30 thoughts on ““Rational” Gun Policy”

  1. The anti-gun constituency doesn’t care how ignorant they sound about guns, in fact it’s pretty much a requirement for belonging to it. Last year I shipped off a gun I sold to a buyer on the east coast. The UPS site said they shipped guns so I went to the local UPS store. I shipped it legally to an FFL who would get the data and background check on the buyer. Unfortunately, I mentioned that the package contained a gun and the girl behind the counter reacted as if I had told her it was dynamite and the fuse was lit. Her eyes got large and she asked if the gun was loaded. Of course, it wasn’t but she went to her manager who returned to tell me that UPS policy was to let each UPS store determine their own policy on guns and his policy was he wasn’t shipping them out of his store.

  2. Vindman is being deported to the War College, after which the most likely fate is promotion to colonel. I expect the Democrats will make him Chairman of the Joints Chiefs eventually.

    1. When RBG joins the Choir Invisible, I suspect we will finally get a ruling declaring strict scrutiny applies to the second. This will shit-can 95+ percent of all gun laws in effect including bans.

    2. Fundamentally, ‘Gun Control’ is the belief that men are too stupid to build their own weapons.

      You don’t have to look far on Youtube to see how dumb that is; the primary effect of the recent anti-gun nonsense has been the rapid increase in the number of people making their own weapons. From the Japanese guy making knives from common household items to the home gun-makers to the German slingshot guy who makes remote-controlled fully-automatic crossbows powered by electric drills.

      If all the gun manufacturers were shut down on Monday, the plans for all kinds of DIY guns would be all over the Internet by Friday. And that would be the left’s worst nightmare.

      1. The left is already all over making it illegal to share gun construction plans or to even 3D print them. They have tons of proposed legislation in this area. So kiss the 1st Amendment bye bye as well.

        That gun control creates a black market in prohibited guns is undoubted. Whether they could be made in sufficient quantity and quality to equip the US military is another matter. Companies that do so (legally) would be strictly beholden to government contract. I suspect eventually you could count the number of suppliers on one finger. Modern, up-to-date arms in both function, quality and quantity would either come from supplier 1 or overseas. With the domestic supplier probably not doing well in any of those 3 areas as all government run programs typically go. Better to just not go there in the first place.

  3. We should have a meaningful discussion of the 2nd Amendment. If the left would show some intestinal fortitude on the matter they ought to challenge it directly in a repeal movement. This would lead to some interesting discussion. For example, why is “the right to keep and bear arms” 2nd in the Bill of Rights as opposed to say the 10th or even 11th and not part of the Bill of Rights at all? Another key question that ought to be asked is: “Can there be a Republic if the citizenry isn’t sovereign but subject?”

  4. To those who say there is no need for the citizenry to own semi-automatic assault rifles (and presumably handguns as well) I say fine. I’ll consider it *after* you have made it unlawful for public or private police to have them and *after* you have made it illegal for the military to use such “weapons of war” against the citizenry in order to suppress a riot or rebellion. Then we’ll talk. Perhaps moving on to ban crossbows, arrows, swords, lead-filled truncheons and anyone who can dead press lift >100 pounds.

  5. From Posted link:

    “An AK-47 wouldn’t protect you from a tyrannical government.”

    If that is so….than how do you explain the Afghani and Iraqi insurgents? They were able to bog down the most well equipped/trained army in the world (us) for over a decade after it was declared that “significant fighting is now over” using basically small arms (AK-47) and improvised explosive devices. For that matter what did the Vietcong have accept small arms and such?

  6. Now I need to go build a gun that can handle 50 clips at once. Maybe some sort of sequential belt feeder … Has anything used a clip since the M-1 Garand?

    1. Yeah, the Soviet-era SKS 7.62×39 mm does. I have one, and about a thousand stripper clips to go with it. They’re really tough to master unless you shoot constantly. It’s a nice rifle, though. Lots of them in circulation.

      1. Biden also doesn’t seem to know the difference between a clip and a magazine, as 100% of the “journalists” also don’t know. A clip is a little strip of metal whose edges are bent around to engage the rim of a cartridge. The SKS stripper clip holds 10, which you shove down into the magazine from the top with your thumb. My AR-15, as well as all of my semi-automatic pistols, uses a magazine. My pistol magazines hold from 7 to 14 rounds each (7 for the Colt 1911 .45 ACP, 14 for the FNS 40, and 9 or more for calibers in between).

  7. Fifty clips? Is he talking about phaser pistols? They had energy packs, which I guess could be called clips. Plus, once a former VP and current presidential candidate suggests you can’t defy the government because it’s too well-armed, then it’s time to go out and buy more guns with many clips.

  8. Well to be fair, in the particular case that started the conversation – Biden’s comment – I attribute it mostly to his fading intellect.

    But it’s true that more sentient anti-gunners spew similar nonsense.

    The anti-gunners will never stop. So 2A has to be constantly defended.

    1. “I attribute it mostly to his fading intellect.”

      His intellect has always been pretty dim. He didn’t earn the nickname “Slow Joe” Biden for nothing. There isn’t much left to fade.

  9. Th winky thing dumber than a leftist giving gun opinions is one giving military advice. This thread is the intersection of both.

  10. Seems to me that any voter can determine, easily, if a candidate is making good-faith proposals for restrictions on “clips”.

    If capacity is considered the problem, then let’s negotiate. Lift restrictions on firearms with SMALL capacity — break action single or double round shotguns, rifles, derringer-style pistols — in the same bill that restricts LARGE capacity technology. The actual numbers to enable or restrict are of course a matter of negotiation. And it may not be possible to come to agreement at all. That is the nature of discussion. But if a proposal is made to increase restrictions at one end of the spectrum without any reduction at the other, then there is no point in even beginning the discussion. Argument. Lecture.

    At present I’m looking with interest at a KelTec concealable pistol with a 33 round magazine…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *