The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Zoomers: Hands Off Our Guns
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

CoD beats Hogg. Boomers want gun control. Millennials and especially Zoomers, not so much. This is a topic that has been visited and revisited here because it is one the corporate media and sloppy conventional wisdom so consistently get wrong.

The latest illustration comes from a recent SurveyUSA poll of residents of the state of Georgia. Three of the questions concern gun control. The graphs below depict the percentages favoring the pro-gun position on each question. “Not sure” responses, constituting 13% of the total, are excluded:



These results come despite the fact that whites are more pro-gun than non-whites and Republicans are more pro-gun than Democrats. Older cohorts are whiter and more Republican than younger cohorts, yet younger cohorts are more pro-gun than older cohorts. Though the relevant cross-tabs are not available, this suggests young white Republicans are very pro-gun and the non-white, Democrat opposition to guns comes from old people, not young ones.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Guns, Polling 
Hide 118 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s like boomers created a problem for someone else to live in and don’t want them to have the necessary tools to clean it up…

    And boomers wonder why zyklons hate them.

    • Replies: @216
    @Ash Williams


    zyklons
     
    Cringe

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    , @Twodees Partain
    @Ash Williams

    No, it isn't like any such thing. This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show. Maybe AE posts these polls just to stimulate debate, or maybe to troll certain people who will make retarded statements like the one you just made.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @obwandiyag

    , @MBlanc46
    @Ash Williams

    We don’t give a bleep. And the hatred is reciprocated.

    , @Ash Williams
    @Ash Williams


    • Replies: @216, @Twodees Partain, @MBlanc46
     
    Found the boomers
  2. @Ash Williams
    It's like boomers created a problem for someone else to live in and don't want them to have the necessary tools to clean it up...

    And boomers wonder why zyklons hate them.

    Replies: @216, @Twodees Partain, @MBlanc46, @Ash Williams

    zyklons

    Cringe

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @216

    Spare us.

    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @216

    OK, boomer.

  3. As I have often stated, my prized possession is my gold-painted Desert Eagle. It wasn’t cheap. I have never fired it at another living thing. But I take great pride in having it.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Thomm


    gold-painted Desert Eagle
     
    Are you Persian or just gay?
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Thomm

    The man with the golden gun.

    Replies: @Thomm

  4. Is Georgia really a representative sample?

  5. Young people watch action movies; assault rifles are what they consider to be “normal” weapons.

    I’m surprised at the percentage of people supporting “constitutional carry,” could we get enough people voting there to get that?

    In Chicago, imagine if we could get a Republican pro-gun Mayor (yeah, I know, I know). Since we have an IL FOID card, the Mayor could hire a pro-gun CPD Chief that could tell the police officers NOT to arrest people carrying CCW provided they had a valid FOID; in essence making the FOID a defacto CCW permit. By doing that, they could raise the number of “good guys with guns” on the streets to an unprecedented level. The State legislators certainly couldn’t complain about “scofflaws” because the Gov & legislators have already legalized MJ in direct contravention of Federal law.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Joe Stalin

    Yours is the most fantastic of the fantasies I've encountered in years. Maybe we'll discover that of the 10,000 sealed indictments supposedly now in existence, the entire political structure of Chicago and Illinois will be, in one shot, removed to Guantanamo Bay Prison for the rest of their lives.

    I'd just be ecstatic if the ($&$^$^&#$) demons in Springfield/State of IL building would just remove the state's total prohibition on firearm sound suppressors. IL is surrounded by states that have no such prohibitions, and (surprise-surprise) there are no issues.

    Taking a firearm from a typical 165 decibels (truly, incredibly and often permanently-in-part deafening) to 138 decibels (still louder than a pneumatic jack-hammer breaking concrete) would go a long way to reducing the long-term damage recreational shooters do to their hearing just by indulging in their hobby. It would have ZERO effect on crime, only future hearing-aid sales.

    Given Hollywood's contribution to the general public's IDIOCY on this subject, I'd like to take every person (writer, producer, director, actor, etc.) and expose them to the actual sound of real guns that they "portray" in their crap stories. Each and every one of them would be deaf as a post after "one episode's worth" of gunfire.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Joe Stalin

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Joe Stalin

    What none of these mayors want is the extremely 'problematic' optics of a law-abiding white person shooting a black criminal in self-defense.

    No amount of black-on-black carnage is worth stopping if it increases the chances of such an incident occurring. Yes, "Dems are the real racists" is cringe-inducing, but the reality in this case seems obvious to me.

  6. Fun Georgia facts: Administrative voter file data in Georgia confirms that youth turnout surged in 2018, with 13.2% of 2018 voters being 18-29 compared to 8% in 2014. Youth share of the electorate was closer this time to the last general (14.7%) than the last midterm!

    Georgia: About 47% of the new voters who identified their race are minorities and 45% are age 30 or younger, according to an analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of a list of voters registered from Nov. 6 to Aug. 12. By comparison, 40% of all Georgia voters are minorities and 14% are age 30 or younger.

    More than 352k people have registered to vote in Georgia this year, sending voting rolls to record high. 455,323 black people have registered to vote in Georgia since Donald Trump was elected president. Trump carried the state by 211,141 votes

    85% of registered voter Georgians say they’re certain to vote. Including 71% of 18-34 and 94% of 65+

    86% of whites, 83% of blacks, 77% of Latinos

    90% of evangelical protestants (Kemp win by winning South Georgia White Evangelicals at 89%)

    91% of Trump and Clinton voters

    90% of college 4 year

    87% of southern Georgia (big for Trump)

    Registered electorate 2016: White (60.79%), black (27.68%)
    CVAP electorate: White (58.70%), black (32.31%)
    CPS 2016 electorate: black (31.7%)
    Data for progress electorate: black (28.6%)

    Georgia saw the largest increase in non-white share of voters from 2016 to 2018 of any state in the country, both overall and relative to past midterm drop-off (other Southern states also saw large increases, though not by as much)

    Worth mentioning that Georgia will have two senate races in 2020 which significantly boost turnout.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Oblivionrecurs

    This is Stacey Abrams' handiwork. She knows how to win and she's going to get deserved credit for flipping Georgia blue sometime between 2020 and 2024.

  7. CoD is about the only place where zoomers actually have guns.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    @WHAT

    Maybe where you live.

    , @Twodees Partain
    @WHAT

    That demographic, people in their 40s and 50s, are about the best armed segment of the population where I live. Of course,old hosers like me are well armed as well. Only the young people around here, 18-35 or so aren't big on owning guns, though some like to hunt and some are interested in collecting and target shooting.

    Replies: @SFG

  8. Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades. Both concealed permit and constitutional carry have proliferated in ways unthinkable in the 70’s and 80’s America.

    Unsurprisingly, female participation in gun ownership, carry permit holding, and hunting have skyrocketed during the same period.

    If you want to change the society (without force), you have to get women on board. 😉

    I should note, however, that as the country continues to urbanize, gun ownership rates have fallen (even as the number of guns in private ownership has risen dramatically), which suggests that the gun owners of today own A LOT more guns than those of the yester years. This is not a bad thing. A motivated minority beats an apathetic majority most of the time – it’s the same way support for entitlements work as benefits are concentrated and costs are diffused.*

    *In the case of firearm ownership, generally benefits are both concentrated and diffused while costs are close to nonexistent for non-criminals… which is why the gun control types latch on to victims of “gun” crimes in order to create their own motivated minority.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie


    If you want to change the society (without force), you have to get women on board.
     
    That doesn't work. As soon as the next picture of some crying kid comes out they'll vote against everything they "stand" for. Women don't stand for stuff, Twinkie. It's great to see some women self-defense shooters. It's not the answer though. Even the vote is not going to be the final answer.
    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades.
     
    So you've effectively lost freedom of speech (freedom of speech today is whatever the media and tech giants and the SJW Thought Police permit you to say). The Culture War is irretrievably lost. The war against immigration is pretty much lost. The endless foreign wars really are endless. Your political system is absurdly corrupt. Your legal rights are being taken away one by one (the presumption of innocence is definitely on the way out).

    But you still have your guns. Doesn't that suggest something? Doesn't it suggest that guns really are totally irrelevant? Doesn't it suggest that the idea that your guns will preserve your liberty is a complete fantasy?

    Those who control your society don't care hw many guns you have. They have more guns and they have bigger guns. They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so (for those who might think about resisting they can arrange permanent accommodation at Guantanomo Bay). They don't choose to disarm you because they don't need to (Americans are willingly and voluntarily giving up all their freedoms anyway). And because they'd prefer you to cling to your delusions.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Twinkie, @Nodwink

  9. Why wouldn’t older Georgians support gun control? Their ancestors did. From an 1833 law:

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.

    The state legislature outlawed concealed carry for everybody in 1837. The state supreme court overturned it nine years later. The courts didn’t listen to the people even then!

    How much of younger people’s support for broad-based gun rights just a reflection of the kumbayah egalitarianism they’ve been fed their entire lives?

    Gun legislation has been slower to appear in the northern and Midwestern states, outside the cities, away from immigrants. No need for it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Reg Cæsar

    Is "person of color" a term that is two centuries old? Well I'll be!

  10. @Thomm
    As I have often stated, my prized possession is my gold-painted Desert Eagle. It wasn't cheap. I have never fired it at another living thing. But I take great pride in having it.

    Replies: @anon, @SunBakedSuburb

    gold-painted Desert Eagle

    Are you Persian or just gay?

  11. Polls are one thing – getting up off one’s asses is another.

    Which generations are responsible for this?:

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That is a lot more informative than Audacious's single state, single time data point, and indicates he needs to address your question.

  12. @Twinkie
    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades. Both concealed permit and constitutional carry have proliferated in ways unthinkable in the 70's and 80's America.

    Unsurprisingly, female participation in gun ownership, carry permit holding, and hunting have skyrocketed during the same period.

    If you want to change the society (without force), you have to get women on board. ;)

    I should note, however, that as the country continues to urbanize, gun ownership rates have fallen (even as the number of guns in private ownership has risen dramatically), which suggests that the gun owners of today own A LOT more guns than those of the yester years. This is not a bad thing. A motivated minority beats an apathetic majority most of the time - it's the same way support for entitlements work as benefits are concentrated and costs are diffused.*

    *In the case of firearm ownership, generally benefits are both concentrated and diffused while costs are close to nonexistent for non-criminals... which is why the gun control types latch on to victims of "gun" crimes in order to create their own motivated minority.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @dfordoom

    If you want to change the society (without force), you have to get women on board.

    That doesn’t work. As soon as the next picture of some crying kid comes out they’ll vote against everything they “stand” for. Women don’t stand for stuff, Twinkie. It’s great to see some women self-defense shooters. It’s not the answer though. Even the vote is not going to be the final answer.

  13. @216
    @Ash Williams


    zyklons
     
    Cringe

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Spare us.

  14. Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.

    The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.

    You see, anti-gunners want them all.

    They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete.

    They have an excuse for banning every firearm.

    Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”.

    Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity.

    Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”.

    The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.

    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.

    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”.

    The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

    Even the NRA bears responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms.

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment.

    Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive.

    Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @anarchyst

    Where would the NRA be without a constant threat of prohibition? The last thing NRA's professional staff wants is an end to such things, same as everyone who works in the Welfare State's Administration depends on poverty for their JOBS.

    It's just stupid to think that someone whose livelihood depends on something is the right person to coordinate the "fight" to eliminate that something.

    You mention the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, actually) and should recognize first and foremost that once you get people discussing the mere possibility of amending the Constitution to eliminate any of the first ten Amendments, you've already lost.

    The bill of rights is a list of prerogatives with which each person is born (endowed by their Creator.) They are NOT some kind of grant from the central State that can be removed if there's a consensus. The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms is a recognition that the means to defend one's life, the most precious gift of all, and defend the lives of your loved ones, is not subject to your neighbors' approval.

    Sadly, Ancient Roman Historian Sallust was correct 2000 years ago when he wrote, "Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master." Most people are born slaves and they prefer a comfortable slavery (give 'em a recliner, a beer and sportsball evenings and weekends and they'll cut your stones for the next Pyramid all week long.)

    We're surrounded by cattle.

    For those squishy on this, go read https://jim.com/cowards.htm

    The Second Amendment (1) is an individual right, same as the First, Fourth and Fifth (and none of the Bill of Rights enumerates a "right" of the state, that's frankly the argument of a moron) and (2) it CANNOT BE REPEALED. Those who believe otherwise are simply too short for this ride, revealing that they truly do love their servitude and resent those who chafe under shackles.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Twodees Partain

    , @Twinkie
    @anarchyst

    NRA is a racket and has been for decades. None, I mean absolutely none, of the dues is used for lobbying for gun rights (that’s done by NRA-ILA, the Institute for Legislative Action). Those NRA dues pay for the membership magazines and NRA operating costs, including staff salaries... and, yes, that includes sweetheart deals for Wayne LaPierre and other top leaders, which have been laid bare in the recent scandals.

    If you care about gun rights, join and advocate for your local, grassroots organizations. If your state doesn’t have one, start one.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @anarchyst

    "The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. "

    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.

    The rest of your comment is well stated. The country's "oldest civil rights organization" is mostly a cash vacuum.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @anarchyst


    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.
     
    Even these?

    That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

    North Carolina, 1840

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.

    Georgia, 1833

    No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead; and any free negro or mulatto who shall so offend, shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, forfeit all such arms and ammunition to the use of the informer; and shall moreover be punished with stripes, at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

    Commonwealth of Virginia, 1832
     

    Replies: @anarchyst, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

  15. One favored method for mass disarmament of a citizenry is to make high-profile arrests of those who are vocal about their firearms “rights”.

    Another way is to enlist the “help” of the communist “mainstream media” to demonize anyone who has an interest in firearms, allowing the media to be present at “raids” and in general use “loaded” terms such as “arsenals”, “weapons of mass-destruction”, “weapons of war”, “machine guns” and other sensational terms, to inflame the non-knowledgeable public, introducing them to their “unstable” neighbors who are being (illegally and unconstitutionally) raided.

    It’s all about perception, which the left uses to good effect, utilizing tactics from jew communist Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals. The “mainstream media has always been dishonest and against firearms rights.

    High-profile raids will push the firearms owning public underground. Those who choose to “fight back” will be regarded as “terrorists” and “enemies of the state and good order” by the mainstream media, who will fan the flames of hysteria, attempting to get the general public on their side—supporting mass disarmament. If and when they are murdered by “law enforcement” very little, if anything, will be mentioned about the illegality of these “raids”.

    All one has to do is look at how firearms owners are treated presently by the mainstream media-looked upon as “pariahs” and other unstable types.

    The “key” to resistance may be to “cache” your firearms, leaving a few firearms accessible both for protection and as “bait” to “feed” the gun-grabbers if and when the raids come.

    The left is expert at using “incrementalism”, chipping away at rights a little-bit at a time. From arbitrary classification of firearms, declaring certain “features” illegal, to specifying barrel lengths, magazine capacity, to outright banning the production and ownership of newly-manufactured machine guns, the left has been busy.

    There are no easy answers to the situation we are presently in, but surrendering one’s rights is never the answer.

    A good read, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, about our present situation and possible “solutions” was written in 1995 and is still available in print and as a free pdf. This book is a good reference, history lesson, and comes up with possible solutions to the assault on our freedom.

    This book was considered so volatile when it first came out that sellers were routinely harassed by FBI, ATF, and DEA types for displaying and selling it.

    To quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

    And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .
    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @anarchyst

    Pretty much.

    The thing, though, is: MOST of the gun owners just don't think along the lines "resisting tyranny".

    The reasons for owning a firearm, for MOST, are fun/entertainment/exercise (hunting) and personal self-defense against the criminal element in society. For the rest, it's a sport. And LARPing, of course. And, some simply like to have it...as having a nice car, boat, etc.
    My LONG personal experience......

    And, most of the useful idiots going for banning also don't see gun owners as a danger to the system. They mostly see them as dangerous people who can hurt them/their loved ones.

    Besides, a lot of current gun owners would support the current system should SHTF.

    Bottom line, the ..ahm...debate...about the Second feels awkward. Most of the players don't think along the lines the Founding Fathers thought about it.

  16. @Joe Stalin
    Young people watch action movies; assault rifles are what they consider to be "normal" weapons.

    I'm surprised at the percentage of people supporting "constitutional carry," could we get enough people voting there to get that?

    In Chicago, imagine if we could get a Republican pro-gun Mayor (yeah, I know, I know). Since we have an IL FOID card, the Mayor could hire a pro-gun CPD Chief that could tell the police officers NOT to arrest people carrying CCW provided they had a valid FOID; in essence making the FOID a defacto CCW permit. By doing that, they could raise the number of "good guys with guns" on the streets to an unprecedented level. The State legislators certainly couldn't complain about "scofflaws" because the Gov & legislators have already legalized MJ in direct contravention of Federal law.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Audacious Epigone

    Yours is the most fantastic of the fantasies I’ve encountered in years. Maybe we’ll discover that of the 10,000 sealed indictments supposedly now in existence, the entire political structure of Chicago and Illinois will be, in one shot, removed to Guantanamo Bay Prison for the rest of their lives.

    I’d just be ecstatic if the ($&$^$^&#$) demons in Springfield/State of IL building would just remove the state’s total prohibition on firearm sound suppressors. IL is surrounded by states that have no such prohibitions, and (surprise-surprise) there are no issues.

    Taking a firearm from a typical 165 decibels (truly, incredibly and often permanently-in-part deafening) to 138 decibels (still louder than a pneumatic jack-hammer breaking concrete) would go a long way to reducing the long-term damage recreational shooters do to their hearing just by indulging in their hobby. It would have ZERO effect on crime, only future hearing-aid sales.

    Given Hollywood’s contribution to the general public’s IDIOCY on this subject, I’d like to take every person (writer, producer, director, actor, etc.) and expose them to the actual sound of real guns that they “portray” in their crap stories. Each and every one of them would be deaf as a post after “one episode’s worth” of gunfire.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    , @Joe Stalin
    @dc.sunsets

    For a short period of time in Illinois during (1980s,1990s?) we could actually (in theory) own full-auto weapons (and Class 3 sound suppressors too?).

    What killed that was that Cosmopolitan WBBM-TV (Channel 2 Chicago) Professional Whiner Walter Jacobson had one of his "Commentary" where he showed a full-auto Uzi SMG being fired and said: 'Oh, the horror, state residents will be able to own machine guns REAL SOON.'

    The Democrat cosmopolitans went into full 'The Sky is falling!" and got the MG ban repealed. And they also went so far as preventing any MG that was approved by the Feds from being lawfully transferred to residents. I presume the number of such weapons was ZERO and was your standard anti-gun grandstanding in IL.

    In terms of controlling the language, something needs to happen to public radio, where after decades of listening, I have yet to hear a single PRO-GUN story. They appear to be a willing conduit for the roll out of any new gun control phrases.

    The effectiveness of the enemy's language programming is when you hear about the communists' "Gun Safety" gun law proposals as closing the AWFUL "loophole" of being able to buy a gun without defacto "Gun Registration" (reporting gun transfers to the government) being used in news reports, so as to enable Gun Confiscation as just what happened in New Zealand.

    Gun Registration is the key to disarmament. That's why virtually all other countries have that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwQ4QUGOmfs

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

  17. The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.

    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.

    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes. They also call “gang members” innocent “children” and count them in “child shootings”.

    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…

    –When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.

    –When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”. State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.

    –When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”

    –When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, useable by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made many converts this way.

    –When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.

    –When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.

    –When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.

    –When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.

    Gun-banners want ALL guns, even if they attempt to get them a little at a time, chipping away at the Second Amendment. Here are the “excuses” that the anti-gun crowd uses to “justify” their misguided position:

    –Handguns–“too concealable”

    –Rifles–“too accurate”

    –Shotguns–“too deadly”

    The Second Amendment is the most “infringed” of any part of the Constitution.

    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @anarchyst


    correct them
     
    Don’t bother arguing with anti’s. It’s a waste of time. Introduce guns to as many people as possible. Join and volunteer for grassroots gun rights orgs. Make pols who oppose pay. Believe or not, a flood of calls, letters, emails, and demonstrators outside do affect elected officials.
  18. @anarchyst
    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.

    The duck hunters don't like the AR-15 "black rifles" so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don't like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.

    You see, anti-gunners want them all.

    They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete.

    They have an excuse for banning every firearm.

    Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as "sniper rifles" because they are "too accurate".

    Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity.

    Handguns are suspect because they are "easily concealable".

    The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don't care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.

    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must "hang together" and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.

    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL...

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Imagine the hue and cry if "reasonable" restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the "mainstream media".

    The Second Amendment is clear--what part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians and the media not understand...of course, they understand full well...it's part of their communist agenda...

    Even the NRA bears responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms.

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS "instant check" system, the "no new machine gun for civilians" ban in 1986, the so-called "assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment.

    Let's face it. What better way to increase membership than to "allow" infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive.

    Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of "compromise" will only lead to one thing...confiscation.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Twinkie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Reg Cæsar

    Where would the NRA be without a constant threat of prohibition? The last thing NRA’s professional staff wants is an end to such things, same as everyone who works in the Welfare State’s Administration depends on poverty for their JOBS.

    It’s just stupid to think that someone whose livelihood depends on something is the right person to coordinate the “fight” to eliminate that something.

    You mention the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, actually) and should recognize first and foremost that once you get people discussing the mere possibility of amending the Constitution to eliminate any of the first ten Amendments, you’ve already lost.

    The bill of rights is a list of prerogatives with which each person is born (endowed by their Creator.) They are NOT some kind of grant from the central State that can be removed if there’s a consensus. The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms is a recognition that the means to defend one’s life, the most precious gift of all, and defend the lives of your loved ones, is not subject to your neighbors’ approval.

    Sadly, Ancient Roman Historian Sallust was correct 2000 years ago when he wrote, “Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master.” Most people are born slaves and they prefer a comfortable slavery (give ’em a recliner, a beer and sportsball evenings and weekends and they’ll cut your stones for the next Pyramid all week long.)

    We’re surrounded by cattle.

    For those squishy on this, go read https://jim.com/cowards.htm

    The Second Amendment (1) is an individual right, same as the First, Fourth and Fifth (and none of the Bill of Rights enumerates a “right” of the state, that’s frankly the argument of a moron) and (2) it CANNOT BE REPEALED. Those who believe otherwise are simply too short for this ride, revealing that they truly do love their servitude and resent those who chafe under shackles.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @dc.sunsets

    You are correct. The Constitution of the united States is a "charter of negative rights" and is a prohibition on government action-NOT the citizenry.

    To wit: "Congress shall make no law...

    In fact, our "rights" are pre-ordained and inherent in our humanity and cannot be abrogated by government.

    Of course, none of this is taught in government schools, hence, most people think that our "rights" come from government.

    "Rights" that emanate from government are merely "permissions", nothing more.

    , @Twodees Partain
    @dc.sunsets

    In regard to your reference to Sallust, here's HL Mencken on the subject:


    "The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." H.L. Mencken

  19. Just anecdotal, but basically anyone I know of any political stripe that has actually gone shooting with someone who knows what they are doing and teach them the basics about safety, aiming, etc. all loved it and have much more moderate views than the standard Dem politician. Not all of them are 2A absolutists or anything like that, but they are to right of the party on gun control laws. This effect seems to cross age and racial boundaries.

  20. This is less than useless without them seeing the light on the homofascist or tranny agendas, or the “diversity” cult, and there isn’t much evidence of that.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  21. @dc.sunsets
    @Joe Stalin

    Yours is the most fantastic of the fantasies I've encountered in years. Maybe we'll discover that of the 10,000 sealed indictments supposedly now in existence, the entire political structure of Chicago and Illinois will be, in one shot, removed to Guantanamo Bay Prison for the rest of their lives.

    I'd just be ecstatic if the ($&$^$^&#$) demons in Springfield/State of IL building would just remove the state's total prohibition on firearm sound suppressors. IL is surrounded by states that have no such prohibitions, and (surprise-surprise) there are no issues.

    Taking a firearm from a typical 165 decibels (truly, incredibly and often permanently-in-part deafening) to 138 decibels (still louder than a pneumatic jack-hammer breaking concrete) would go a long way to reducing the long-term damage recreational shooters do to their hearing just by indulging in their hobby. It would have ZERO effect on crime, only future hearing-aid sales.

    Given Hollywood's contribution to the general public's IDIOCY on this subject, I'd like to take every person (writer, producer, director, actor, etc.) and expose them to the actual sound of real guns that they "portray" in their crap stories. Each and every one of them would be deaf as a post after "one episode's worth" of gunfire.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Joe Stalin

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the “privilege” of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists’ lies that letting them become more widespread will “enable crime” (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I’m a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you’ve no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard…that’s a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    @dc.sunsets

    All true. What astonishes me is how so many men managed to go through combat with all that noise and yet not all of them get major hearing loss. I was in the Air Force during Vietnam so my exposure was to jet engines and I could always wore ear protection. My father in law was an anti aircraft gunner int he Pacific through all of WW2 and he fired thousands of 20mm rounds during the course of practice and in combat. Yet he passed away at almost 100 with perfect hearing. I’ve known ground troops and I’ve asked how they could even function with the sound of being in a battle, surrounded by all those automatic weapons, and even artillery, blasting away. Basically they said you are more focused on the eminent possibility of death and dismemberment, so the incredible racket doesn’t affect you as much.
    Most people have no idea about firearms because they only know the absurdities that Hollywood shows them. I try to take non gun owners shooting and note their reactions. Almost all of them including the liberals are eager to do it because of the fascination and glamor of guns. Reactions:
    1. “Wow, this is really heavy.” Yes, that right, it’s mostly an assembly of solid chunks of steel.
    2. “Holy cow that’s loud!” Yep, Dolby speakers can’t make that kind of shock wave.
    3. “This really kicks my hand/shoulder”. No recoil in Hollywood because no bullets are going out the end of the boomstick.
    4. “It feel like something is smacking me in the face.” That’s called muzzle blast.
    5. “How come the target looks so tiny even through the scope, I can hardly see it.” That’s because real scopes are usually less than 10x. In Hollywood they pretend for cinematic purposes that a scope is 400x so the target’s head fills the sights at 200 yards.
    6. “That was fun, can we go do it again?” Sure but next time you’re paying for half the ammo and range fee.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    , @Twinkie
    @dc.sunsets


    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.
     
    Decibels are logarithmic. Even a few dB reductions matter, which is why I double up on hearing protection and often use suppressed firearms.

    Can’t do anything about sound transmission through bones, unfortunately.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    , @Stealth
    @dc.sunsets

    I have hearing loss, but it's not due to the tens of thousands of pistol rounds I've fired while wearing ear muffs. Trust me, if the noise generated by those .357 mag cartridges had been reduced by only 28 decibels, I wouldn't have been able to shoot. Ditto for all of the other service caliber cartridges I fired. My advice: don't believe everything you hear.

    On that note, .357 is loud. I did have to upgrade ear muffs when I bought my first revolver.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @dc.sunsets


    FTR, I’m a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!
     
    Were* only this ridiculous term the one that finally kills off this nasty fad of "generational" labeling!

    I miss the days before that was "a thing". Like 1981.

    *That's the subjunctive mood, kids. Derb can explain it.

    , @Anon
    @dc.sunsets

    You’re right. Those ear muffs don’t help much.

  22. Attention All Young White Core Americans:

    The Republican Party Is Crawling Into Bed With Gun Grabbers.

    The Republican Party Is Deliberately Killing the Second Amendment By Pushing Mass Legal Immigration And Mass Illegal Immigration.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    @Charles Pewitt

    "The Republican Party Is Crawling Into Bed With Gun Grabbers. "

    Correction: The republican party are the original gungrabbers. South Carolina's strict laws about carrying firearms originated during the military occupation of the defeated southern states euphemistically referred to as Reconstruction.

  23. The Republican Party Wants To Destroy And Make Null And Void The Second Amendment.

    The Republican Party Pushes Mass Legal Immigration And Mass Illegal Immigration.

    White Core America Party Rising!

    Tweets from 2015:

  24. @Twinkie
    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades. Both concealed permit and constitutional carry have proliferated in ways unthinkable in the 70's and 80's America.

    Unsurprisingly, female participation in gun ownership, carry permit holding, and hunting have skyrocketed during the same period.

    If you want to change the society (without force), you have to get women on board. ;)

    I should note, however, that as the country continues to urbanize, gun ownership rates have fallen (even as the number of guns in private ownership has risen dramatically), which suggests that the gun owners of today own A LOT more guns than those of the yester years. This is not a bad thing. A motivated minority beats an apathetic majority most of the time - it's the same way support for entitlements work as benefits are concentrated and costs are diffused.*

    *In the case of firearm ownership, generally benefits are both concentrated and diffused while costs are close to nonexistent for non-criminals... which is why the gun control types latch on to victims of "gun" crimes in order to create their own motivated minority.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @dfordoom

    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades.

    So you’ve effectively lost freedom of speech (freedom of speech today is whatever the media and tech giants and the SJW Thought Police permit you to say). The Culture War is irretrievably lost. The war against immigration is pretty much lost. The endless foreign wars really are endless. Your political system is absurdly corrupt. Your legal rights are being taken away one by one (the presumption of innocence is definitely on the way out).

    But you still have your guns. Doesn’t that suggest something? Doesn’t it suggest that guns really are totally irrelevant? Doesn’t it suggest that the idea that your guns will preserve your liberty is a complete fantasy?

    Those who control your society don’t care hw many guns you have. They have more guns and they have bigger guns. They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so (for those who might think about resisting they can arrange permanent accommodation at Guantanomo Bay). They don’t choose to disarm you because they don’t need to (Americans are willingly and voluntarily giving up all their freedoms anyway). And because they’d prefer you to cling to your delusions.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @dfordoom

    You need to give out painkillers before you post stuff like that. If we can't have our delusions then at least they should allow us to be drugged into numbness.

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Those who control your society don’t care hw many guns you have.
     
    Sadly, that statement is untrue. My state is about to be hit with a flood of new gun laws as the Democrats take charge of the state legislature in the coming year.

    They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security.
     
    Well, we'll see. As Martin van Creveld says, in a long war, the weak beats the strong.

    They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so
     
    If anything lights the match on civil strife in this country, it would be mass confiscation of firearms.

    You can see the rumblings of this already in the nascent "Second Amendment Sanctuary" movement: https://reason.com/2019/11/21/americas-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-is-alive-and-well/
    , @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    All of this waffle about 'the blood of tyrants nourishing the tree of liberty' or whatever is void. The reason is drones.

    If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  25. @Ash Williams
    It's like boomers created a problem for someone else to live in and don't want them to have the necessary tools to clean it up...

    And boomers wonder why zyklons hate them.

    Replies: @216, @Twodees Partain, @MBlanc46, @Ash Williams

    No, it isn’t like any such thing. This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show. Maybe AE posts these polls just to stimulate debate, or maybe to troll certain people who will make retarded statements like the one you just made.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twodees Partain


    This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show.
     
    Agreed. All polls are crafted to get the result that the polling company, or the client, wants. Polls are propaganda, pure and simple.
    , @obwandiyag
    @Twodees Partain

    How you get so schmart!?

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

  26. @Twodees Partain
    @Ash Williams

    No, it isn't like any such thing. This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show. Maybe AE posts these polls just to stimulate debate, or maybe to troll certain people who will make retarded statements like the one you just made.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @obwandiyag

    This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show.

    Agreed. All polls are crafted to get the result that the polling company, or the client, wants. Polls are propaganda, pure and simple.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
  27. @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    All true. What astonishes me is how so many men managed to go through combat with all that noise and yet not all of them get major hearing loss. I was in the Air Force during Vietnam so my exposure was to jet engines and I could always wore ear protection. My father in law was an anti aircraft gunner int he Pacific through all of WW2 and he fired thousands of 20mm rounds during the course of practice and in combat. Yet he passed away at almost 100 with perfect hearing. I’ve known ground troops and I’ve asked how they could even function with the sound of being in a battle, surrounded by all those automatic weapons, and even artillery, blasting away. Basically they said you are more focused on the eminent possibility of death and dismemberment, so the incredible racket doesn’t affect you as much.
    Most people have no idea about firearms because they only know the absurdities that Hollywood shows them. I try to take non gun owners shooting and note their reactions. Almost all of them including the liberals are eager to do it because of the fascination and glamor of guns. Reactions:
    1. “Wow, this is really heavy.” Yes, that right, it’s mostly an assembly of solid chunks of steel.
    2. “Holy cow that’s loud!” Yep, Dolby speakers can’t make that kind of shock wave.
    3. “This really kicks my hand/shoulder”. No recoil in Hollywood because no bullets are going out the end of the boomstick.
    4. “It feel like something is smacking me in the face.” That’s called muzzle blast.
    5. “How come the target looks so tiny even through the scope, I can hardly see it.” That’s because real scopes are usually less than 10x. In Hollywood they pretend for cinematic purposes that a scope is 400x so the target’s head fills the sights at 200 yards.
    6. “That was fun, can we go do it again?” Sure but next time you’re paying for half the ammo and range fee.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Alfa158

    Muzzle blast is what turned me off .357 mags.

    I just never learned to "enjoy" getting slapped in the face by blast or bruised in the shoulder from recoil. Some folks must get their jollies from them, however, given what's sold in stores.

  28. @Twodees Partain
    @Ash Williams

    No, it isn't like any such thing. This is another silly poll conducted by an outfit that will craft a poll to show any result the person or group paying for the poll want it to show. Maybe AE posts these polls just to stimulate debate, or maybe to troll certain people who will make retarded statements like the one you just made.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @obwandiyag

    How you get so schmart!?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    @obwandiyag

    I'm old. We grow too soon old and too late schmardt.

  29. @dc.sunsets
    @Joe Stalin

    Yours is the most fantastic of the fantasies I've encountered in years. Maybe we'll discover that of the 10,000 sealed indictments supposedly now in existence, the entire political structure of Chicago and Illinois will be, in one shot, removed to Guantanamo Bay Prison for the rest of their lives.

    I'd just be ecstatic if the ($&$^$^&#$) demons in Springfield/State of IL building would just remove the state's total prohibition on firearm sound suppressors. IL is surrounded by states that have no such prohibitions, and (surprise-surprise) there are no issues.

    Taking a firearm from a typical 165 decibels (truly, incredibly and often permanently-in-part deafening) to 138 decibels (still louder than a pneumatic jack-hammer breaking concrete) would go a long way to reducing the long-term damage recreational shooters do to their hearing just by indulging in their hobby. It would have ZERO effect on crime, only future hearing-aid sales.

    Given Hollywood's contribution to the general public's IDIOCY on this subject, I'd like to take every person (writer, producer, director, actor, etc.) and expose them to the actual sound of real guns that they "portray" in their crap stories. Each and every one of them would be deaf as a post after "one episode's worth" of gunfire.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Joe Stalin

    For a short period of time in Illinois during (1980s,1990s?) we could actually (in theory) own full-auto weapons (and Class 3 sound suppressors too?).

    What killed that was that Cosmopolitan WBBM-TV (Channel 2 Chicago) Professional Whiner Walter Jacobson had one of his “Commentary” where he showed a full-auto Uzi SMG being fired and said: ‘Oh, the horror, state residents will be able to own machine guns REAL SOON.’

    The Democrat cosmopolitans went into full ‘The Sky is falling!” and got the MG ban repealed. And they also went so far as preventing any MG that was approved by the Feds from being lawfully transferred to residents. I presume the number of such weapons was ZERO and was your standard anti-gun grandstanding in IL.

    In terms of controlling the language, something needs to happen to public radio, where after decades of listening, I have yet to hear a single PRO-GUN story. They appear to be a willing conduit for the roll out of any new gun control phrases.

    The effectiveness of the enemy’s language programming is when you hear about the communists’ “Gun Safety” gun law proposals as closing the AWFUL “loophole” of being able to buy a gun without defacto “Gun Registration” (reporting gun transfers to the government) being used in news reports, so as to enable Gun Confiscation as just what happened in New Zealand.

    Gun Registration is the key to disarmament. That’s why virtually all other countries have that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Joe Stalin

    You know that "Universal Background Checks" are BS when there's no exemption for inter-family transfers (including bequests.)

    "They" want the ability to approve or disapprove your transfer, with the goal of disapproving them all, and then (as you note) they'll use their lists to go house-to-house and ask for them by serial number.

    At least, that's their fantasy. In reality, the number of scofflaws on such things is so high that the REAL goal is to have a hammer they can use (or be magnanimous and not use) to force people who've "broken the law" into political compliance.

    This is actually less about guns than it is (1) pretending Leftist have solutions and (2) adding another felony to "Three Felonies a Day."

    The gun-banners want to create Mexico in the USA, because we know that Mexico's near-total ban on private ownership of guns has worked Oh. So. Well. There. Citizens are far safer in Mexico than, say, New Mexico...right? (Laughs)

    Remember, Comrade, that when you're dependent on those of us in Authority for your protection, if we deem you don't qualify for it, You're On Your Own.

    The ability to withdraw a necessity is a phenomenal means of exercising power. It's the Left's favorite.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  30. @Achmed E. Newman
    Polls are one thing - getting up off one's asses is another.

    Which generations are responsible for this?:

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif

    Replies: @James Bowery

    That is a lot more informative than Audacious’s single state, single time data point, and indicates he needs to address your question.

  31. @dc.sunsets
    @anarchyst

    Where would the NRA be without a constant threat of prohibition? The last thing NRA's professional staff wants is an end to such things, same as everyone who works in the Welfare State's Administration depends on poverty for their JOBS.

    It's just stupid to think that someone whose livelihood depends on something is the right person to coordinate the "fight" to eliminate that something.

    You mention the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, actually) and should recognize first and foremost that once you get people discussing the mere possibility of amending the Constitution to eliminate any of the first ten Amendments, you've already lost.

    The bill of rights is a list of prerogatives with which each person is born (endowed by their Creator.) They are NOT some kind of grant from the central State that can be removed if there's a consensus. The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms is a recognition that the means to defend one's life, the most precious gift of all, and defend the lives of your loved ones, is not subject to your neighbors' approval.

    Sadly, Ancient Roman Historian Sallust was correct 2000 years ago when he wrote, "Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master." Most people are born slaves and they prefer a comfortable slavery (give 'em a recliner, a beer and sportsball evenings and weekends and they'll cut your stones for the next Pyramid all week long.)

    We're surrounded by cattle.

    For those squishy on this, go read https://jim.com/cowards.htm

    The Second Amendment (1) is an individual right, same as the First, Fourth and Fifth (and none of the Bill of Rights enumerates a "right" of the state, that's frankly the argument of a moron) and (2) it CANNOT BE REPEALED. Those who believe otherwise are simply too short for this ride, revealing that they truly do love their servitude and resent those who chafe under shackles.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Twodees Partain

    You are correct. The Constitution of the united States is a “charter of negative rights” and is a prohibition on government action-NOT the citizenry.

    To wit: “Congress shall make no law

    In fact, our “rights” are pre-ordained and inherent in our humanity and cannot be abrogated by government.

    Of course, none of this is taught in government schools, hence, most people think that our “rights” come from government.

    “Rights” that emanate from government are merely “permissions”, nothing more.

  32. @obwandiyag
    @Twodees Partain

    How you get so schmart!?

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

    I’m old. We grow too soon old and too late schmardt.

  33. @anarchyst
    One favored method for mass disarmament of a citizenry is to make high-profile arrests of those who are vocal about their firearms “rights”.

    Another way is to enlist the “help” of the communist “mainstream media” to demonize anyone who has an interest in firearms, allowing the media to be present at “raids” and in general use “loaded” terms such as “arsenals”, “weapons of mass-destruction”, “weapons of war”, “machine guns” and other sensational terms, to inflame the non-knowledgeable public, introducing them to their “unstable” neighbors who are being (illegally and unconstitutionally) raided.

    It’s all about perception, which the left uses to good effect, utilizing tactics from jew communist Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals. The “mainstream media has always been dishonest and against firearms rights.

    High-profile raids will push the firearms owning public underground. Those who choose to “fight back” will be regarded as “terrorists” and “enemies of the state and good order” by the mainstream media, who will fan the flames of hysteria, attempting to get the general public on their side—supporting mass disarmament. If and when they are murdered by “law enforcement” very little, if anything, will be mentioned about the illegality of these “raids”.

    All one has to do is look at how firearms owners are treated presently by the mainstream media-looked upon as “pariahs” and other unstable types.

    The “key” to resistance may be to “cache” your firearms, leaving a few firearms accessible both for protection and as “bait” to “feed” the gun-grabbers if and when the raids come.

    The left is expert at using “incrementalism”, chipping away at rights a little-bit at a time. From arbitrary classification of firearms, declaring certain “features” illegal, to specifying barrel lengths, magazine capacity, to outright banning the production and ownership of newly-manufactured machine guns, the left has been busy.

    There are no easy answers to the situation we are presently in, but surrendering one’s rights is never the answer.

    A good read, “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, about our present situation and possible “solutions” was written in 1995 and is still available in print and as a free pdf. This book is a good reference, history lesson, and comes up with possible solutions to the assault on our freedom.

    This book was considered so volatile when it first came out that sellers were routinely harassed by FBI, ATF, and DEA types for displaying and selling it.

    To quote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

    And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .
    -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    Replies: @peterAUS

    Pretty much.

    The thing, though, is: MOST of the gun owners just don’t think along the lines “resisting tyranny”.

    The reasons for owning a firearm, for MOST, are fun/entertainment/exercise (hunting) and personal self-defense against the criminal element in society. For the rest, it’s a sport. And LARPing, of course. And, some simply like to have it…as having a nice car, boat, etc.
    My LONG personal experience……

    And, most of the useful idiots going for banning also don’t see gun owners as a danger to the system. They mostly see them as dangerous people who can hurt them/their loved ones.

    Besides, a lot of current gun owners would support the current system should SHTF.

    Bottom line, the ..ahm…debate…about the Second feels awkward. Most of the players don’t think along the lines the Founding Fathers thought about it.

  34. @anarchyst
    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.

    The duck hunters don't like the AR-15 "black rifles" so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don't like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.

    You see, anti-gunners want them all.

    They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete.

    They have an excuse for banning every firearm.

    Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as "sniper rifles" because they are "too accurate".

    Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity.

    Handguns are suspect because they are "easily concealable".

    The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don't care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.

    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must "hang together" and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.

    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL...

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Imagine the hue and cry if "reasonable" restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the "mainstream media".

    The Second Amendment is clear--what part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians and the media not understand...of course, they understand full well...it's part of their communist agenda...

    Even the NRA bears responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms.

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS "instant check" system, the "no new machine gun for civilians" ban in 1986, the so-called "assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment.

    Let's face it. What better way to increase membership than to "allow" infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive.

    Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of "compromise" will only lead to one thing...confiscation.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Twinkie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Reg Cæsar

    NRA is a racket and has been for decades. None, I mean absolutely none, of the dues is used for lobbying for gun rights (that’s done by NRA-ILA, the Institute for Legislative Action). Those NRA dues pay for the membership magazines and NRA operating costs, including staff salaries… and, yes, that includes sweetheart deals for Wayne LaPierre and other top leaders, which have been laid bare in the recent scandals.

    If you care about gun rights, join and advocate for your local, grassroots organizations. If your state doesn’t have one, start one.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I'm just sayin'. There's an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke, @anon

  35. @anarchyst
    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.

    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on "looks alone" also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.

    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in "gun-free zones". These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes. They also call "gang members" innocent "children" and count them in "child shootings".

    We need to TAKE BACK the argument...

    --When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: "a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.

    --When the antis attempt to justify their "gun free zones" counter their misguided argument with "you mean, criminal safety zones" or "victim disarmament zones". State that "we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with "gun-free zone" signs".

    --When the antis state that: "you don't need and AR-15", counter with, "Who are YOU to consider what I need?"

    --When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: "you mean the most popular rifle of the day, useable by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot". Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made many converts this way.

    --When the antis state that: "You don't need an AR-15 to hunt with", counter with "AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered".

    --When the antis state that: "AR-15s are high powered rifles", correct them by stating that "AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons--NOT "high-powered" by any means".

    --When the antis state that: "the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to "weapons of that time period", state that: "by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only "town-criers" and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment".

    --When the antis state that "only law enforcement and government should possess firearms", remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where "law enforcement" SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.

    Gun-banners want ALL guns, even if they attempt to get them a little at a time, chipping away at the Second Amendment. Here are the "excuses" that the anti-gun crowd uses to "justify" their misguided position:

    --Handguns--"too concealable"

    --Rifles--"too accurate"

    --Shotguns--"too deadly"

    The Second Amendment is the most "infringed" of any part of the Constitution.

    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    correct them

    Don’t bother arguing with anti’s. It’s a waste of time. Introduce guns to as many people as possible. Join and volunteer for grassroots gun rights orgs. Make pols who oppose pay. Believe or not, a flood of calls, letters, emails, and demonstrators outside do affect elected officials.

  36. @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    Decibels are logarithmic. Even a few dB reductions matter, which is why I double up on hearing protection and often use suppressed firearms.

    Can’t do anything about sound transmission through bones, unfortunately.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    @Twinkie

    I double-up, too. But all it took for me was three exposures to the full report and I have serious tinnitus.

    I envy your access to suppressors. My state is the worst in the nation on So. Many. Levels. Only sound reduction on the gun can address transmission of sound through bones (obviously by reducing what gets to the face/skull in the first place.)

    Firearm sound suppressors should NEVER have been added to GCA 1934. It was pure stupidity (not that this is remotely unusual in Congress.)

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Twinkie

  37. @Alfa158
    @dc.sunsets

    All true. What astonishes me is how so many men managed to go through combat with all that noise and yet not all of them get major hearing loss. I was in the Air Force during Vietnam so my exposure was to jet engines and I could always wore ear protection. My father in law was an anti aircraft gunner int he Pacific through all of WW2 and he fired thousands of 20mm rounds during the course of practice and in combat. Yet he passed away at almost 100 with perfect hearing. I’ve known ground troops and I’ve asked how they could even function with the sound of being in a battle, surrounded by all those automatic weapons, and even artillery, blasting away. Basically they said you are more focused on the eminent possibility of death and dismemberment, so the incredible racket doesn’t affect you as much.
    Most people have no idea about firearms because they only know the absurdities that Hollywood shows them. I try to take non gun owners shooting and note their reactions. Almost all of them including the liberals are eager to do it because of the fascination and glamor of guns. Reactions:
    1. “Wow, this is really heavy.” Yes, that right, it’s mostly an assembly of solid chunks of steel.
    2. “Holy cow that’s loud!” Yep, Dolby speakers can’t make that kind of shock wave.
    3. “This really kicks my hand/shoulder”. No recoil in Hollywood because no bullets are going out the end of the boomstick.
    4. “It feel like something is smacking me in the face.” That’s called muzzle blast.
    5. “How come the target looks so tiny even through the scope, I can hardly see it.” That’s because real scopes are usually less than 10x. In Hollywood they pretend for cinematic purposes that a scope is 400x so the target’s head fills the sights at 200 yards.
    6. “That was fun, can we go do it again?” Sure but next time you’re paying for half the ammo and range fee.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    Muzzle blast is what turned me off .357 mags.

    I just never learned to “enjoy” getting slapped in the face by blast or bruised in the shoulder from recoil. Some folks must get their jollies from them, however, given what’s sold in stores.

  38. @Twinkie
    @dc.sunsets


    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.
     
    Decibels are logarithmic. Even a few dB reductions matter, which is why I double up on hearing protection and often use suppressed firearms.

    Can’t do anything about sound transmission through bones, unfortunately.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    I double-up, too. But all it took for me was three exposures to the full report and I have serious tinnitus.

    I envy your access to suppressors. My state is the worst in the nation on So. Many. Levels. Only sound reduction on the gun can address transmission of sound through bones (obviously by reducing what gets to the face/skull in the first place.)

    Firearm sound suppressors should NEVER have been added to GCA 1934. It was pure stupidity (not that this is remotely unusual in Congress.)

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @dc.sunsets


    Decibels are logarithmic. Even a few dB reductions matter, which is why I double up on hearing protection and often use suppressed firearms.
     
    Every little helps.
    , @Twinkie
    @dc.sunsets


    I envy your access to suppressors.
     
    Well, those days are numbered for my state.

    I already have significant hearing damage, so I’d like to keep what little I have left. Hearing damage is cumulative, and there is no recovery.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  39. @Joe Stalin
    @dc.sunsets

    For a short period of time in Illinois during (1980s,1990s?) we could actually (in theory) own full-auto weapons (and Class 3 sound suppressors too?).

    What killed that was that Cosmopolitan WBBM-TV (Channel 2 Chicago) Professional Whiner Walter Jacobson had one of his "Commentary" where he showed a full-auto Uzi SMG being fired and said: 'Oh, the horror, state residents will be able to own machine guns REAL SOON.'

    The Democrat cosmopolitans went into full 'The Sky is falling!" and got the MG ban repealed. And they also went so far as preventing any MG that was approved by the Feds from being lawfully transferred to residents. I presume the number of such weapons was ZERO and was your standard anti-gun grandstanding in IL.

    In terms of controlling the language, something needs to happen to public radio, where after decades of listening, I have yet to hear a single PRO-GUN story. They appear to be a willing conduit for the roll out of any new gun control phrases.

    The effectiveness of the enemy's language programming is when you hear about the communists' "Gun Safety" gun law proposals as closing the AWFUL "loophole" of being able to buy a gun without defacto "Gun Registration" (reporting gun transfers to the government) being used in news reports, so as to enable Gun Confiscation as just what happened in New Zealand.

    Gun Registration is the key to disarmament. That's why virtually all other countries have that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwQ4QUGOmfs

    Replies: @dc.sunsets

    You know that “Universal Background Checks” are BS when there’s no exemption for inter-family transfers (including bequests.)

    “They” want the ability to approve or disapprove your transfer, with the goal of disapproving them all, and then (as you note) they’ll use their lists to go house-to-house and ask for them by serial number.

    At least, that’s their fantasy. In reality, the number of scofflaws on such things is so high that the REAL goal is to have a hammer they can use (or be magnanimous and not use) to force people who’ve “broken the law” into political compliance.

    This is actually less about guns than it is (1) pretending Leftist have solutions and (2) adding another felony to “Three Felonies a Day.”

    The gun-banners want to create Mexico in the USA, because we know that Mexico’s near-total ban on private ownership of guns has worked Oh. So. Well. There. Citizens are far safer in Mexico than, say, New Mexico…right? (Laughs)

    Remember, Comrade, that when you’re dependent on those of us in Authority for your protection, if we deem you don’t qualify for it, You’re On Your Own.

    The ability to withdraw a necessity is a phenomenal means of exercising power. It’s the Left’s favorite.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @dc.sunsets

    "Remember, Comrade, that when you’re dependent on those of us in Authority for your protection, if we deem you don’t qualify for it, You’re On Your Own."

    Indeed, you have described THE reason for the existence of the 14Th Amendment:


    B. The Civil Rights Act of 1866

    After the war was concluded, the slave codes, which limited access of blacks to land, to arms,
    and to the courts, began to reappear in the form of the black codes,116 and United States legislators
    turned their attention to the protection of the freedmen. In support of Senate Bill No. 9, which
    declared as void all laws in the rebel states which recognized inequality of rights based on race,
    Senator Henry Wilson (R., Mass.) explained in part: "In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who
    were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages on them...."117

    When Congress took Senate Bill No. 61, which became the Civil Rights Act of 1866,118
    Senator Lyman Trumbull (R., Ill.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated that the
    bill was intended to prohibit inequalities embodied in the black codes, including those provisions
    which "prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms."119 In abolishing the badges of slavery, the bill would enforce fundamental rights against racial discrimination in respect to civil rights, the rights to contract, to sue and engage in commerce, and equal criminal penalties. Senator William Saulsbury (D., Del.) added:(pg.22)

    In my State for many years, and I presume there are similar laws in most of the southern
    States, there has existed a law of the State based upon and founded in its police power,which declares that free negros shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition.
    This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power....120

    The Delaware Democrat therefore, opposed the bill contending that if a time should come when "a
    numerous body of dangerous persons belonging to any distinct race" endangered the state, "the State [would] not have the power to disarm them without disarming the whole population."121 Thus, the bill would have prohibited legislative schemes which in effect disarmed blacks but not whites. Still, supporters of the bill were soon to contend that arms bearing was a basic right of citizenship and personhood.

    In the meantime, the legislators turned their attention to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill.
    Representative Thomas D. Eliot (R., Mass.) attacked an Opelousas, Louisiana ordinance which
    deprived blacks of various civil rights by including the following provision: "No freedman who is
    not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the
    limits of the town of Opelousas without the special permission of his employer ... and approved by
    the mayor or president of the board of police."122 And Representative Josiah B. Grinnell (R., Iowa)
    complained: "A white man in Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black man buys a gun he forfeits it and
    pays a fine of five dollars, if presuming to keep in his possession a musket which he has carried
    through the war."123 Yet the right of blacks to have arms existed partly as self defense against the
    state militia itself, which implied that militia needs were not the only constitutional basis for the right to bear arms. Senator Trumbull cited a report from Vicksburg, Mississippi which stated: "Nearly all the dissatisfaction that now exists among the freedmen is caused by the abusive conduct of this militia."124 Rather than restore order, the militia would typically "hang some freedman or search negro houses for arms."125

    https://www.azcdl.org/Halbrook_TheJurisprudenceoTheSecondandFourteenthAmdts.pdf
     
  40. 🎶
    A town in Georgia’s got a law on the books,
    Says if we all got guns, then we won’t have crooks ….
    🎶

  41. @dc.sunsets
    @Twinkie

    I double-up, too. But all it took for me was three exposures to the full report and I have serious tinnitus.

    I envy your access to suppressors. My state is the worst in the nation on So. Many. Levels. Only sound reduction on the gun can address transmission of sound through bones (obviously by reducing what gets to the face/skull in the first place.)

    Firearm sound suppressors should NEVER have been added to GCA 1934. It was pure stupidity (not that this is remotely unusual in Congress.)

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Twinkie

    Decibels are logarithmic. Even a few dB reductions matter, which is why I double up on hearing protection and often use suppressed firearms.

    Every little helps.

  42. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades.
     
    So you've effectively lost freedom of speech (freedom of speech today is whatever the media and tech giants and the SJW Thought Police permit you to say). The Culture War is irretrievably lost. The war against immigration is pretty much lost. The endless foreign wars really are endless. Your political system is absurdly corrupt. Your legal rights are being taken away one by one (the presumption of innocence is definitely on the way out).

    But you still have your guns. Doesn't that suggest something? Doesn't it suggest that guns really are totally irrelevant? Doesn't it suggest that the idea that your guns will preserve your liberty is a complete fantasy?

    Those who control your society don't care hw many guns you have. They have more guns and they have bigger guns. They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so (for those who might think about resisting they can arrange permanent accommodation at Guantanomo Bay). They don't choose to disarm you because they don't need to (Americans are willingly and voluntarily giving up all their freedoms anyway). And because they'd prefer you to cling to your delusions.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Twinkie, @Nodwink

    You need to give out painkillers before you post stuff like that. If we can’t have our delusions then at least they should allow us to be drugged into numbness.

  43. @WHAT
    CoD is about the only place where zoomers actually have guns.

    Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Twodees Partain

    Maybe where you live.

  44. @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    I have hearing loss, but it’s not due to the tens of thousands of pistol rounds I’ve fired while wearing ear muffs. Trust me, if the noise generated by those .357 mag cartridges had been reduced by only 28 decibels, I wouldn’t have been able to shoot. Ditto for all of the other service caliber cartridges I fired. My advice: don’t believe everything you hear.

    On that note, .357 is loud. I did have to upgrade ear muffs when I bought my first revolver.

  45. @Ash Williams
    It's like boomers created a problem for someone else to live in and don't want them to have the necessary tools to clean it up...

    And boomers wonder why zyklons hate them.

    Replies: @216, @Twodees Partain, @MBlanc46, @Ash Williams

    We don’t give a bleep. And the hatred is reciprocated.

  46. @dc.sunsets
    @Twinkie

    I double-up, too. But all it took for me was three exposures to the full report and I have serious tinnitus.

    I envy your access to suppressors. My state is the worst in the nation on So. Many. Levels. Only sound reduction on the gun can address transmission of sound through bones (obviously by reducing what gets to the face/skull in the first place.)

    Firearm sound suppressors should NEVER have been added to GCA 1934. It was pure stupidity (not that this is remotely unusual in Congress.)

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Twinkie

    I envy your access to suppressors.

    Well, those days are numbered for my state.

    I already have significant hearing damage, so I’d like to keep what little I have left. Hearing damage is cumulative, and there is no recovery.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Twinkie


    I already have significant hearing damage, so I’d like to keep what little I have left. Hearing damage is cumulative, and there is no recovery.
     
    Is it practical to wear hearing protection while out on maneuvers or patrol? I'm referring to ear plugs.
  47. @anarchyst
    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.

    The duck hunters don't like the AR-15 "black rifles" so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don't like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.

    You see, anti-gunners want them all.

    They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete.

    They have an excuse for banning every firearm.

    Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as "sniper rifles" because they are "too accurate".

    Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity.

    Handguns are suspect because they are "easily concealable".

    The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don't care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.

    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must "hang together" and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.

    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL...

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Imagine the hue and cry if "reasonable" restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the "mainstream media".

    The Second Amendment is clear--what part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians and the media not understand...of course, they understand full well...it's part of their communist agenda...

    Even the NRA bears responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms.

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS "instant check" system, the "no new machine gun for civilians" ban in 1986, the so-called "assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment.

    Let's face it. What better way to increase membership than to "allow" infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive.

    Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of "compromise" will only lead to one thing...confiscation.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Twinkie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Reg Cæsar

    “The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. ”

    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.

    The rest of your comment is well stated. The country’s “oldest civil rights organization” is mostly a cash vacuum.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.
     
    Agreed. Most gun owners I know are pretty pro-gun across the board even if they don't own certain types of firearms or participate in some of the related activities. All the "duck hunters" I know have AR-15-type or similar rifles as well. Then again, perhaps that is selection bias in my case. My social circle is quite gun-nutty. ;)

    Replies: @anarchyst

  48. @dc.sunsets
    @Joe Stalin

    You know that "Universal Background Checks" are BS when there's no exemption for inter-family transfers (including bequests.)

    "They" want the ability to approve or disapprove your transfer, with the goal of disapproving them all, and then (as you note) they'll use their lists to go house-to-house and ask for them by serial number.

    At least, that's their fantasy. In reality, the number of scofflaws on such things is so high that the REAL goal is to have a hammer they can use (or be magnanimous and not use) to force people who've "broken the law" into political compliance.

    This is actually less about guns than it is (1) pretending Leftist have solutions and (2) adding another felony to "Three Felonies a Day."

    The gun-banners want to create Mexico in the USA, because we know that Mexico's near-total ban on private ownership of guns has worked Oh. So. Well. There. Citizens are far safer in Mexico than, say, New Mexico...right? (Laughs)

    Remember, Comrade, that when you're dependent on those of us in Authority for your protection, if we deem you don't qualify for it, You're On Your Own.

    The ability to withdraw a necessity is a phenomenal means of exercising power. It's the Left's favorite.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    “Remember, Comrade, that when you’re dependent on those of us in Authority for your protection, if we deem you don’t qualify for it, You’re On Your Own.”

    Indeed, you have described THE reason for the existence of the 14Th Amendment:

    B. The Civil Rights Act of 1866

    After the war was concluded, the slave codes, which limited access of blacks to land, to arms,
    and to the courts, began to reappear in the form of the black codes,116 and United States legislators
    turned their attention to the protection of the freedmen. In support of Senate Bill No. 9, which
    declared as void all laws in the rebel states which recognized inequality of rights based on race,
    Senator Henry Wilson (R., Mass.) explained in part: “In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who
    were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages on them….”117

    When Congress took Senate Bill No. 61, which became the Civil Rights Act of 1866,118
    Senator Lyman Trumbull (R., Ill.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated that the
    bill was intended to prohibit inequalities embodied in the black codes, including those provisions
    which “prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.”119 In abolishing the badges of slavery, the bill would enforce fundamental rights against racial discrimination in respect to civil rights, the rights to contract, to sue and engage in commerce, and equal criminal penalties. Senator William Saulsbury (D., Del.) added:(pg.22)

    In my State for many years, and I presume there are similar laws in most of the southern
    States, there has existed a law of the State based upon and founded in its police power,which declares that free negros shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition.
    This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power….120

    The Delaware Democrat therefore, opposed the bill contending that if a time should come when “a
    numerous body of dangerous persons belonging to any distinct race” endangered the state, “the State [would] not have the power to disarm them without disarming the whole population.”121 Thus, the bill would have prohibited legislative schemes which in effect disarmed blacks but not whites. Still, supporters of the bill were soon to contend that arms bearing was a basic right of citizenship and personhood.

    In the meantime, the legislators turned their attention to the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill.
    Representative Thomas D. Eliot (R., Mass.) attacked an Opelousas, Louisiana ordinance which
    deprived blacks of various civil rights by including the following provision: “No freedman who is
    not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the
    limits of the town of Opelousas without the special permission of his employer … and approved by
    the mayor or president of the board of police.”122 And Representative Josiah B. Grinnell (R., Iowa)
    complained: “A white man in Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black man buys a gun he forfeits it and
    pays a fine of five dollars, if presuming to keep in his possession a musket which he has carried
    through the war.”123 Yet the right of blacks to have arms existed partly as self defense against the
    state militia itself, which implied that militia needs were not the only constitutional basis for the right to bear arms. Senator Trumbull cited a report from Vicksburg, Mississippi which stated: “Nearly all the dissatisfaction that now exists among the freedmen is caused by the abusive conduct of this militia.”124 Rather than restore order, the militia would typically “hang some freedman or search negro houses for arms.”125

    https://www.azcdl.org/Halbrook_TheJurisprudenceoTheSecondandFourteenthAmdts.pdf

  49. @Twinkie
    @anarchyst

    NRA is a racket and has been for decades. None, I mean absolutely none, of the dues is used for lobbying for gun rights (that’s done by NRA-ILA, the Institute for Legislative Action). Those NRA dues pay for the membership magazines and NRA operating costs, including staff salaries... and, yes, that includes sweetheart deals for Wayne LaPierre and other top leaders, which have been laid bare in the recent scandals.

    If you care about gun rights, join and advocate for your local, grassroots organizations. If your state doesn’t have one, start one.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I’m just sayin’. There’s an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @obwandiyag

    "And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers."

    Really? Not according to Wikipedia, a lefty source.


    In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,[214] with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.[215] Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[200][215][216]

    Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[200][215][216][217] From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[215] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[217] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. In a similar program, gun buyers and participating stores are invited to "round up" the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA's 2010 tax forms, the "round-up" funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.[200]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
     

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    , @Twinkie
    @obwandiyag


    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.
     
    No. It's not grassroots, but access-based organization, but the membership dues and donations finance the organization. "International arms dealers" - whatever that means - have nothing to do with it (unless you mean firearms manufacturers with transnational presence such as Beretta, et al.).

    By the way, ignorant people often accuse the NRA of fronting for gun manufacturers, but the latter have their own industry group in the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.
     
    Firearms manufacturing is not a high margin industry.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    , @Johann Ricke
    @obwandiyag


    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.
     
    A good number of gun makers are publicly-traded. Guns are durable products that can literally last centuries, depending on the amount of use they get. They have really lousy margins, and profits vary greatly from year to year.

    Hollywood comes up with all kinds of tropes that are untrue because that's what the audience expects, including the superfluous racking of pistol and shotgun slides. Even the war profiteering stuff is untrue. If you can make a buck selling weaponry during wartime, you can make a buck selling food, clothing, etc, because all will be in short supply. And there's no R&D expense involved in food or clothing, and no new machine tools needed.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    , @anon
    @obwandiyag

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    Lol. NRA's finances are no secret. You don't know what you are writing about.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Between the local, state and federal governments there are over 20,000 "gun control" laws in the US. Your ignorance is both wide and amazingly deep.

  50. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I'm just sayin'. There's an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke, @anon

    “And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.”

    Really? Not according to Wikipedia, a lefty source.

    In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,[214] with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.[215] Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[200][215][216]

    Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[200][215][216][217] From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[215] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[217] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. In a similar program, gun buyers and participating stores are invited to “round up” the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA’s 2010 tax forms, the “round-up” funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.[200]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Joe Stalin

    Really. You're Wikipediaing me. Gee, you must be really smart. You went, and looked on Wikipedia, and then figured out how to copy and paste. All on your lonesome. Good boy!

    Are you kidding? You've got to be kidding. You quote me Wikipedia.

    Here is an unfortunate truth, though, honey-boy. Wikipedia lies. Even when it tells the truth.

    And lack of gun control helps international arms dealers. Anyone who thinks differently can't add 2 + 2.

  51. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades.
     
    So you've effectively lost freedom of speech (freedom of speech today is whatever the media and tech giants and the SJW Thought Police permit you to say). The Culture War is irretrievably lost. The war against immigration is pretty much lost. The endless foreign wars really are endless. Your political system is absurdly corrupt. Your legal rights are being taken away one by one (the presumption of innocence is definitely on the way out).

    But you still have your guns. Doesn't that suggest something? Doesn't it suggest that guns really are totally irrelevant? Doesn't it suggest that the idea that your guns will preserve your liberty is a complete fantasy?

    Those who control your society don't care hw many guns you have. They have more guns and they have bigger guns. They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so (for those who might think about resisting they can arrange permanent accommodation at Guantanomo Bay). They don't choose to disarm you because they don't need to (Americans are willingly and voluntarily giving up all their freedoms anyway). And because they'd prefer you to cling to your delusions.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Twinkie, @Nodwink

    Those who control your society don’t care hw many guns you have.

    Sadly, that statement is untrue. My state is about to be hit with a flood of new gun laws as the Democrats take charge of the state legislature in the coming year.

    They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security.

    Well, we’ll see. As Martin van Creveld says, in a long war, the weak beats the strong.

    They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so

    If anything lights the match on civil strife in this country, it would be mass confiscation of firearms.

    You can see the rumblings of this already in the nascent “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement: https://reason.com/2019/11/21/americas-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement-is-alive-and-well/

  52. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I'm just sayin'. There's an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke, @anon

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    No. It’s not grassroots, but access-based organization, but the membership dues and donations finance the organization. “International arms dealers” – whatever that means – have nothing to do with it (unless you mean firearms manufacturers with transnational presence such as Beretta, et al.).

    By the way, ignorant people often accuse the NRA of fronting for gun manufacturers, but the latter have their own industry group in the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Firearms manufacturing is not a high margin industry.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    My god, you must watch Fox News. You are THAT stupid.

    You just quote the talking points hook-line-sinker. Sad.

    For your information, if your little weenie brain can comprehend it, which I doubt, I said "International Arms Dealers". Not "firearms manufacturers." God you people are stupid.

    And btw, neither you nor anyone on here knows anything about the funding of any organization.

    I can't believe how many of you gullible gumps just believe things because you "looked them up."

    I believe that's about 4th-grade level. Go for it. Graduate to 5th grade. Get your mom to do your homework for you. Give teacher an apple. You can do it. Maybe not with brains, but with regurgitating all the proper talking points, I think you got a future.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @Twinkie

  53. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @anarchyst

    "The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. "

    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.

    The rest of your comment is well stated. The country's "oldest civil rights organization" is mostly a cash vacuum.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.

    Agreed. Most gun owners I know are pretty pro-gun across the board even if they don’t own certain types of firearms or participate in some of the related activities. All the “duck hunters” I know have AR-15-type or similar rifles as well. Then again, perhaps that is selection bias in my case. My social circle is quite gun-nutty. 😉

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Twinkie

    Yes, I know many gun owners who are protective of their own ideas on firearms and do not care if firearms outside their sphere of interest are banned.
    Many of them think that "giving up a few rights" are OK just as long as no one touches their "duck gun" or other "non-AR-15 style rifle".
    Yes, to our detriment, they are out there...

  54. CoD beats Hogg.

    That kid has been tweeting since the age of twelve?

    You know he drove to school that morning? And cars kill far more children than guns?

  55. @anarchyst
    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.

    The duck hunters don't like the AR-15 "black rifles" so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.

    The traditional rifle owners don't like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.

    Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.

    You see, anti-gunners want them all.

    They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete.

    They have an excuse for banning every firearm.

    Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as "sniper rifles" because they are "too accurate".

    Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity.

    Handguns are suspect because they are "easily concealable".

    The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don't care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.

    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must "hang together" and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.

    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL...

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Imagine the hue and cry if "reasonable" restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the "mainstream media".

    The Second Amendment is clear--what part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians and the media not understand...of course, they understand full well...it's part of their communist agenda...

    Even the NRA bears responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms.

    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS "instant check" system, the "no new machine gun for civilians" ban in 1986, the so-called "assault weapons” ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment.

    Let's face it. What better way to increase membership than to "allow" infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive.

    Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of "compromise" will only lead to one thing...confiscation.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Twinkie, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Reg Cæsar

    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.

    Even these?

    That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

    North Carolina, 1840

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.

    Georgia, 1833

    No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead; and any free negro or mulatto who shall so offend, shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, forfeit all such arms and ammunition to the use of the informer; and shall moreover be punished with stripes, at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

    Commonwealth of Virginia, 1832

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes.

    , @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes it is, Boomer.

    Now, maybe if I were writing the constitution I would create separate laws for Europeans and negroes. But the way the law currently stands, those laws are unconstitutional.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  56. @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    FTR, I’m a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    Were* only this ridiculous term the one that finally kills off this nasty fad of “generational” labeling!

    I miss the days before that was “a thing”. Like 1981.

    *That’s the subjunctive mood, kids. Derb can explain it.

  57. @Twinkie
    @dc.sunsets


    I envy your access to suppressors.
     
    Well, those days are numbered for my state.

    I already have significant hearing damage, so I’d like to keep what little I have left. Hearing damage is cumulative, and there is no recovery.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I already have significant hearing damage, so I’d like to keep what little I have left. Hearing damage is cumulative, and there is no recovery.

    Is it practical to wear hearing protection while out on maneuvers or patrol? I’m referring to ear plugs.

  58. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I'm just sayin'. There's an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke, @anon

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    A good number of gun makers are publicly-traded. Guns are durable products that can literally last centuries, depending on the amount of use they get. They have really lousy margins, and profits vary greatly from year to year.

    Hollywood comes up with all kinds of tropes that are untrue because that’s what the audience expects, including the superfluous racking of pistol and shotgun slides. Even the war profiteering stuff is untrue. If you can make a buck selling weaponry during wartime, you can make a buck selling food, clothing, etc, because all will be in short supply. And there’s no R&D expense involved in food or clothing, and no new machine tools needed.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @Johann Ricke

    You lower-class nit-picky pedant nitwit.

    International arms dealers, I hate to tell ya, ain't "gun makers" by a long shot.

    Please. Don't share off-topic information just to show off your sophomoric Wikipedia abilities. It does not become you.

  59. @Twinkie
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    Uh, care to qualify this premise? Because the assertion is about as wild as I have seen anywhere.
     
    Agreed. Most gun owners I know are pretty pro-gun across the board even if they don't own certain types of firearms or participate in some of the related activities. All the "duck hunters" I know have AR-15-type or similar rifles as well. Then again, perhaps that is selection bias in my case. My social circle is quite gun-nutty. ;)

    Replies: @anarchyst

    Yes, I know many gun owners who are protective of their own ideas on firearms and do not care if firearms outside their sphere of interest are banned.
    Many of them think that “giving up a few rights” are OK just as long as no one touches their “duck gun” or other “non-AR-15 style rifle”.
    Yes, to our detriment, they are out there…

  60. @Reg Cæsar
    @anarchyst


    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.
     
    Even these?

    That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

    North Carolina, 1840

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.

    Georgia, 1833

    No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead; and any free negro or mulatto who shall so offend, shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, forfeit all such arms and ammunition to the use of the informer; and shall moreover be punished with stripes, at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

    Commonwealth of Virginia, 1832
     

    Replies: @anarchyst, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Yes.

  61. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Sentiment against gun control is the ONE thing that has gone right in the last several decades.
     
    So you've effectively lost freedom of speech (freedom of speech today is whatever the media and tech giants and the SJW Thought Police permit you to say). The Culture War is irretrievably lost. The war against immigration is pretty much lost. The endless foreign wars really are endless. Your political system is absurdly corrupt. Your legal rights are being taken away one by one (the presumption of innocence is definitely on the way out).

    But you still have your guns. Doesn't that suggest something? Doesn't it suggest that guns really are totally irrelevant? Doesn't it suggest that the idea that your guns will preserve your liberty is a complete fantasy?

    Those who control your society don't care hw many guns you have. They have more guns and they have bigger guns. They have attack helicopters and drones and satellite surveillance. They have the police the military, the CIA, the FBI and Homeland Security. They could disarm you at any time if they chose to do so (for those who might think about resisting they can arrange permanent accommodation at Guantanomo Bay). They don't choose to disarm you because they don't need to (Americans are willingly and voluntarily giving up all their freedoms anyway). And because they'd prefer you to cling to your delusions.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Twinkie, @Nodwink

    All of this waffle about ‘the blood of tyrants nourishing the tree of liberty’ or whatever is void. The reason is drones.

    If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Nodwink

    "If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike."

    As historian Clayton Cramer states: 'If you are the only one to show up for the Revolution, you've made a big mistake.'

    Ever hear of the "Convoy System?" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy )

    In Operations Research of the convoy system of shipping in WWII, it was calculated that the enemy has only so much capability to engage you in the time of exposure, so you would loose less tonnage if you traveled in packs.

    So if a large group of "anyone" started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.

    And what is marijuana legalization by individual States if not Rebellion against the US government? Has the USG used any drones against IL Gov. Pritzker, not that I would shed any tears...

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

  62. If there is one ‘wedge issue’ I am not going to worry about it is gun control, at least at the Federal Level. Whose going to enforce it? The FBI? Those clowns couldn’t disarm Omar Marteen or Nikolas Cruz when their terrorist intentions were publicly declared and citizens had tipped the G-men off beforehand. Getting a search warrant is going to require more than a record of a citizen having bought a firearm from Walmart in 2014!

    Banning ammo sales might work but that would require making ALL firearms illegal which isn’t going to happen in a country where over 3 million deer are harvested annually to say nothing of feral pigs, elk, bear and varmints. Besides a box of ammo sitting in a desk drawer lasts forever.

  63. @Joe Stalin
    @obwandiyag

    "And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers."

    Really? Not according to Wikipedia, a lefty source.


    In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,[214] with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.[215] Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising.[200][215][216]

    Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[200][215][216][217] From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[215] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[217] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. In a similar program, gun buyers and participating stores are invited to "round up" the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA's 2010 tax forms, the "round-up" funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.[200]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
     

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    Really. You’re Wikipediaing me. Gee, you must be really smart. You went, and looked on Wikipedia, and then figured out how to copy and paste. All on your lonesome. Good boy!

    Are you kidding? You’ve got to be kidding. You quote me Wikipedia.

    Here is an unfortunate truth, though, honey-boy. Wikipedia lies. Even when it tells the truth.

    And lack of gun control helps international arms dealers. Anyone who thinks differently can’t add 2 + 2.

  64. @Johann Ricke
    @obwandiyag


    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.
     
    A good number of gun makers are publicly-traded. Guns are durable products that can literally last centuries, depending on the amount of use they get. They have really lousy margins, and profits vary greatly from year to year.

    Hollywood comes up with all kinds of tropes that are untrue because that's what the audience expects, including the superfluous racking of pistol and shotgun slides. Even the war profiteering stuff is untrue. If you can make a buck selling weaponry during wartime, you can make a buck selling food, clothing, etc, because all will be in short supply. And there's no R&D expense involved in food or clothing, and no new machine tools needed.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    You lower-class nit-picky pedant nitwit.

    International arms dealers, I hate to tell ya, ain’t “gun makers” by a long shot.

    Please. Don’t share off-topic information just to show off your sophomoric Wikipedia abilities. It does not become you.

    • Troll: Twinkie, dc.sunsets
  65. @Twinkie
    @obwandiyag


    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.
     
    No. It's not grassroots, but access-based organization, but the membership dues and donations finance the organization. "International arms dealers" - whatever that means - have nothing to do with it (unless you mean firearms manufacturers with transnational presence such as Beretta, et al.).

    By the way, ignorant people often accuse the NRA of fronting for gun manufacturers, but the latter have their own industry group in the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.
     
    Firearms manufacturing is not a high margin industry.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    My god, you must watch Fox News. You are THAT stupid.

    You just quote the talking points hook-line-sinker. Sad.

    For your information, if your little weenie brain can comprehend it, which I doubt, I said “International Arms Dealers”. Not “firearms manufacturers.” God you people are stupid.

    And btw, neither you nor anyone on here knows anything about the funding of any organization.

    I can’t believe how many of you gullible gumps just believe things because you “looked them up.”

    I believe that’s about 4th-grade level. Go for it. Graduate to 5th grade. Get your mom to do your homework for you. Give teacher an apple. You can do it. Maybe not with brains, but with regurgitating all the proper talking points, I think you got a future.

    • Troll: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @obwandiyag

    Bring some numbers aka "facts" will you on "International Arms Dealers" you allude to as the BIG money behind the NRA.

    Otherwise, you got NOTHING to back your rhetorical claims.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @obwandiyag

    Right, so maybe you could explain to us precisely HOW the ability of American citizens to procure domestic firearms and accessories legally is essential to "International arms dealers", you dumbass.

    , @Twinkie
    @obwandiyag

    Stop wasting everyone’s time with ad hominem.

  66. @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    All of this waffle about 'the blood of tyrants nourishing the tree of liberty' or whatever is void. The reason is drones.

    If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    “If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike.”

    As historian Clayton Cramer states: ‘If you are the only one to show up for the Revolution, you’ve made a big mistake.’

    Ever hear of the “Convoy System?” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy )

    In Operations Research of the convoy system of shipping in WWII, it was calculated that the enemy has only so much capability to engage you in the time of exposure, so you would loose less tonnage if you traveled in packs.

    So if a large group of “anyone” started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.

    And what is marijuana legalization by individual States if not Rebellion against the US government? Has the USG used any drones against IL Gov. Pritzker, not that I would shed any tears…

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    You appear to be an experienced guy re this/similar topic(s).
    So....you do know I am sure that you will always...ALWAYS....lose any argument/debate in public. No exceptions.

    You do know the reason too: sooner or later you'll be compelled to say/write something that would either land you in prison or/and you'd, essentially, give some ideas to some people you, I am sure, don't like much.

    As soon as somebody says "they have big guns and you don't" you can't continue. Two...TWO...elements in your favor you shouldn't state in public. Probably even FOUR.
    I guess you know what those are............

    Which points to something else: either you are ...ahm...debating with, say, a person with restricted mental faculties, or, somebody who is looking to make your life difficult.

    Either case, not a good use of one's time/energy.

    My 2 cents.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    , @dfordoom
    @Joe Stalin


    So if a large group of “anyone” started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.
     
    What a lot of people here don't seem to understand is that TPTB want an insurgency. It would take them a few hours at the most to crush it and then they'd have the excuse for a crackdown on a scale you can't even imagine. They could round up all their enemies, peaceful and not-so-peaceful, and they'd have the perfect excuse (a "national emergency") to confine them all indefinitely without trial. Every single dissident, including the most moderate ones, would be caught up in the roundup. Every single dissident website would be shut down. In a "national emergency" nobody is going to bother about the First Amendment.

    Talk of insurgency is stupid and reckless. It's what your enemies want you to do. And it's a near-certainty that a good number of those promoting the insurgency and Civil War 2.0 and secession ideas are FBI agents provocateurs.

    If you have any brains you don't fight the battle that your enemy wants you to fight, on ground of his choosing.

    The dissident right truly is worse than useless. Too many keyboard warriors with absurd fantasies who are going to lead everyone else to disaster. Dissident rightists and alt-rightists have made every mistake it is possible to make and they just keep on making more mistakes.

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Anon

  67. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    My god, you must watch Fox News. You are THAT stupid.

    You just quote the talking points hook-line-sinker. Sad.

    For your information, if your little weenie brain can comprehend it, which I doubt, I said "International Arms Dealers". Not "firearms manufacturers." God you people are stupid.

    And btw, neither you nor anyone on here knows anything about the funding of any organization.

    I can't believe how many of you gullible gumps just believe things because you "looked them up."

    I believe that's about 4th-grade level. Go for it. Graduate to 5th grade. Get your mom to do your homework for you. Give teacher an apple. You can do it. Maybe not with brains, but with regurgitating all the proper talking points, I think you got a future.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @Twinkie

    Bring some numbers aka “facts” will you on “International Arms Dealers” you allude to as the BIG money behind the NRA.

    Otherwise, you got NOTHING to back your rhetorical claims.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Joe Stalin

    Just put Ol' Windybag on ignore.  All you're doing is feeding the troll.

  68. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    My god, you must watch Fox News. You are THAT stupid.

    You just quote the talking points hook-line-sinker. Sad.

    For your information, if your little weenie brain can comprehend it, which I doubt, I said "International Arms Dealers". Not "firearms manufacturers." God you people are stupid.

    And btw, neither you nor anyone on here knows anything about the funding of any organization.

    I can't believe how many of you gullible gumps just believe things because you "looked them up."

    I believe that's about 4th-grade level. Go for it. Graduate to 5th grade. Get your mom to do your homework for you. Give teacher an apple. You can do it. Maybe not with brains, but with regurgitating all the proper talking points, I think you got a future.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @Twinkie

    Right, so maybe you could explain to us precisely HOW the ability of American citizens to procure domestic firearms and accessories legally is essential to “International arms dealers”, you dumbass.

  69. @Joe Stalin
    @Nodwink

    "If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike."

    As historian Clayton Cramer states: 'If you are the only one to show up for the Revolution, you've made a big mistake.'

    Ever hear of the "Convoy System?" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy )

    In Operations Research of the convoy system of shipping in WWII, it was calculated that the enemy has only so much capability to engage you in the time of exposure, so you would loose less tonnage if you traveled in packs.

    So if a large group of "anyone" started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.

    And what is marijuana legalization by individual States if not Rebellion against the US government? Has the USG used any drones against IL Gov. Pritzker, not that I would shed any tears...

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

    You appear to be an experienced guy re this/similar topic(s).
    So….you do know I am sure that you will always…ALWAYS….lose any argument/debate in public. No exceptions.

    You do know the reason too: sooner or later you’ll be compelled to say/write something that would either land you in prison or/and you’d, essentially, give some ideas to some people you, I am sure, don’t like much.

    As soon as somebody says “they have big guns and you don’t” you can’t continue. Two…TWO…elements in your favor you shouldn’t state in public. Probably even FOUR.
    I guess you know what those are…………

    Which points to something else: either you are …ahm…debating with, say, a person with restricted mental faculties, or, somebody who is looking to make your life difficult.

    Either case, not a good use of one’s time/energy.

    My 2 cents.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @peterAUS

    To be a bit positive, this is my drill:
    Online: a hint or two to see is the guy on the same line. If yes, a hint or two re clarifying some ideas, thoughts etc. Using, mostly, historical events and carefully selected hypotheticals (careful as the keyword). Good thing is, if the guy IS on the same line, no need to blather online at all.
    If those hints don't get anywhere I terminate the conversation.

    In private/face to face, the same.

    Only with a VERY good friend, I could play scenarios. Mental exercises if you will. Flowcharts. Chess play. War game if you will.
    Play sides in the confrontation. Both sides.
    Good fun:).

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  70. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    You appear to be an experienced guy re this/similar topic(s).
    So....you do know I am sure that you will always...ALWAYS....lose any argument/debate in public. No exceptions.

    You do know the reason too: sooner or later you'll be compelled to say/write something that would either land you in prison or/and you'd, essentially, give some ideas to some people you, I am sure, don't like much.

    As soon as somebody says "they have big guns and you don't" you can't continue. Two...TWO...elements in your favor you shouldn't state in public. Probably even FOUR.
    I guess you know what those are............

    Which points to something else: either you are ...ahm...debating with, say, a person with restricted mental faculties, or, somebody who is looking to make your life difficult.

    Either case, not a good use of one's time/energy.

    My 2 cents.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    To be a bit positive, this is my drill:
    Online: a hint or two to see is the guy on the same line. If yes, a hint or two re clarifying some ideas, thoughts etc. Using, mostly, historical events and carefully selected hypotheticals (careful as the keyword). Good thing is, if the guy IS on the same line, no need to blather online at all.
    If those hints don’t get anywhere I terminate the conversation.

    In private/face to face, the same.

    Only with a VERY good friend, I could play scenarios. Mental exercises if you will. Flowcharts. Chess play. War game if you will.
    Play sides in the confrontation. Both sides.
    Good fun:).

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.


    The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
     
    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.

    Replies: @peterAUS

  71. @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    My god, you must watch Fox News. You are THAT stupid.

    You just quote the talking points hook-line-sinker. Sad.

    For your information, if your little weenie brain can comprehend it, which I doubt, I said "International Arms Dealers". Not "firearms manufacturers." God you people are stupid.

    And btw, neither you nor anyone on here knows anything about the funding of any organization.

    I can't believe how many of you gullible gumps just believe things because you "looked them up."

    I believe that's about 4th-grade level. Go for it. Graduate to 5th grade. Get your mom to do your homework for you. Give teacher an apple. You can do it. Maybe not with brains, but with regurgitating all the proper talking points, I think you got a future.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @Twinkie

    Stop wasting everyone’s time with ad hominem.

  72. @peterAUS
    @peterAUS

    To be a bit positive, this is my drill:
    Online: a hint or two to see is the guy on the same line. If yes, a hint or two re clarifying some ideas, thoughts etc. Using, mostly, historical events and carefully selected hypotheticals (careful as the keyword). Good thing is, if the guy IS on the same line, no need to blather online at all.
    If those hints don't get anywhere I terminate the conversation.

    In private/face to face, the same.

    Only with a VERY good friend, I could play scenarios. Mental exercises if you will. Flowcharts. Chess play. War game if you will.
    Play sides in the confrontation. Both sides.
    Good fun:).

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.

    The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”.[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for “advocating … violence … as a means of accomplishing political reform” because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a “clear and present danger” could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize “mere advocacy”.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.
     
    You willing to risk testing it? You shouldn't.

    Here is a scenario for you:
    You get in an online chat with a fellow who is interested in how it could be done. Say, certain things happen in the USA and/or wide world which create certain parameters within the USA. I can think of several.
    Element ONE re "you don't have access to big guns..." comes into the discussion. Like "how could I do it here, in my place, for example?". You explain, online, how. In detail.
    I am POSTIVE somebody will knock at your door. With a battering ram.

    The arrest and court spectacles then get used to keep the sheeple in check/introduce new laws.

    So, yes.....


    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.
     
    And...besides....there are some other options between self-defense and hot civil war. Several.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  73. @Thomm
    As I have often stated, my prized possession is my gold-painted Desert Eagle. It wasn't cheap. I have never fired it at another living thing. But I take great pride in having it.

    Replies: @anon, @SunBakedSuburb

    The man with the golden gun.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @SunBakedSuburb


    The man with the golden gun.
     
    Yep. But I don't actually fire it, like Francisco Scaramanga did.
  74. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Thomm

    The man with the golden gun.

    Replies: @Thomm

    The man with the golden gun.

    Yep. But I don’t actually fire it, like Francisco Scaramanga did.

  75. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.


    The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
     
    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.

    You willing to risk testing it? You shouldn’t.

    Here is a scenario for you:
    You get in an online chat with a fellow who is interested in how it could be done. Say, certain things happen in the USA and/or wide world which create certain parameters within the USA. I can think of several.
    Element ONE re “you don’t have access to big guns…” comes into the discussion. Like “how could I do it here, in my place, for example?”. You explain, online, how. In detail.
    I am POSTIVE somebody will knock at your door. With a battering ram.

    The arrest and court spectacles then get used to keep the sheeple in check/introduce new laws.

    So, yes…..

    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.

    And…besides….there are some other options between self-defense and hot civil war. Several.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    About the only instance of the US Judiciary deliberately eviscerating the First Amendment in this regard was when they went after Paladin Press for publishing the book "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW3GELcsOlI

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  76. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    Fortunately, the US First Amendment allows us to advocate violence, as long as we are doing something that does not leads to it immediately.
     
    You willing to risk testing it? You shouldn't.

    Here is a scenario for you:
    You get in an online chat with a fellow who is interested in how it could be done. Say, certain things happen in the USA and/or wide world which create certain parameters within the USA. I can think of several.
    Element ONE re "you don't have access to big guns..." comes into the discussion. Like "how could I do it here, in my place, for example?". You explain, online, how. In detail.
    I am POSTIVE somebody will knock at your door. With a battering ram.

    The arrest and court spectacles then get used to keep the sheeple in check/introduce new laws.

    So, yes.....


    I do NOT advocated violence at the present time except for self-defense because political action is much more doable from the standpoint of the ordinary US citizen. A HOT Civil War is something to be avoided if possible.
     
    And...besides....there are some other options between self-defense and hot civil war. Several.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    About the only instance of the US Judiciary deliberately eviscerating the First Amendment in this regard was when they went after Paladin Press for publishing the book “Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Joe Stalin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1drL1wD5Vk

    Replies: @peterAUS

  77. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    About the only instance of the US Judiciary deliberately eviscerating the First Amendment in this regard was when they went after Paladin Press for publishing the book "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW3GELcsOlI

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Here is a scenario for you:
    Let me think....because what we type here is read, probably in real-time...by some people.
    O.K...

    The regime in Washington gets bogged down in some overseas conflict. Needs boots on the ground. Plenty.
    Because it owns all levers of power in DC they push for a limited draft. Incidentally, it targets, mostly, deplorables in flyover states. You know, young White males, unemployed, no college etc.
    Several counties in such places simply reject the law......................................people in power there still having the interest of their communities at heart.

    Things start escalating. Rhetorics first and then the outright threat to arrest those disobeying. And so it goes........keyword "escalating".

    Nothing can be done, a? I mean, sooner or later they'll threat using drones, tanks....whatever. And that's it. Done. Shut up, get on the bus, complete the brief boot camp and get flown/shipped over to ....Iran/Ukraine/whatever.

    Or not......

    Do you honestly think you could play this scenario, in detail, online? Publish a book about that?
    I doubt it.
    Very much so.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  78. @Joe Stalin
    @Joe Stalin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1drL1wD5Vk

    Replies: @peterAUS

    Here is a scenario for you:
    Let me think….because what we type here is read, probably in real-time…by some people.
    O.K…

    The regime in Washington gets bogged down in some overseas conflict. Needs boots on the ground. Plenty.
    Because it owns all levers of power in DC they push for a limited draft. Incidentally, it targets, mostly, deplorables in flyover states. You know, young White males, unemployed, no college etc.
    Several counties in such places simply reject the law………………………………..people in power there still having the interest of their communities at heart.

    Things start escalating. Rhetorics first and then the outright threat to arrest those disobeying. And so it goes……..keyword “escalating”.

    Nothing can be done, a? I mean, sooner or later they’ll threat using drones, tanks….whatever. And that’s it. Done. Shut up, get on the bus, complete the brief boot camp and get flown/shipped over to ….Iran/Ukraine/whatever.

    Or not……

    Do you honestly think you could play this scenario, in detail, online? Publish a book about that?
    I doubt it.
    Very much so.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    We can only deal with present. We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.

    We are NOT under military rule; we are under civilian governance.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same. The MORE ARs there are spread the populace, the more the Beto O'Rourkes will have to consider ARMED RESISTANCE to any assertion of government rule without the consent of the governed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIINmv54O24

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLzx49nTm94

    Replies: @peterAUS

  79. @Joe Stalin
    @Nodwink

    "If anyone actually decided to rebel against the US government, they can be taken out with a drone strike."

    As historian Clayton Cramer states: 'If you are the only one to show up for the Revolution, you've made a big mistake.'

    Ever hear of the "Convoy System?" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy )

    In Operations Research of the convoy system of shipping in WWII, it was calculated that the enemy has only so much capability to engage you in the time of exposure, so you would loose less tonnage if you traveled in packs.

    So if a large group of "anyone" started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.

    And what is marijuana legalization by individual States if not Rebellion against the US government? Has the USG used any drones against IL Gov. Pritzker, not that I would shed any tears...

    Replies: @peterAUS, @dfordoom

    So if a large group of “anyone” started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.

    What a lot of people here don’t seem to understand is that TPTB want an insurgency. It would take them a few hours at the most to crush it and then they’d have the excuse for a crackdown on a scale you can’t even imagine. They could round up all their enemies, peaceful and not-so-peaceful, and they’d have the perfect excuse (a “national emergency”) to confine them all indefinitely without trial. Every single dissident, including the most moderate ones, would be caught up in the roundup. Every single dissident website would be shut down. In a “national emergency” nobody is going to bother about the First Amendment.

    Talk of insurgency is stupid and reckless. It’s what your enemies want you to do. And it’s a near-certainty that a good number of those promoting the insurgency and Civil War 2.0 and secession ideas are FBI agents provocateurs.

    If you have any brains you don’t fight the battle that your enemy wants you to fight, on ground of his choosing.

    The dissident right truly is worse than useless. Too many keyboard warriors with absurd fantasies who are going to lead everyone else to disaster. Dissident rightists and alt-rightists have made every mistake it is possible to make and they just keep on making more mistakes.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    I made this comment because I have made this argument when debating a "left libertarian" blogger. He's a pretty smart guy, but he seems to believe that guns will save him from US government tyranny; I don't.

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of "rebellion."

    Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom

    , @Anon
    @dfordoom

    The retention of the ability to mount an insurgency is something leftists, rightists, greens, and every other deeply involved political faction all quietly want, because they can all see themselves in a position where they would rather use force than diplomacy, because diplomacy will have become impossible without it.

    If anything, greens and leftists are more likely to mount an insurgency than rightists, who still believe in the Wonderful Armed Forces. However, in the US at least, I think, they see themselves leading street fights, possible mutinies, and bombings, rather than putting an army in the field.

    The thing is, force is useless without good diplomacy in a strong position, also. Imagine the Land Wars without Parnell. Violence in this case was a very secondary means, but the spectre of it always colored the whole issue.

    Anyway, provoking reprisals is usually one of the main goals of actual insurgents.

  80. @Joe Stalin
    @obwandiyag

    Bring some numbers aka "facts" will you on "International Arms Dealers" you allude to as the BIG money behind the NRA.

    Otherwise, you got NOTHING to back your rhetorical claims.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Just put Ol’ Windybag on ignore.  All you’re doing is feeding the troll.

  81. @WHAT
    CoD is about the only place where zoomers actually have guns.

    Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Twodees Partain

    That demographic, people in their 40s and 50s, are about the best armed segment of the population where I live. Of course,old hosers like me are well armed as well. Only the young people around here, 18-35 or so aren’t big on owning guns, though some like to hunt and some are interested in collecting and target shooting.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Twodees Partain

    40s-50s is GenX, though. 'Zoomers' are people younger than Millennials.

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

  82. @dc.sunsets
    @anarchyst

    Where would the NRA be without a constant threat of prohibition? The last thing NRA's professional staff wants is an end to such things, same as everyone who works in the Welfare State's Administration depends on poverty for their JOBS.

    It's just stupid to think that someone whose livelihood depends on something is the right person to coordinate the "fight" to eliminate that something.

    You mention the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, actually) and should recognize first and foremost that once you get people discussing the mere possibility of amending the Constitution to eliminate any of the first ten Amendments, you've already lost.

    The bill of rights is a list of prerogatives with which each person is born (endowed by their Creator.) They are NOT some kind of grant from the central State that can be removed if there's a consensus. The right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms is a recognition that the means to defend one's life, the most precious gift of all, and defend the lives of your loved ones, is not subject to your neighbors' approval.

    Sadly, Ancient Roman Historian Sallust was correct 2000 years ago when he wrote, "Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master." Most people are born slaves and they prefer a comfortable slavery (give 'em a recliner, a beer and sportsball evenings and weekends and they'll cut your stones for the next Pyramid all week long.)

    We're surrounded by cattle.

    For those squishy on this, go read https://jim.com/cowards.htm

    The Second Amendment (1) is an individual right, same as the First, Fourth and Fifth (and none of the Bill of Rights enumerates a "right" of the state, that's frankly the argument of a moron) and (2) it CANNOT BE REPEALED. Those who believe otherwise are simply too short for this ride, revealing that they truly do love their servitude and resent those who chafe under shackles.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Twodees Partain

    In regard to your reference to Sallust, here’s HL Mencken on the subject:

    “The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.” H.L. Mencken

  83. @Charles Pewitt
    Attention All Young White Core Americans:

    The Republican Party Is Crawling Into Bed With Gun Grabbers.

    The Republican Party Is Deliberately Killing the Second Amendment By Pushing Mass Legal Immigration And Mass Illegal Immigration.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/619561384628592640

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/650361983611633664

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

    “The Republican Party Is Crawling Into Bed With Gun Grabbers. ”

    Correction: The republican party are the original gungrabbers. South Carolina’s strict laws about carrying firearms originated during the military occupation of the defeated southern states euphemistically referred to as Reconstruction.

  84. “The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men.

    True. They think along the lines of safety and material comfort. The thing is….what happens when they start feeling unsafe and (materially) uncomfortable?

    It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.”

    True. For leadership material.

    The “change” needs both.

  85. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Here is a scenario for you:
    Let me think....because what we type here is read, probably in real-time...by some people.
    O.K...

    The regime in Washington gets bogged down in some overseas conflict. Needs boots on the ground. Plenty.
    Because it owns all levers of power in DC they push for a limited draft. Incidentally, it targets, mostly, deplorables in flyover states. You know, young White males, unemployed, no college etc.
    Several counties in such places simply reject the law......................................people in power there still having the interest of their communities at heart.

    Things start escalating. Rhetorics first and then the outright threat to arrest those disobeying. And so it goes........keyword "escalating".

    Nothing can be done, a? I mean, sooner or later they'll threat using drones, tanks....whatever. And that's it. Done. Shut up, get on the bus, complete the brief boot camp and get flown/shipped over to ....Iran/Ukraine/whatever.

    Or not......

    Do you honestly think you could play this scenario, in detail, online? Publish a book about that?
    I doubt it.
    Very much so.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    We can only deal with present. We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.

    We are NOT under military rule; we are under civilian governance.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same. The MORE ARs there are spread the populace, the more the Beto O’Rourkes will have to consider ARMED RESISTANCE to any assertion of government rule without the consent of the governed.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    We can only deal with present.
     
    I know.
    "They" do deal with the future. Ideas, scenarios, contingencies.....PLANS...stuff like that.
    All in all.....promising. For one side in that game, I mean.

    We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.
     
    Interesting.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same.
     
    Sounds...........interesting.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  86. @Twodees Partain
    @WHAT

    That demographic, people in their 40s and 50s, are about the best armed segment of the population where I live. Of course,old hosers like me are well armed as well. Only the young people around here, 18-35 or so aren't big on owning guns, though some like to hunt and some are interested in collecting and target shooting.

    Replies: @SFG

    40s-50s is GenX, though. ‘Zoomers’ are people younger than Millennials.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    @SFG

    Thanks for the correction.I can't keep up with all the "_ generation" bullshit. if they're younger than 18, they aren't likely to have guns anyway, so being aware enough to oppose gungrabbing is pretty good for people that age.

  87. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    We can only deal with present. We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.

    We are NOT under military rule; we are under civilian governance.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same. The MORE ARs there are spread the populace, the more the Beto O'Rourkes will have to consider ARMED RESISTANCE to any assertion of government rule without the consent of the governed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIINmv54O24

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLzx49nTm94

    Replies: @peterAUS

    We can only deal with present.

    I know.
    “They” do deal with the future. Ideas, scenarios, contingencies…..PLANS…stuff like that.
    All in all…..promising. For one side in that game, I mean.

    We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.

    Interesting.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same.

    Sounds………..interesting.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Also, remember: "One shot one hit is FIREPOWER." The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.

    Get one and have the combat capability of the modern soldier.

    How? By learning how to properly use it.

    Project Appleseed is a program designed around the semi-automatic rifle and since it uses volunteers, is relatively low cost.

    https://appleseedinfo.org/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOjO--R77s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCU8lei7s2g

    Replies: @peterAUS

  88. anon[895] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag
    @Twinkie

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Not that I am for controlling guns.

    I'm just sayin'. There's an aspect here that never gets addressed.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke, @anon

    And the big money that really pays for the NRA comes from international arms dealers.

    Lol. NRA’s finances are no secret. You don’t know what you are writing about.

    They are really the ones who make out like bandits from lack of gun control.

    Between the local, state and federal governments there are over 20,000 “gun control” laws in the US. Your ignorance is both wide and amazingly deep.

  89. @dfordoom
    @Joe Stalin


    So if a large group of “anyone” started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.
     
    What a lot of people here don't seem to understand is that TPTB want an insurgency. It would take them a few hours at the most to crush it and then they'd have the excuse for a crackdown on a scale you can't even imagine. They could round up all their enemies, peaceful and not-so-peaceful, and they'd have the perfect excuse (a "national emergency") to confine them all indefinitely without trial. Every single dissident, including the most moderate ones, would be caught up in the roundup. Every single dissident website would be shut down. In a "national emergency" nobody is going to bother about the First Amendment.

    Talk of insurgency is stupid and reckless. It's what your enemies want you to do. And it's a near-certainty that a good number of those promoting the insurgency and Civil War 2.0 and secession ideas are FBI agents provocateurs.

    If you have any brains you don't fight the battle that your enemy wants you to fight, on ground of his choosing.

    The dissident right truly is worse than useless. Too many keyboard warriors with absurd fantasies who are going to lead everyone else to disaster. Dissident rightists and alt-rightists have made every mistake it is possible to make and they just keep on making more mistakes.

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Anon

    I made this comment because I have made this argument when debating a “left libertarian” blogger. He’s a pretty smart guy, but he seems to believe that guns will save him from US government tyranny; I don’t.

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Nodwink


    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”
     
    On the other hand, the more we kibitzers shoot off our mouths, the more chaff there will be for any of said spies and the less wheat. I recommend commenters use some of that caution for their own sakes, because words can be easily twisted, of course. But this isn't exactly the organizing forum for a campaign of terrorism (or if it is, that campaign will, thankfully [campaigns of terrorism are not good], get smashed immediately, because its organizers will be idiots).
    , @dfordoom
    @Nodwink


    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”
     
    Precisely. It amazes me that so many people here can't see that. And it amazes me that so many people here don't consider the possibility that this kind of talk is being encouraged by agents provocateurs. That's not conspiracy theory thinking - secret police and intelligence services have routinely employed agents provocateurs since the 19th century.

    Replies: @Anon

  90. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    We can only deal with present.
     
    I know.
    "They" do deal with the future. Ideas, scenarios, contingencies.....PLANS...stuff like that.
    All in all.....promising. For one side in that game, I mean.

    We abide by the First Amendment which at present means we have the RIGHT to discuss stuff which is considered Verboten in other countries like Australia, UK, Germany, et al. Maybe other countries would like to have that.
     
    Interesting.

    That means people should stockpile as many assault rifles and ammunition as they can, and encourage other people to do the same.
     
    Sounds...........interesting.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Also, remember: “One shot one hit is FIREPOWER.” The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.

    Get one and have the combat capability of the modern soldier.

    How? By learning how to properly use it.

    Project Appleseed is a program designed around the semi-automatic rifle and since it uses volunteers, is relatively low cost.

    https://appleseedinfo.org/

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    One shot one hit is FIREPOWER.”
     
    True.
    Which brings up the issues of training and talent.

    The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.
     
    True.
    At the same time, the hardware at "their" disposal is far superior to the Tiger tanks, Dornier planes ....and a LOT else (communications, control...)... then what the German occupying forces had.
    And, I don't know, it could be just me, but, wouldn't just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That's for the individual.

    Then, apart from the tools of the trade, there are issues as strategy, operations, tactics.....unit cohesion, teamwork, leadership....... and a LOT else. For anything bigger than an individual.
    Objectives, motivation, morale too.

    Complicated, I know.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  91. Anon[930] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Joe Stalin


    So if a large group of “anyone” started trouble across the board, you would never have enough drones to cover the shear number of insurgents.
     
    What a lot of people here don't seem to understand is that TPTB want an insurgency. It would take them a few hours at the most to crush it and then they'd have the excuse for a crackdown on a scale you can't even imagine. They could round up all their enemies, peaceful and not-so-peaceful, and they'd have the perfect excuse (a "national emergency") to confine them all indefinitely without trial. Every single dissident, including the most moderate ones, would be caught up in the roundup. Every single dissident website would be shut down. In a "national emergency" nobody is going to bother about the First Amendment.

    Talk of insurgency is stupid and reckless. It's what your enemies want you to do. And it's a near-certainty that a good number of those promoting the insurgency and Civil War 2.0 and secession ideas are FBI agents provocateurs.

    If you have any brains you don't fight the battle that your enemy wants you to fight, on ground of his choosing.

    The dissident right truly is worse than useless. Too many keyboard warriors with absurd fantasies who are going to lead everyone else to disaster. Dissident rightists and alt-rightists have made every mistake it is possible to make and they just keep on making more mistakes.

    Replies: @Nodwink, @Anon

    The retention of the ability to mount an insurgency is something leftists, rightists, greens, and every other deeply involved political faction all quietly want, because they can all see themselves in a position where they would rather use force than diplomacy, because diplomacy will have become impossible without it.

    If anything, greens and leftists are more likely to mount an insurgency than rightists, who still believe in the Wonderful Armed Forces. However, in the US at least, I think, they see themselves leading street fights, possible mutinies, and bombings, rather than putting an army in the field.

    The thing is, force is useless without good diplomacy in a strong position, also. Imagine the Land Wars without Parnell. Violence in this case was a very secondary means, but the spectre of it always colored the whole issue.

    Anyway, provoking reprisals is usually one of the main goals of actual insurgents.

  92. Anon[930] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    I made this comment because I have made this argument when debating a "left libertarian" blogger. He's a pretty smart guy, but he seems to believe that guns will save him from US government tyranny; I don't.

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of "rebellion."

    Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”

    On the other hand, the more we kibitzers shoot off our mouths, the more chaff there will be for any of said spies and the less wheat. I recommend commenters use some of that caution for their own sakes, because words can be easily twisted, of course. But this isn’t exactly the organizing forum for a campaign of terrorism (or if it is, that campaign will, thankfully [campaigns of terrorism are not good], get smashed immediately, because its organizers will be idiots).

  93. @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    I made this comment because I have made this argument when debating a "left libertarian" blogger. He's a pretty smart guy, but he seems to believe that guns will save him from US government tyranny; I don't.

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of "rebellion."

    Replies: @Anon, @dfordoom

    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”

    Precisely. It amazes me that so many people here can’t see that. And it amazes me that so many people here don’t consider the possibility that this kind of talk is being encouraged by agents provocateurs. That’s not conspiracy theory thinking – secret police and intelligence services have routinely employed agents provocateurs since the 19th century.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @dfordoom


    And it amazes me that so many people here don’t consider the possibility that this kind of talk is being encouraged by agents provocateurs.
     
    What makes you think they don't?

    secret police and intelligence services have routinely employed agents provocateurs since the 19th century.
     
    Yes, but remember-- if they are talking to you, you are also talking to them.
    The more spies sucked into polar wind vortices like this place, the better, so long as we don't get to a Man Who Was Thursday point.

    My two cents: Don't say anything on here you don't feel comfortable with the world at large eventually knowing you said. Otherwise, shoot your mouth off as freely as you like (and as is consistent with civil discussion and keeping this place nice).
  94. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Also, remember: "One shot one hit is FIREPOWER." The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.

    Get one and have the combat capability of the modern soldier.

    How? By learning how to properly use it.

    Project Appleseed is a program designed around the semi-automatic rifle and since it uses volunteers, is relatively low cost.

    https://appleseedinfo.org/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOjO--R77s

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCU8lei7s2g

    Replies: @peterAUS

    One shot one hit is FIREPOWER.”

    True.
    Which brings up the issues of training and talent.

    The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.

    True.
    At the same time, the hardware at “their” disposal is far superior to the Tiger tanks, Dornier planes ….and a LOT else (communications, control…)… then what the German occupying forces had.
    And, I don’t know, it could be just me, but, wouldn’t just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That’s for the individual.

    Then, apart from the tools of the trade, there are issues as strategy, operations, tactics…..unit cohesion, teamwork, leadership……. and a LOT else. For anything bigger than an individual.
    Objectives, motivation, morale too.

    Complicated, I know.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    "And, I don’t know, it could be just me, but, wouldn’t just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That’s for the individual."

    I think a fellow Aussie can say it better than me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1iLdR_NCU

    Replies: @peterAUS

  95. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin


    One shot one hit is FIREPOWER.”
     
    True.
    Which brings up the issues of training and talent.

    The semi-automatic AR-15 you can buy over the counter is far superior to the Stenguns the British were supplying to their own soldiers and insurgent forces in Europe during WW 2.
     
    True.
    At the same time, the hardware at "their" disposal is far superior to the Tiger tanks, Dornier planes ....and a LOT else (communications, control...)... then what the German occupying forces had.
    And, I don't know, it could be just me, but, wouldn't just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That's for the individual.

    Then, apart from the tools of the trade, there are issues as strategy, operations, tactics.....unit cohesion, teamwork, leadership....... and a LOT else. For anything bigger than an individual.
    Objectives, motivation, morale too.

    Complicated, I know.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    “And, I don’t know, it could be just me, but, wouldn’t just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That’s for the individual.”

    I think a fellow Aussie can say it better than me.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Interesting video.

    Any chance you could post one where we could see a single shot accuracy comparison between the two?

    Setup, for SMLE:
    Bipod, telescopic sight, cheekpad and polished trigger assembly, with custom load?
    For AR-15 whatever you fancy....

    800 meters, no wind?

    If not SMLE, well, definitely Springfield 30-06. Same setup as above.

    Please. I am sure you have it somewhere.

    Replies: @peterAUS

  96. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    "And, I don’t know, it could be just me, but, wouldn’t just SMLE, customized (trigger assembly, stock, cheek pad), with proper optics, be better for one-shot one-hit firepower?! Or Mauser 98? Springfield 30-06. That’s for the individual."

    I think a fellow Aussie can say it better than me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1iLdR_NCU

    Replies: @peterAUS

    Interesting video.

    Any chance you could post one where we could see a single shot accuracy comparison between the two?

    Setup, for SMLE:
    Bipod, telescopic sight, cheekpad and polished trigger assembly, with custom load?
    For AR-15 whatever you fancy….

    800 meters, no wind?

    If not SMLE, well, definitely Springfield 30-06. Same setup as above.

    Please. I am sure you have it somewhere.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @peterAUS

    While we are waiting, a quick Google:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An4Hmo5wraY

    A boomer, a bolt action rifle and a longish range.

    And even a bit educational, for beginners.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  97. @216
    @Ash Williams


    zyklons
     
    Cringe

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    OK, boomer.

  98. @Reg Cæsar
    @anarchyst


    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face.
     
    Even these?

    That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

    North Carolina, 1840

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.

    Georgia, 1833

    No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead; and any free negro or mulatto who shall so offend, shall, on conviction before a justice of the peace, forfeit all such arms and ammunition to the use of the informer; and shall moreover be punished with stripes, at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes.

    Commonwealth of Virginia, 1832
     

    Replies: @anarchyst, @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    Yes it is, Boomer.

    Now, maybe if I were writing the constitution I would create separate laws for Europeans and negroes. But the way the law currently stands, those laws are unconstitutional.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    I don't know what's weirder-- receiving a lecture on US Constitutional law from someone who is not subject to it, or being mistaken for Norman Esiason.


    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1467208.1380129886%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/ltweb26s-2-web.jpg

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

  99. @SFG
    @Twodees Partain

    40s-50s is GenX, though. 'Zoomers' are people younger than Millennials.

    Replies: @Twodees Partain

    Thanks for the correction.I can’t keep up with all the “_ generation” bullshit. if they’re younger than 18, they aren’t likely to have guns anyway, so being aware enough to oppose gungrabbing is pretty good for people that age.

  100. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Interesting video.

    Any chance you could post one where we could see a single shot accuracy comparison between the two?

    Setup, for SMLE:
    Bipod, telescopic sight, cheekpad and polished trigger assembly, with custom load?
    For AR-15 whatever you fancy....

    800 meters, no wind?

    If not SMLE, well, definitely Springfield 30-06. Same setup as above.

    Please. I am sure you have it somewhere.

    Replies: @peterAUS

    While we are waiting, a quick Google:

    A boomer, a bolt action rifle and a longish range.

    And even a bit educational, for beginners.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    I'm not sure what "single shot accuracy" is but this might be pointer to what you are getting at...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRpGtpKXYQU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgOb8DOv8c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHKD_X6-Rw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnPhsZQXAQ4

    Replies: @peterAUS

  101. @peterAUS
    @peterAUS

    While we are waiting, a quick Google:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An4Hmo5wraY

    A boomer, a bolt action rifle and a longish range.

    And even a bit educational, for beginners.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    I’m not sure what “single shot accuracy” is but this might be pointer to what you are getting at…

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Decent find.

    With this
    http://www.nzha.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/the_2012_complete_book_on_lee_enfield_accurizing.pdf
    I hope it completes our little distraction here, for the time being.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  102. Anon[930] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Nodwink


    The comment sections at UR are pretty freewheeling places, but commenters should not get carried away. There are no doubt spies reading this very thread, so people should exercise caution when discussing hypothetical scenarios of “rebellion.”
     
    Precisely. It amazes me that so many people here can't see that. And it amazes me that so many people here don't consider the possibility that this kind of talk is being encouraged by agents provocateurs. That's not conspiracy theory thinking - secret police and intelligence services have routinely employed agents provocateurs since the 19th century.

    Replies: @Anon

    And it amazes me that so many people here don’t consider the possibility that this kind of talk is being encouraged by agents provocateurs.

    What makes you think they don’t?

    secret police and intelligence services have routinely employed agents provocateurs since the 19th century.

    Yes, but remember– if they are talking to you, you are also talking to them.
    The more spies sucked into polar wind vortices like this place, the better, so long as we don’t get to a Man Who Was Thursday point.

    My two cents: Don’t say anything on here you don’t feel comfortable with the world at large eventually knowing you said. Otherwise, shoot your mouth off as freely as you like (and as is consistent with civil discussion and keeping this place nice).

  103. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    I'm not sure what "single shot accuracy" is but this might be pointer to what you are getting at...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRpGtpKXYQU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfgOb8DOv8c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHKD_X6-Rw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnPhsZQXAQ4

    Replies: @peterAUS

    Decent find.

    With this
    http://www.nzha.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/the_2012_complete_book_on_lee_enfield_accurizing.pdf
    I hope it completes our little distraction here, for the time being.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Unfortunately for me, the No.4 Enfield the family acquired in late 1960s is gone with the wind. (Ironically, given to a man whose father came from the UK and died, taking the whereabouts of the No. 4 with him).

    All I remember about the gun as a child is: "Man, this is HEAVY!"

    Replies: @peterAUS

  104. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    @Reg Cæsar

    Yes it is, Boomer.

    Now, maybe if I were writing the constitution I would create separate laws for Europeans and negroes. But the way the law currently stands, those laws are unconstitutional.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t know what’s weirder– receiving a lecture on US Constitutional law from someone who is not subject to it, or being mistaken for Norman Esiason.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Reg Cæsar

    No, he meant the other Boomer:

    https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/bermanfolo1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

  105. The gun control debate is mighty old, since it was legal to duel. And as i think on the matter, the call for restrictions have never been louder than they are today, in my view.

    It’s a very tough to call to square that the the “boomers” are responsible for increased gun legislation. That hardly seems a pescient issue. Tom Brokaws are not out marching in the streets for more gun laws. Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control. It just reads on its face against experience that “boomers” are out to get anyone’s weapon.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @EliteCommInc.

    "It’s a very tough to call to square that the the “boomers” are responsible for increased gun legislation. That hardly seems a pescient issue. Tom Brokaws are not out marching in the streets for more gun laws. Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control. It just reads on its face against experience that “boomers” are out to get anyone’s weapon."

    But wasn't Hollywood money (lots of Boomers) behind all the "Gun Con...SAFETY" festivities?


    A-listers from Oprah Winfrey to Steven Spielberg are signing checks and stepping back as agencies sponsor travel to Washington and Parkland natives across the industry rally support for the massive March for Our Lives on March 24.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywoods-stealth-support-dc-gun-control-march-important-not-be-celebrity-show-1095878
     
    I always found it amusing how EVERY mention of a LEGALLY owned firearm on a scripted broadcast network series ALWAYS makes the sure to mention the weapon is REGISTERED, Police permitted, the owner REGISTERED or otherwise cleared by the "AUTHORITIES."

    This must be intentional as it seems rarely to appear on cable network shows. But this force feeding of gun control propaganda must be a known thing because I was watching an episode of "Arrow" and they actually ran a disclaimer during it's time slot disassociating it from the episode's gun control message.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @EliteCommInc.


    Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control.
     
    Jane Fonda was born in 1937. She's older than Pat Buchanan.
  106. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    Decent find.

    With this
    http://www.nzha.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/the_2012_complete_book_on_lee_enfield_accurizing.pdf
    I hope it completes our little distraction here, for the time being.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Unfortunately for me, the No.4 Enfield the family acquired in late 1960s is gone with the wind. (Ironically, given to a man whose father came from the UK and died, taking the whereabouts of the No. 4 with him).

    All I remember about the gun as a child is: “Man, this is HEAVY!”

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    I hear you.

    The point of that little distraction was/is to simply point that, in the game I assume we are talking about, a gun/weapon is just a tool to achieve a particular mission's objective.
    And, that objective is a small part of our tactics. Which is, again, part of a wider operation. Which, itself is part of our strategy. Which, again, is, say, an "armed" part of our achieving our vision.
    So, it all does start with the vision. And goes down.

    In my case (or so I say; as people have pointed out, I could very well be a lunatic/loser/FBI plant): a secession. Or autonomy. Or self-rule.

    HOW to achieve that is what smarter people than I am should be discussing. If...IF...that goal/objective can be achieved peacefully, great.
    If not, well......................................................

    Weapons are just tools there, even if considering the purely armed option. Plenty of other useful things there apart from firearms. We can't even mention them here. Let's say, within that secession region there is a nuclear power plant. Or ....anyway.

    And, firearms wise, any firearm, if handled competently and ORGANIZED, can be effective.

    Aa I've said plenty of times here before, we can NOT talk practical details here. But, let's just say, it all does start with a group of well trained and organized people. Say.....a dozen.
    And they can very well have several semiauto AR-15 (or similar...) a couple of shotguns and a couple of scoped/customized bolt actions.

    The key in all that IS individual competence with a firearm. And there is where training comes in. Yes, in the USA it's easier, but, in plenty of other places where gun control IS strict, people do acquire high levels of competence.

    A group of dedicated and competent persons is hard to get/have; (getting) firearms/tools is easy.

    My two cents anyway.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  107. @EliteCommInc.
    The gun control debate is mighty old, since it was legal to duel. And as i think on the matter, the call for restrictions have never been louder than they are today, in my view.

    It's a very tough to call to square that the the "boomers" are responsible for increased gun legislation. That hardly seems a pescient issue. Tom Brokaws are not out marching in the streets for more gun laws. Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control. It just reads on its face against experience that "boomers" are out to get anyone's weapon.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    “It’s a very tough to call to square that the the “boomers” are responsible for increased gun legislation. That hardly seems a pescient issue. Tom Brokaws are not out marching in the streets for more gun laws. Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control. It just reads on its face against experience that “boomers” are out to get anyone’s weapon.”

    But wasn’t Hollywood money (lots of Boomers) behind all the “Gun Con…SAFETY” festivities?

    A-listers from Oprah Winfrey to Steven Spielberg are signing checks and stepping back as agencies sponsor travel to Washington and Parkland natives across the industry rally support for the massive March for Our Lives on March 24.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywoods-stealth-support-dc-gun-control-march-important-not-be-celebrity-show-1095878

    I always found it amusing how EVERY mention of a LEGALLY owned firearm on a scripted broadcast network series ALWAYS makes the sure to mention the weapon is REGISTERED, Police permitted, the owner REGISTERED or otherwise cleared by the “AUTHORITIES.”

    This must be intentional as it seems rarely to appear on cable network shows. But this force feeding of gun control propaganda must be a known thing because I was watching an episode of “Arrow” and they actually ran a disclaimer during it’s time slot disassociating it from the episode’s gun control message.

  108. @Joe Stalin
    @peterAUS

    Unfortunately for me, the No.4 Enfield the family acquired in late 1960s is gone with the wind. (Ironically, given to a man whose father came from the UK and died, taking the whereabouts of the No. 4 with him).

    All I remember about the gun as a child is: "Man, this is HEAVY!"

    Replies: @peterAUS

    I hear you.

    The point of that little distraction was/is to simply point that, in the game I assume we are talking about, a gun/weapon is just a tool to achieve a particular mission’s objective.
    And, that objective is a small part of our tactics. Which is, again, part of a wider operation. Which, itself is part of our strategy. Which, again, is, say, an “armed” part of our achieving our vision.
    So, it all does start with the vision. And goes down.

    In my case (or so I say; as people have pointed out, I could very well be a lunatic/loser/FBI plant): a secession. Or autonomy. Or self-rule.

    HOW to achieve that is what smarter people than I am should be discussing. If…IF…that goal/objective can be achieved peacefully, great.
    If not, well………………………………………………

    Weapons are just tools there, even if considering the purely armed option. Plenty of other useful things there apart from firearms. We can’t even mention them here. Let’s say, within that secession region there is a nuclear power plant. Or ….anyway.

    And, firearms wise, any firearm, if handled competently and ORGANIZED, can be effective.

    Aa I’ve said plenty of times here before, we can NOT talk practical details here. But, let’s just say, it all does start with a group of well trained and organized people. Say…..a dozen.
    And they can very well have several semiauto AR-15 (or similar…) a couple of shotguns and a couple of scoped/customized bolt actions.

    The key in all that IS individual competence with a firearm. And there is where training comes in. Yes, in the USA it’s easier, but, in plenty of other places where gun control IS strict, people do acquire high levels of competence.

    A group of dedicated and competent persons is hard to get/have; (getting) firearms/tools is easy.

    My two cents anyway.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @peterAUS

    Take the fed posting elsewhere, please.

  109. @Reg Cæsar
    @LoutishAngloQuebecker

    I don't know what's weirder-- receiving a lecture on US Constitutional law from someone who is not subject to it, or being mistaken for Norman Esiason.


    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1467208.1380129886%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/ltweb26s-2-web.jpg

    Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    No, he meant the other Boomer:

  110. @EliteCommInc.
    The gun control debate is mighty old, since it was legal to duel. And as i think on the matter, the call for restrictions have never been louder than they are today, in my view.

    It's a very tough to call to square that the the "boomers" are responsible for increased gun legislation. That hardly seems a pescient issue. Tom Brokaws are not out marching in the streets for more gun laws. Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control. It just reads on its face against experience that "boomers" are out to get anyone's weapon.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @Reg Cæsar

    Even Jane Fonda is more inclined to be marching about climate change than gun control.

    Jane Fonda was born in 1937. She’s older than Pat Buchanan.

  111. @Joe Stalin
    Young people watch action movies; assault rifles are what they consider to be "normal" weapons.

    I'm surprised at the percentage of people supporting "constitutional carry," could we get enough people voting there to get that?

    In Chicago, imagine if we could get a Republican pro-gun Mayor (yeah, I know, I know). Since we have an IL FOID card, the Mayor could hire a pro-gun CPD Chief that could tell the police officers NOT to arrest people carrying CCW provided they had a valid FOID; in essence making the FOID a defacto CCW permit. By doing that, they could raise the number of "good guys with guns" on the streets to an unprecedented level. The State legislators certainly couldn't complain about "scofflaws" because the Gov & legislators have already legalized MJ in direct contravention of Federal law.

    Replies: @dc.sunsets, @Audacious Epigone

    What none of these mayors want is the extremely ‘problematic’ optics of a law-abiding white person shooting a black criminal in self-defense.

    No amount of black-on-black carnage is worth stopping if it increases the chances of such an incident occurring. Yes, “Dems are the real racists” is cringe-inducing, but the reality in this case seems obvious to me.

  112. @Oblivionrecurs
    Fun Georgia facts: Administrative voter file data in Georgia confirms that youth turnout surged in 2018, with 13.2% of 2018 voters being 18-29 compared to 8% in 2014. Youth share of the electorate was closer this time to the last general (14.7%) than the last midterm!

    Georgia: About 47% of the new voters who identified their race are minorities and 45% are age 30 or younger, according to an analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of a list of voters registered from Nov. 6 to Aug. 12. By comparison, 40% of all Georgia voters are minorities and 14% are age 30 or younger.


    More than 352k people have registered to vote in Georgia this year, sending voting rolls to record high. 455,323 black people have registered to vote in Georgia since Donald Trump was elected president. Trump carried the state by 211,141 votes

    85% of registered voter Georgians say they’re certain to vote. Including 71% of 18-34 and 94% of 65+

    86% of whites, 83% of blacks, 77% of Latinos

    90% of evangelical protestants (Kemp win by winning South Georgia White Evangelicals at 89%)

    91% of Trump and Clinton voters

    90% of college 4 year

    87% of southern Georgia (big for Trump)



    Registered electorate 2016: White (60.79%), black (27.68%)
    CVAP electorate: White (58.70%), black (32.31%)
    CPS 2016 electorate: black (31.7%)
    Data for progress electorate: black (28.6%)

    Georgia saw the largest increase in non-white share of voters from 2016 to 2018 of any state in the country, both overall and relative to past midterm drop-off (other Southern states also saw large increases, though not by as much)

    Worth mentioning that Georgia will have two senate races in 2020 which significantly boost turnout.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    This is Stacey Abrams’ handiwork. She knows how to win and she’s going to get deserved credit for flipping Georgia blue sometime between 2020 and 2024.

  113. @Reg Cæsar
    Why wouldn't older Georgians support gun control? Their ancestors did. From an 1833 law:

    The free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes.
     
    The state legislature outlawed concealed carry for everybody in 1837. The state supreme court overturned it nine years later. The courts didn't listen to the people even then!

    How much of younger people's support for broad-based gun rights just a reflection of the kumbayah egalitarianism they've been fed their entire lives?

    Gun legislation has been slower to appear in the northern and Midwestern states, outside the cities, away from immigrants. No need for it.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Is “person of color” a term that is two centuries old? Well I’ll be!

  114. @peterAUS
    @Joe Stalin

    I hear you.

    The point of that little distraction was/is to simply point that, in the game I assume we are talking about, a gun/weapon is just a tool to achieve a particular mission's objective.
    And, that objective is a small part of our tactics. Which is, again, part of a wider operation. Which, itself is part of our strategy. Which, again, is, say, an "armed" part of our achieving our vision.
    So, it all does start with the vision. And goes down.

    In my case (or so I say; as people have pointed out, I could very well be a lunatic/loser/FBI plant): a secession. Or autonomy. Or self-rule.

    HOW to achieve that is what smarter people than I am should be discussing. If...IF...that goal/objective can be achieved peacefully, great.
    If not, well......................................................

    Weapons are just tools there, even if considering the purely armed option. Plenty of other useful things there apart from firearms. We can't even mention them here. Let's say, within that secession region there is a nuclear power plant. Or ....anyway.

    And, firearms wise, any firearm, if handled competently and ORGANIZED, can be effective.

    Aa I've said plenty of times here before, we can NOT talk practical details here. But, let's just say, it all does start with a group of well trained and organized people. Say.....a dozen.
    And they can very well have several semiauto AR-15 (or similar...) a couple of shotguns and a couple of scoped/customized bolt actions.

    The key in all that IS individual competence with a firearm. And there is where training comes in. Yes, in the USA it's easier, but, in plenty of other places where gun control IS strict, people do acquire high levels of competence.

    A group of dedicated and competent persons is hard to get/have; (getting) firearms/tools is easy.

    My two cents anyway.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Take the fed posting elsewhere, please.

  115. Take the fed posting elsewhere, please.

    Sure, if I don’t get a satisfactory answer to a simple question. Here it is:
    I have a pretty good idea about who I am, say, “conversing” with here. Let’s just clarify it.
    In that comment 96, “Joe” posted a video. In that video the guys were, sort of, poking fun at high trajectories of bullets’ paths when firing at l0ng ranges. Or, for them, that high trajectory was/is just….bad/a joke/useless.

    Now……..anyone…ANYONE…here (not you, author, of course, you are clueless moron for such things) knows of the very practical application, in combat, of that high trajectory?
    I mean, a lot of guys into guns read these comments/some post comments here. So, what that application is?

    See, idiot, I mean author, I promise: if I don’t see the answer I’ll know exactly who I am really trying to “fed post” with here. No point to “chat” with amateurs, so I’ll stop.
    Honest.

  116. @dc.sunsets
    @dc.sunsets

    Beating this favorite dead horse of mine again, most people have literally no clue just how loud is a real gun, especially in an enclosed space (like an indoor range or, in extreme circumstances, a home.)

    The best a silencer can do is reduce sound pressure by about 30 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earplugs can do is reduce sound pressure by 32 db.

    The best a GOOD set of earmuffs can do is reduce sound pressure by about 28 db.

    Adding plugs to muffs is not 32+28=60. At most you get just a few added db reduction.

    This means that firing most guns while wearing plugs (and muffs!) still leaves the sound reaching the eardrum at levels OSHA considers damaging over time.

    If a silencer (which is a misnomer, obviously) is used, it becomes possible finally to take the deafening sound level down to where ADDING EARPLUGS or MUFFS reduces it to a non-damaging level.

    But because politicians like to see firearm enthusiasts suffer hearing loss for the "privilege" of indulging their hobby, and because Jane Q Citizen thinks gun silencers are Just Like On TV (basically silent) and believes the anti-gun propagandists' lies that letting them become more widespread will "enable crime" (which is a laughingly open Big Lie), recreational shooters have either zero access or expensive, red-tape-difficulty-bound access to what are in reality nothing but a safety tool for those who shoot or hunt legally and recreationally.

    FTR, I'm a boomer, by the way. Go Zoomers!

    If you've no experience with this, think of the loudest firecracker you ever heard...that's a firearm WEARING A SILENCER. (No video, on youtube or TV, can convey what firearms sound like in reality. Speakers are not designed for or capable of reproducing percussive, nearly instantaneous sounds like that produced by gunfire.)

    Replies: @Alfa158, @Twinkie, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Anon

    You’re right. Those ear muffs don’t help much.

  117. @Ash Williams
    It's like boomers created a problem for someone else to live in and don't want them to have the necessary tools to clean it up...

    And boomers wonder why zyklons hate them.

    Replies: @216, @Twodees Partain, @MBlanc46, @Ash Williams

    • Replies: , ,

    Found the boomers

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS