 3:04 PM  

"In the last year we have seen the efforts of these anti-gun liberals once again. We have seen such pro gun democratic senators such as Senator Manchin of WV and Senator Casey of PA turn around and suddenly become anti-gun banning zealots."

Add Dingle of Michigan to the list. He was for unrestricted access and went over to the heavy restriction camp all the while protesting he was for gun ownership rights. Of course this was some time back (15+ years, can't recall when exactly), but it does fall in to the general pattern.

Anonymous jay c July 11, 2013 3:12 PM  

Fred; I’m not sure I know anyone who call themselves an “anti-gun liberals”, except me, facetiously, on this blog, for this moment.

And that's part of the problem, isn't it? Disingenuous anti-gun liberals rarely admit what they really want, which is total control of every thought and action of anyone who disagrees with them on any meaningful topic.

Anonymous Athor Pel July 11, 2013 3:37 PM  


"
Anonymous July 11, 2013 2:52 PM

old white guy says..... having the ability to carry and the courage to use what you carry, against those whom you should use it, is lacking in all americans.
"




I hope folks are paying attention to this particular kind of troll.

Troll makes sweeping statement strongly implying that all are lacking in . In this case, 'the requisite ability to use a gun and kill in self-defense'.

With intended response being trolled for going like this, "You're wrong. I am ready, willing and able to pull that trigger and put down those enemies of civilization." NAGOALT

Which puts trollee on any number of law enforcement watch lists.



Good job troll, good job.

Anonymous Jake July 11, 2013 3:38 PM  

Vox, who believe the wild west gun ownership model is the most appropriate model for a civilized society.

So your image of the "wild west" is what you've seen on TV then?

Blogger Ashley July 11, 2013 3:41 PM  

@RP-in-TX:

And we all used to carry our shotguns to school and leave them in racks in our trucks during pheasant season when I was a teenager in the 80s.

Not just Texas. I attended a small Christian HS school in Manassas, VA (practically in the shadow of the Federal Death Star). In 1985 or so (probably 8th grade), I took two of my dad's WWII rifles (German 8mm Mauser, British Enfield) and several WWII helmets to history class for show-and-tell. I asked the teacher for permission (not even the administration), carried them openly through the front doors of the school, put them in my locker for the day, and carried them out through the parent's car pool line. No one said a word to me.

I think that was the same year I took orders for fireworks (illegal in VA) from several of my classmates and delivered the orders to them at school. (My dad had a Federal Firearms license for his personal use for decades, which means you also get wholesale fireworks catalogs. He gave up his license after 25 years or so when Clinton increased the renewal fee from $10 every 3 years to several thousand dollars per year.)

We did get some trouble that year (couple hours of detention) when one of my friends (who is now a moderately well-known pastor and author) started selling throwing stars and we tested them out on the bathroom wall!

How times have changed.

Blogger Whiskey July 11, 2013 3:42 PM  

The whole point of Liberal Gun Bans is to disarm "those Icky Whites we hate" and leave them to the mercies of those who would victimize them. See the Zimmerman Show Trial, etc.

Diversity and Multiculturalism ARE weapons, of a elite class based in Puritan / Scandinavian / Viking culture, determined to destroy those Whites they really HATE HATE HATE.

That's pretty much it. Of course THEY want guns, in their private security firms and so on. But they want their enemies, other Whites, annihilated. They've said so openly often enough.

Blogger Cinco DeMayo July 11, 2013 3:44 PM  





Oh man. Hitler parody of SFWA vs. Vox Day

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 11, 2013 3:45 PM  

That's a good map of where to move to.

Funny, given Texas' reputation, you'd think they would be green. Oh well...

Anonymous Porky July 11, 2013 3:50 PM  

Vox, who believe the wild west gun ownership model is the most appropriate model for a civilized society.

Bat Masterson tamed the west with a sixgun.

Anonymous patrick kelly July 11, 2013 3:51 PM  

Re: "Oh man. Hitler parody of SFWA vs. Vox Day"

Heh, for me about 1/2 way through, "An error occurred, please try again later.." Now that's comedy.

Blogger tz July 11, 2013 3:54 PM  

I would not deny a gun to anyone who I would grant the right to vote or any other right. If they belong in prison or a psych ward, I would confine them there.

I found it interesting, the speed limit is/was 65 in WI and IL, and they were red to the last (but WI became blue... not OH just upped the speed limits to 70).

Then there's the helmet laws, but either that is the blue states, the redneck south, the west left coast, or misery MO and unicameral NE.

Blogger Cinco DeMayo July 11, 2013 4:02 PM  

@patrick kelly

Yeah it should be working now. The upload had an error an then it auto corrected.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter July 11, 2013 4:12 PM  

"Diversity and Multiculturalism ARE weapons"

Yes. Weapons of mass destruction.

Anonymous Josh July 11, 2013 4:19 PM  

That Hitler video is awesome

"it's never too late to cry rape..."

Anonymous jay c July 11, 2013 4:23 PM  

swiftfoxmark2 July 11, 2013 3:45 PM

That's a good map of where to move to.

Funny, given Texas' reputation, you'd think they would be green. Oh well...


Justin Carter

Anonymous Salt July 11, 2013 4:24 PM  

The Hitler parody, massive popcorn moment. Lets see how the views climb.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 11, 2013 4:34 PM  

Vox, who believe the wild west gun ownership model is the most appropriate model for a civilized society.

I am reminded of Robert E. Howard's take on civilized men in The Tower of the Elephant:

Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.

Anonymous Anti-Gun Freedom Hating Libtard July 11, 2013 4:38 PM  

Jake; "wild west" as an idiom for lawlessness, see Merriam-Webster

But I suspect you knew that.

Blogger beerme July 11, 2013 4:44 PM  

Cinco, if you had only replaced "vampire" with "wereseal" at the end it would've been almost perfect.

Anonymous Cinco July 11, 2013 4:46 PM  

@beerme

I was literally flipping coin between the two.

Anonymous Jake July 11, 2013 4:55 PM  

Jake; "wild west" as an idiom for lawlessness, see Merriam-Webster

With no basis in truth. It implies as historical fact something which is purely myth invented for good entertainment. Don't try to pretend you weren't implying that a society in which guns are common and carried with little if any regulation/restriction would be like a "wild-west" shoot'em up. It's exactly what you meant.

The only question is whether you know better and just like to argue based on mythology, or if you're just ill-informed.

Blogger Eric July 11, 2013 4:56 PM  

Observe that liberal bastions California and New York remain unchanged at "may issue".

Most counties in California are effectively "no issue". The county in which I live is one such - everyone knows filling out the paperwork is pointless, since the local sheriff will not issue a permit unless you're connected. Note "may issue" is ideal for ostensibly anti-gun politicians and, you know, rich CEOs, since they have enough clout to get permits for armed security (I'm looking at you, Dianne Feinsten) and the rest of us can go hang.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 11, 2013 5:05 PM  

Even the blind nuts at Wikipedia get it right once in a while - Wild West gun laws - you mean like total bans on firearms?

From the Gunfight at the OK Corral:

"Relevant law in Tombstone:
To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the Tombstone's city council passed ordinance #9 prohibiting anyone from carrying a deadly weapon.[24] Anyone entering town was required to deposit their weapons at a livery or saloon soon after entering town. The ordinance led directly to the confrontation that resulted in the shoot out.[25]"

Anonymous Anti-Gun Liberal Freedom Hater July 11, 2013 5:18 PM  

MrGreenMan; "wild west" as an idiom for lawlessness, see Merriam-Webster

But I suspect you knew that.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 11, 2013 5:22 PM  

Absolutely I understand you wish to propagate the mythology rather than know the facts, because the truth always sets you free. I assume you also believe in using the term "Dark Ages" to refer to the Middle Ages and similar inaccuracies.

Anonymous Libtard Revisionist Historian July 11, 2013 5:28 PM  

I use "dark ages" to refer to the period from roughly 500-800 AD. Its common usage.

Anonymous Jake July 11, 2013 5:34 PM  

AGLFH: "Vox thinks the wild-west is a good idea for today's society"

Myself and others: "The 'wild west' is a myth, nor was it a land of total gun-freedom"

AGLFH: "oh I'm just using that as a idiom for a lawless-violent society"

Can we say fighting withdrawal? AGLFH has surrendered the field and retreated back into the intellectual badlands, where he's now digging in his defenses and waving the flag shouting "this ground I shall never surrender".

Anonymous hausfrau July 11, 2013 5:40 PM  

It is possible for states like New York to come back if upstate new Yorkers get fed up enough. Oregon' population centers (Portland, Eugene, Salem) are close to outright communist in some neighborhoods yet Oregon has looser gun restrictions than nebraska or texas (i believe). I can basically carry anywhere with a chl except federal buildings. Of course oregon also has a strong libertarian hippy streak that New York may not have. California is probably hopeless though. They have too many socialist hispanics for civil liberties to make a come back.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 11, 2013 5:40 PM  

Good to see your self-described "Libtard" mind is closed. Perhaps all you needed to learn was what you were mis-educated in public screwall. Wait, I know - you don't need to learn anymore, you're probably a teacher.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 11, 2013 5:42 PM  

@Jake: Expect soon to hear from one of these Mighty Men of Valor that you're fat, too, but that's just the common usage.

Anonymous Anti-Gun Libtard Fascist July 11, 2013 6:05 PM  

I have no information regarding Jake's body type / weight.

MrGreenMan; I have generally found that those who use terms like screwall, Obummer (or Shrub for George Bush), libtard, republipuke, etc... are beyond reason and can safely be ignored. As a general rule of course. So in any case, take care.

Jake; if you are going to use quotation marks...

But in closing, you seemed to have gotten stuck in the mire and clay and missed (Ok, avoided...) the larger point that support of common sense gun laws in no way means one is obligated to not own guns or even feel that they shouldn't own guns.

Anonymous Anonymous July 11, 2013 6:05 PM  

Constitutional question: if North Dakota must honor a Minnesota homosexual maariage license, does that mean Illinois must honor a Texas concealed carry permit?

- Azimus

Blogger redlegben July 11, 2013 6:16 PM  

Azimus, if your question is serious, the state AGs generally make the determination of which states' CC are valid in their own state. OK, for example accepts any state's CC. Some states don't accept every other states, for example WI.

Anonymous Writers Gawking at Vox July 11, 2013 6:37 PM  

"Matthew; what it boils down to is “anti-gun liberal” is a label that is incorrectly applied by folks like VD to anyone who supports ANY law creating ANY restriction to gun ownership at ANYONE.

Except for "incorrectly", that pretty much sums it up."


Confirming once again Vox Day's status as a fiction writer who can go brief!

Well done! But, what will you call this fiction of yours. It needs a name. A good name. A catchy title. How about: "VD's Thrown of Lies" or "The Last Lie of Vox Day" or "The Wrath of McLiar".

Anonymous Writers Gawking at Vox and Jay July 11, 2013 6:42 PM  

"And that's part of the problem, isn't it? Disingenuous anti-gun liberals rarely admit what they really want,"

Mr. Jay...You have to give consideration to the literary quality of the title. For example, if you wanted an accurate title for the kinds of folks that our anti-gun liberal is describing you had to call them, "Pro Limited Gun Restrictions"....then add something like "Dudes" or "People" or Well Educated People" or "Smarty Pants to the end. Any of those will do.

But....that doesn't have a ring.

Let's call those people who strongly support legal gun ownership but also support sensible restrictions "The Good Gun Guys".

See, that not only has a nice ring to it, but it's the truth too.

There....All Fixed.

Anonymous Dan in Tx July 11, 2013 7:00 PM  

Do you seriously think that anyone is falling for your "sensible restrictions" claims anymore? Someone else already posted a small historical summary that shows that to be a lie.

Anonymous Red July 11, 2013 7:02 PM  

The rise in concealed carry has more to do with the shift in police tactics. Since the cops no longer even pretend to protect the public people have been realizing they're going to have to do it for themselves.

Anonymous Writers Gawking at Vox and Dan July 11, 2013 7:51 PM  

Mr. Dan....

Do you seriously believe that it is impossible to believe that greater background checks could be supported by all sorts of folks??? Wait a minute. You need not believe this. You can read it as a fact.

Go away, son......you've reached your limit.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother July 11, 2013 8:14 PM  

Writers,

Display your evidence for the majority support of background checks.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother July 11, 2013 8:19 PM  

Vox,

How about a VP poll determining the Ilk support of background checks? We can track how closely our collective position agrees with America.

Anonymous Jake July 11, 2013 8:26 PM  

But in closing, you seemed to have gotten stuck in the mire and clay and missed (Ok, avoided...) the larger point that support of common sense gun laws in no way means one is obligated to not own guns or even feel that they shouldn't own guns.

Trying a new direction now? None of our discussion has had anything to do with support or opposition to "common sense" gun laws.

Of course, I don't expect to many people are optimistic about the likelihood of getting "common sense" out of the federal government. We have 80 years of nonsense gun regulations to show that appealing to "reasonable measures" and "common sense" are favorite tactics of those who have nothing of the sort in mind.

Here's what I'd propose. If you want to talk about "reasonable" gun laws, go repeal all the unreasonable ones. THEN, MAYBE, you can make an argument. The "moderate" gun-grabbers simply have no credibility at this point.

Anonymous map July 11, 2013 8:31 PM  

The anti-gunner is really nothing more than a species of holocaust-denier. Like the Holocaust-denier, the anti-gunner argues in bad faith and believes that his trafficking and repetition of lies will eventually win the day.

Anonymous A Visitor July 11, 2013 8:37 PM  

Keep in mind that Vermont has been absolutely flooded with hippies and their ilk since the 1970s. There's a conservative rural substrate that's been overwhelmed by flatlanders (as real Vermonters call them). Pretty sophisticated for a bunch of mountain boys, eh Dillon?

Glad to see that the rodina (Indiana) was (save VT, of course) trailblazing in 1986. Here in CA, according to a neighbor that has lived in this 3rd world hell hole his entire life, you can still open carry rifles and shotguns. I'm just waiting for a transfer.

We did get some trouble that year (couple hours of detention) when one of my friends (who is now a moderately well-known pastor and author) started selling throwing stars and we tested them out on the bathroom wall! If I had only been born ten years earlier…

My county in CA is shall issue but the problem is there's a two year backlog!

Anonymous map July 11, 2013 8:39 PM  

And whiskey is right. Gun control is all about disarming the wrong kind of white people so that the government controlled by the right kind of white people can do them harm.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2013 11:01 PM  

Is the hammer strut pin on a 1911 usually tight or loose. An otherwise good book I have on the 1911 (it has lots of great pictures and hints) says both on adjacent pages.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2013 11:03 PM  

The anti-gunner is really nothing more than a species of holocaust-denier.

Is that like a holomodor denier?

I certainly would not want to deny the Armenian Holocaust.

Anonymous Matthew July 11, 2013 11:23 PM  

I'd love to see an animated map like that for homeschooling laws.

No-hassle homeschooling is one of the reasons I stay in Texas.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 12, 2013 12:14 AM  

For those who live in the Silicon Gulags of the People's Republic of Mexifornia, Alpha Dog Tactical runs some great, low-cost, one-day classes near San Jose.

$125 plus range fee plus ammo (and you can rent guns from him) gets you a day of instruction and shooting. I think his instruction is well thought out.

Anonymous FP July 12, 2013 12:19 AM  

I'm ambivalent. There are lots of causes for hope but the anti gun nuts are switching from the fed laws to state laws and the culture. Look at all the insane cases of kids getting in legal trouble for having toy guns or pastry chewed into guns or 2nd ammendment t-shirts.

Hausfrau: Its funny that Howie Dean is twittering now about Oregon state senator Betty Johnson who was basically the lone Dem spoiler that stopped Dems here on gun laws, dmv auto registers you to vote law, etc.. We're just a few party votes away from losing completely. House bill 3200 was pure gun grabber insanity.

Anonymous Dan in Tx July 12, 2013 9:17 AM  

Isn't it also funny how the same leftists who appeal to so called "common sense" restrictions on guns will throw themselves on the floor in a total convulsion if anyone proposes common sense restrictions on abortion. Then they wonder why they have no credibility.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts