Don’t hold your breath for new gun laws

posted at 12:31 pm on July 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already seen the sadly inevitable rush to capitalize on the tragedy in Colorado as an excuse to start passing strict gun laws, ranging from Bloomberg to Rendell and more. But as we sort through the aftermath of the disaster and the victims begin to pick up the pieces, is this opportunism going to result in any new legislation along those lines? One study linked by the AP seems to indicate that the gun grabbing crowd may wind up being disappointed.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that’s grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

“We don’t want sympathy. We want action,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday as President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney mourned the dead.

As this look at history lays out, there was a time in the nineties when gun control garnered a lot more public support. A ten year ban was placed on certain types of rifles while Bill Clinton was in office and the Brady Campaign obviously felt like they were winning the day. But then, slowly but surely, the tide began to shift.

By 2004, when the assault weapon ban lapsed, congressional Democrats made no serious attempt to pass an extension. President George W. Bush was content to let it fade into history.

Public sentiment had swung.

According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.

By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era, the fact is that they have deftly handled a campaign of public awareness which has been winning support on both sides of the aisle. There are some cycles where their financial support to campaigns has been almost exclusively to the GOP. This year 12% of their donations went to Democrats. And the far Left side of the Hill hasn’t been able to swing anything close to a majority of their own members to take a big stand on this. Obama himself said we must protect our 2nd amendment rights after the tragedy. The issue is simply too politically toxic.

This isn’t to say that 2nd amendment supporters shouldn’t be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. But I also don’t think it’s time to panic.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

Well, if the internet gets shut down, I guess it’ll be a signal to all of us to be expecting a flashbang through a window, and doors being knocked down at any moment…

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Absolutely serious. Why can’t a person over 21 years old and not legally restricted from owning a firearm (i.e, not judged mentally incompetent nor a felon) be allowed to carry on campus? You like the idea of Virginia Tech unarmed victim zones? Why shouldn’t high school teachers be allowed to carry? Why are parents picking up their kids from school required to disarm before going into school? They aren’t a threat in the grocery store, why are they a threat in a school?

You can’t really be serious with your question, can you?

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Uhh….what?

Dante on July 22, 2012 at 10:31 PM

A lot of college undergrads are actually in the same situation, under the age of 21 that is…

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You keep saying this, and it’s not accurate. You only have to be 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL dealer. Anyone can sell a handgun to anyone 18 or over legally as a private sale.

Then again, you’re ignoring my points because you have no counterargument, so I don’t expect you to care that you’re being inaccurate.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I should note, however, that private sales across state lines require an FFL as an intermediary.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Pish tush.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:26 PM

What is that, a buffalo gun?

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM

By the way…Sigarms is the most awesome handgun manufacturer in the world.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Agree with you on that one. I carry a P238 (not a zombie, a little more conservative style with the gray side panels). Good thing about it is that this is a very civilized gun to shoot, doesn’t punish the shooter with recoil. Therefore, it is fun to practice with and remain proficient. I have a Magnum Micro-Desert Eagle that I had first purchased for carry. That is the most punishing, inaccurate firearm I have ever fired, including a couple 44 magnums. The double action only with distinctive snap at firing makes this useful out to about 10 feet, wouldn’t try engaging much beyond that. The P238 is accurate to 50 feet easily.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Well, if the internet gets shut down, I guess it’ll be a signal to all of us to be expecting a flashbang through a window, and doors being knocked down at any moment…

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

We should have a designate emergency meeting place if that happens…

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM

I have a Magnum Micro-Desert Eagle that I had first purchased for carry. That is the most punishing, inaccurate firearm I have ever fired, including a couple 44 magnums. The double action only with distinctive snap at firing makes this useful out to about 10 feet, wouldn’t try engaging much beyond that. The P238 is accurate to 50 feet easily.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Was it one of those “Baby Eagles”? What caliber was it? I’ve seen some non-magnum Baby Eagles that look rather fetching.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

AZfederalist: Are you going to let the federal government decide who’s mentally incompetent or a felon or who shoudl be allowed to carry a firearm!? What kind of nanny state do you want to live in!? Why not let anyone over the age of 18 carry as many loaded weapons as they want of any kind anywhere? Our blessed 2nd amendment enshrines that right, doesn’t it? Clearly the 2nd amendment has limits. Deciding what they are is the task of legislators. It’s not religion (despite the frothy opinions of many people here). In the interest of having a discussion instead of an epithet-spewing match (MadisonConservative, for example), what kinds of weapons should be illegal to own? Thermonuclear weapons? Biological weapons? Tanks? Mortars? Bazookas? Armor-piercing shells? Where do you draw the line on the 2nd amendment? How about making live rounds prohibitively expensive? Say $100 for each round? You want to prtect your family – no problem. Six rounds is all you need. That’s $600… How does that sound?

pm123 on July 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

…police say the theater shooter had a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle with a drum clip that could hold up to 100 rounds and shoot as many as 60 times in a minute.

Holmes was arrested with a Glock .40-caliber pistol, which typically comes with a 15-bullet magazine, and a Remington 12-gauge shotgun. A second Glock was found in the suspect’s car.

The gunman first used the shotgun, according to a law enforcement official quoted in the Washington Post, then pulled out the AR-15. It’s not yet known how many people were injured by which weapon, and police have said they don’t know how many rounds were fired in total.

But anecdotal evidence thus far has suggested a semi-steady stream of gunfire.

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, witnesses in Aurora said they couldn’t immediately leave the theater because the shooter had pinned down the audience with continuous fire after an initial shot in the air, which forced many to the floor. Source

Flora Duh on July 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM

….most schools wouldn’t allow their security guards to carry guns….
jimver on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Yep. Just before I escaped from the ‘big city’, they had just banned even the ‘real city policeman’ (not just a ‘rent-a-cop‘) on regular duty in the neighborhood school lest the poor little darlings and the teachers be traumatized by the sight of the evil hunk of metal.

About two weeks later, the policeman was the first one killed, then two teachers shot, (one fatally) and a young girl kidnapped.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

We should have a designate emergency meeting place if that happens…
cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM

That’s easy. Meet at Hugh Akston’s Diner.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Was it one of those “Baby Eagles”? What caliber was it? I’ve seen some non-magnum Baby Eagles that look rather fetching.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Nope, not a Baby Eagle, it is called a Micro-Desert Eagle in 380. To give you a sense of scale: Palm pistol Apparently a duplicate of the Czech Kevin — no wonder we won the Cold War.

Pure blowback, double spring design. Very easy to get your hand in the wrong place and get bitten by the slide during cycling. As I said before, kicks like a son-of-a-gun; fire 24 rounds through it and the bit of your hand between your thumb and first finger wind up bruised. Other than that, it’s a great gun. Want to buy mine? ;-)

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Make sure you remember that when someone comes to your door inquiring about any firearms you own.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I will. It’ll beat having a shoot out with Law Enforcement, wouldn’t it?

Cleombrotus on July 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Yep. Just before I escaped from the ‘big city’, they had just banned even the ‘real city policeman’ (not just a ‘rent-a-cop‘) on regular duty in the neighborhood school lest the poor little darlings and the teachers be traumatized by the sight of the evil hunk of metal.

About two weeks later, the policeman was the first one killed, then two teachers shot, (one fatally) and a young girl kidnapped.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Meanwhile…

At that point, Strowder was arrested and security found a Swiss army knife on him during a search.

Strowder was arrested and charged with carrying a weapon on school property.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 10:28 PM


LMGTFY

There’s a lot of information on this topic out there.

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I don’t think that you could force a teacher to carry a gun as a condition of employment. But I do believe that those teachers who are willing should be armed and they should be trained (at the expense of the school district). They are the ones who are right there, on the scene when a shooter attempts a Columbine or VaTech. They can respond immediately. It takes time for the police to arrive; and they usually just form a perimeter and await the arrival of the SWAT Team. Armed teachers and students could save a lot of lives in those situations.
And, most people tend to run away from the source of danger. Nothing against them – it’s just a part of human nature. They’re sheep – and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. It’s just a fact. And they react as sheep. They run from the danger.
The ‘sheepdog’, however, runs toward the source of danger. It’s his/her nature to do so. And those with the ability and training should be allowed to carry a weapon if they desire.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Jimver: I have a feeling that a lot of profs not wanting to carry or be a hero or soldier or whatever comes from the fact that they are liberals. A true renaissance man can have a degree and still be a proficient shooter. It doesn’t take that much time and effort.

As far as under 21′s having guns, go back one generation. Kids had rifles in their trucks in high school. Many more kids had guns then than now. It’s not the gun access that’s changed: it’s the lack of morals etc. Heck, when I went to high school, in the 90′s, we had rifle range. Real guns, real ammo, and we got qualified to get our hunters safety cards. We learned how to handle guns, respect them, and no one got shot in the process. Now, dodgeball is too dangerous. As Brad Stine says, ” We’ve become a helmet wearing society.”

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM

That’s easy. Meet at Hugh Akston’s Diner.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:44 PM

LOL I don’t think I’m welcome there!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Nope, not a Baby Eagle, it is called a Micro-Desert Eagle in 380. To give you a sense of scale: Palm pistol Apparently a duplicate of the Czech Kevin — no wonder we won the Cold War.

Pure blowback, double spring design. Very easy to get your hand in the wrong place and get bitten by the slide during cycling. As I said before, kicks like a son-of-a-gun; fire 24 rounds through it and the bit of your hand between your thumb and first finger wind up bruised. Other than that, it’s a great gun. Want to buy mine? ;-)

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Some of those pocket pistols…you’d think someone would have said “is this really practical?”

I’ll stick to my Bersa, thanks. ;)

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:49 PM

. The P238 is accurate to 50 feet easily.

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I like the P238. So much so that I have three of them (Nitron, Copperhead and HD all-stainless) one with a suppressor.
You might like the P938, as well. It’s about the same size – but in a full 9mm Parabellum. An excellent backup gun.

Solaratov on July 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM

So,

The ONLY people who thought something was wrong with this guy was the Gun Club?

Says volumes about who can judge character, don’t ya think?

ProfShadow on July 22, 2012 at 10:55 PM

As far as under 21′s having guns, go back one generation.
Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Heh, when I was in High School and Junior College, you were in deep-doo-doo if you didn’t have an M-1 (or a bit later, an M-14) either in your hands or in your closet.

Of course it was a Military Academy, but we were still juveniles.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I’ll stick to my Bersa, thanks. ;)

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Do you carry cocked and locked? What do you think of the double action first pull vs the followups?

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM

This thread has worn me out. I’ll leave the gentlemen to it, I think! :) I’m going over to QOTD for while. Sweet dreams, everyone!

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I have a book that is about 2-3 inches thick up in the attic. I need to dig it out. Got it from the NRA. Filled with nothing but newspaper accounts of average citizens saving lives across America with their legally owned firearms.

You know.. this guy wasn’t a trained special ops soldier. He didn’t even have any military experience. He walked into a room where no one was armed, filled with women and children and started opening fire. And some seriously think even one person in that room with a firearm wouldn’t have made any difference. He was just freak. A science nerd who bought some guns and dressed like a soldier and starting firing at innocent un-armed people. That doesn’t mean he had skill or courage. People returning fire at him would have changed things.

Guns are not that hard to operate. You point and pull the trigger and you keep pulling the trigger till you don’t have to any more. The bullets do the rest. Your average firearm owner who spends a few hours a month at the range would probably have been better trained than this psycho was.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM

These demagoguecrats who are using the Aurora shooting to make a little noise about gun control, there is one little question that really deflates them: “Whose guns do you want to take?”. That’s all. It doesn’t even pay to get on the defensive with these people. Give ‘em enough rope.

Buddahpundit on July 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Do you carry cocked and locked? What do you think of the double action first pull vs the followups?

Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Locked and decocked. I much prefer the option of SA and DA. Single action for constant readiness, double for imminent danger.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Your average firearm owner who spends a few hours a month at the range would probably have been better trained than this psycho was.
JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 11:06 PM

True. Thanks for bringing it up, I hadn’t really put much thought in that direction… In fact we will never know if he ever actually hit what he was intending to hit. When you are just blasting away at an unarmed crowd in what is essentially an ‘alley’, you don’t have to be any kind of a marksman to slaughter and wound many.

In fact, given the situation, I’d say he was a horrible marksman given the weapons and quantity of ammo, and ‘only’ 12 killed.

Heck, any decent shot, with no opposition, could have injured 71+ people sitting in a movie theater with just one loading of the shotgun, with the the most common ammo which can be purchased at most WalMarts without even having to get a clerk to open the glass cabinet.

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Up is down, left is right or do my eyes deceive me? Here is a liberal explaining the constitution and the 2nd amendment and they get it right! Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

gmerits on July 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM

So this is interesting. You know.. some people want to point fingers at guns and gun shops.. but what about the freaking college?
Here, according to this story, his membership was declined when he tried to join a gun club because of freakish behavior. But where is the college in all of this? They’ve been instructed to keep their mouths shut. And they have taken down websites related to the science department.

Why isn’t anyone wondering what classes he was attending? What lectures he has heard? It’s a legitimate question. He spent far more time at college than he ever did at gun shops. And at least one gun club said no when he wanted to apply. But the college? Wondering if any radical professors teach at this college? Hey.. if he had attended a Christian school, been home schooled or was deeply involved in a church.. that would be front and center. But the college gets off scott free. Not like there is ever any indoctrination going on in colleges, is there.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/22/holmes-gun-club-membership-rejected-over-bizarre-behavior/

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Are you arguing or suggesting that a school or a university campus should be gun-friendly zones??? you can”t be serious….

jimver on July 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM

.
You like the idea of Virginia Tech unarmed victim zones? Why shouldn’t high school teachers be allowed to carry? Why are parents picking up their kids from school required to disarm before going into school? They aren’t a threat in the grocery store, why are they a threat in a school?

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM

.
Places that should NOT be “gun friendly” zones:

1) Courts of law.

2) Mental Asylums.

3) Prisons & juvenile detention facilities.

Question marks on:

? Congressional and Senate sessions (State and Federal)???

?Boro, Twp, and School Board meetings ???
.
.
I’m sure there’s others that could be added, but Universities and Campuses should NOT have restrictions on firearms possession for non-felon, legal adults.

listens2glenn on July 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM

You guys are still going on and on about this?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM

You guys are still going on and on about this?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM

.
Why not ?

The subject ranks right up there with Sarah Palin, abortion, or any other subject that pits Christianity vs Atheism.

listens2glenn on July 22, 2012 at 11:48 PM

So is Ward Churchill still on the faculty at the University of Colorado? As of 2006 ( I think that is the date of this radio interview) David Horowitz says he still was.. because you can’t fire professors no matter what they do. I also found an article that in 2007 a group of 30 students brought him back to the University speak.

David Horowitz Exposes the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/most-dengerous.html

Wouldn’t that be interesting if Ward Churchill was still around Colorado University.

JellyToast on July 22, 2012 at 11:49 PM

You guys are still going on and on about this?
KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Yeah, not everyone is like Hudson, in Aliens.. “Game Over Man, Game Over!”

LegendHasIt on July 22, 2012 at 11:53 PM

.
Places that should NOT be “gun friendly” zones:

1) Courts of law.

2) Mental Asylums.

3) Prisons & juvenile detention facilities.

Question marks on:

? Congressional and Senate sessions (State and Federal)???

?Boro, Twp, and School Board meetings ???

listens2glenn on July 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Including law enforcement? And why shouldn’t a felon be able to keep and bear arms?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM

You guys are still going on and on about this?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Yeah, why not? QOTD ain’t all that interesting IMHO, this is much more interesting.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Including law enforcement? And why shouldn’t a felon be able to keep and bear arms?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Same reason felons should not be allowed to vote. There are certain types of crimes that should restrict what the convicted person is able to do in perpetuity. Allowing murderers, racketeers, child molesters, to own firearms after their incarceration just seems like a bad idea. The founders would have had no problem with such an approach given that they were supportive of them losing their franchise.

Now, if you want to argue what crimes should be felonies vs. those that are, that is a worthy discussion.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM

And why shouldn’t a felon be able to keep and bear arms?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington believed that they should be prohibited from owning firearms, which is good enough for me.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington believed that no “FREE man” should be disallowed the right to own a firearm. Now with regard to your suggestion that “what crimes should be felonies” that is indeed a very good question.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Same reason felons should not be allowed to vote. There are certain types of crimes that should restrict what the convicted person is able to do in perpetuity. Allowing murderers, racketeers, child molesters, to own firearms after their incarceration just seems like a bad idea. The founders would have had no problem with such an approach given that they were supportive of them losing their franchise.

Now, if you want to argue what crimes should be felonies vs. those that are, that is a worthy discussion.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Voting is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms is a right. We don’t “allow” someone a right; the right exists because they exist. “Just seems like a bad idea” isn’t much of an argument, no offense. Besides, many felonies are non-violent and do not involve a victim.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Nutnfancy’s response and links to some other sheepdog philosophy videos. I’m linking this not because I am a fanboy(although I will watch a 45 min review of a knife :P). It’s just another data point.

tom daschle concerned on July 23, 2012 at 12:22 AM

By the way…Sigarms is the most awesome handgun manufacturer in the world.

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM

An extraordinarily fine handgun. All of them.

I would pitch it in the gutter for 1911A1.

Any. Day.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Lol…some funny responses!

KMC1 on July 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Do you carry cocked and locked?
Free Indeed on July 22, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Never.

Ever.

If you cannot ascertain a dangerous situation in time to allow you to jack the slide and chamber a round, you have no business being there and you would likely get blown away, anyway.

Sorry. That’s the way it is.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:31 AM

It’s best to buy used merchandise off the grid if at all possible. :(

cynccook on July 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM

*cough*

MadisonConservative on July 22, 2012 at 9:50 PM

You know, officer, I was on my way to the gun range with all my guns locked in my car trunk and, well, while I stopped and parked my car to get a cup of coffee someone broke into my car… Now all I have is my knife collection…

riddick on July 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Lol…some funny responses!

KMC1 on July 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM

COWARDS are 99.9% funny don’t ya know.

tom daschle concerned on July 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington believed that no “FREE man” should be disallowed the right to own a firearm. Now with regard to your suggestion that “what crimes should be felonies” that is indeed a very good question.

SWalker on July 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Did their definition of Free man include felons who had served their time? Not sniping, I am just asking because I don’t know. At that time, a firearm was often needed just for survival because that is how people gathered food and sustenance (by hunting), so I can certainly see that viewpoint.

Voting is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms is a right. We don’t “allow” someone a right; the right exists because they exist. “Just seems like a bad idea” isn’t much of an argument, no offense. Besides, many felonies are non-violent and do not involve a victim.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 12:21 AM

The “seems like a bad idea” was under-statement based upon the fact that many convicted felons often leave prison with the desire to “get” the people who put them in prison. Allowing them to legally own firearms would seem to help enable that behavior. I realize that making it illegal for them to own a firearm won’t prevent them from acquiring one illegally, but it does provide the ability to re-incarcerate them before they commit murder or another violent act. Your final sentence was what I was getting at in my final statement. It might be that preventing firearms ownership by certain classes of felonies (i.e, violent felonies) would be warranted. Yes, keeping and bearing arms is a right, but I think you would agree that keeping the mentally incompetent from owning firearms or other weapons is reasonable.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Cocked and Locked carry, is for those that require a penis pump.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Man, I’m in good company tonight. I carry both the SigP220 and a Bersa mini firestorm .45 when I’m wearing my vest. In hot weather I carry both my Ruger LC9 and a North American Arms .22mag derringer in my Cellpal and it’s completely discreet. It could easily conceal my 1911 but that forms a pretty heavy “package” wearing my cargo pants. ;-) I wish my FN5.7 was better suited for concealed carry…

Harbingeing on July 23, 2012 at 12:35 AM

You guys are still going on and on about this?

KMC1 on July 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Caliber envy.

Why not ?

The subject ranks right up there with Sarah Palin, abortion, or any other subject that pits Christianity vs Atheism.

listens2glenn on July 22, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Suck it.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:37 AM

COWARDS are 99.9% funny don’t ya know.

tom daschle concerned on July 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Would you mind expounding on your close combat experiences?

I’m sure we would be mesmerized.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Man, I’m in good company tonight. I carry both the SigP220 and a Bersa mini firestorm .45 when I’m wearing my vest. In hot weather I carry both my Ruger LC9 and a North American Arms .22mag derringer in my Cellpal and it’s completely discreet. It could easily conceal my 1911 but that forms a pretty heavy “package” wearing my cargo pants. ;-) I wish my FN5.7 was better suited for concealed carry…

Harbingeing on July 23, 2012 at 12:35 AM

What do you need all those weapons for? One, given maximum attainable proficiency, is plenty.

….and more comfortable.

The rest is schlong comparison.

FULL DISCLOSURE: As a Marine, I think everyone should carry.

…intelligently.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:47 AM

While many of the Democrats in this article bemoan the ascendency of the NRA in the modern era

Get over it, Democrats. People are wising up.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Harbingeing on July 23, 2012 at 12:35 AM

You do know that – from a pistol – the 5.7 is no more powerful than a .22Rimfire Magnum, don’t you?

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM

You do know that – from a pistol – the 5.7 is no more powerful than a .22Rimfire Magnum, don’t you?

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Shhhhh…..

It sounds more powerful when you say 5.7.

98ZJUSMC on July 23, 2012 at 12:52 AM

You do know that – from a pistol – the 5.7 is no more powerful than a .22Rimfire Magnum, don’t you?

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Do you have a link to data for that claim? From what I have read, the 5.7 cartridge has at least three times as much energy.

tom daschle concerned on July 23, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Ah, one of the most argued arguments of recent years. People comparing rifle velocities to pistol velocities vice versa on each.

I can’t find the link to the ballistic gel tests, of them side by side, and haven’t gotten around to doing my own, but the one I saw several months ago convinced me that the 5.7 out of a pistol is a significantly better choice than .22 mag out of a pistol.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of both rounds, and would have bought a PMR-30 if I could have found one for less than three times MSRP, before they proved themselves horribly unreliable.

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Legend, side by side tests…the comments are interesting too.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Lol…some funny responses!

KMC1 on July 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM

COWARDS are 99.9% funny don’t ya know.

tom daschle concerned on July 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM

I’m wondering who you’re referring to as a coward?

KMC1 on July 23, 2012 at 1:21 AM

“5.7 = 22 Magnum, convince me” thread…back and fro in the responses.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Sorry, here’s the link.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 1:21 AM

The one I was looking for was in clear ballistics gel with a high speed camera so you could see the temporary wound channels.

But then, some people consider wet telephone books a more realistic test medium than the gel.

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Legend, side by side tests…the comments are interesting too.

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 1:21 AM

That’s…interesting.
I guess I stand corrected.
I still wouldn’t carry a 5.7 as a defensive weapon – unless there was no other choice.
And I don’t even think I have a need for a rifle that the 5.7 could fill. [Though I do like the 50round mag on the PS90]

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Myth busting

Schadenfreude on July 23, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Today I was listening to Michael Savage, who has always impressed me as an egotistical, moronic bore. On this occasion he did not disappoint. He was arguing that 100 round drum magazines should be banned because they’re only suitable for military use, and that bullet proof vests should be banned from civilian sales. My thought was that 100 round drum magazines are unreliable toys that no current military would touch. I know that I wouldn’t have anything to do with them, and that in fact Holme’s drum magazine reportedly jammed his rifle and forced him to go to his pistol, not the sort of thing you’d want to happen in a military confrontation.. Secondly the gunman seems to have been wearing a Blackhawk Tactical Vest, which is just nylon mesh. Whether he had soft armor under that is not at all clear from the reports, but why in the world shouldn’t civilians be able to buy passive protection if they fear for their lives? The gunman drove a Hyundai. Should we ban those? Every time I hear Savage I get the impression that he’s a blowhard parody of a conservative talk radio host.

claudius on July 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM

The one I was looking for was in clear ballistics gel with a high speed camera so you could see the temporary wound channels.

But then, some people consider wet telephone books a more realistic test medium than the gel.

LegendHasIt on July 23, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Leaving aside the fact that no one is willing to admit they’ve been shot before…

I hate it when people quote Jello tests (oh yes, sorry, ‘ballistic gelatin’).

Suck it up.

CorporatePiggy on July 23, 2012 at 2:45 AM

I haven’t the foggiest as to what has already been commented in the previous seven pages…haven’t read them, won’t read them all, either…BUT I’d like to add one thing here at the apparent end of these pages:

Each of these crazed gunman/gunmen murdering sprees occur in locations that are ENSURED TO BE “gun free” gatherings.

In other words, these “gun free” gatherings provide ready audiences that make for defenseless victims, and, thus, they’re the locations used by crazed gunman/gunmen to act out their evil plans.

Schools, theatres, congregations of military who are required to not be armed for the meeting, public speaking engagements by alleged pacifists attended by same…

Why does anyone think these locations continue to be targeted by crazy people armed with artillery? Because they’re guaranteed a group of ready victims who won’t be defending themselves with any firepower to match or outweigh (or contend with at all) the evil aggressor.

THIS IS WHY concealed carry is so important throughout our society. I don’t think that gradeschool children should be armed BUT I DO think that there needs to be MORE instruction of MORE people in our society in the ownership and/or use of guns and in self-defense when confronted with an aggressor with guns or other weapons.

A transient has just been detained in the L.A. area who is responsible for the stabbing attacks on other area transients, which has been going on for a while now in the greater L.A. area: knifing attacks on sleeping transients. So this guy responsible (Black, homeless, deranged — he left “death warrant” statements on the bodies of those he attacked signed with an identity other than his own, fictitious one to no one’s surprise)…

So is Leftwing mayor of L.A., Democrat Marxist gang guy Villaraigosa now going to demand the banning of knives and other sharp objects? Bloomberg to now demand the banning of eating utensils? After all, those spoons can be reshaped into deadly weapons…

Where and when I was growing up, at the age of twelve, most of us children were introduced to shotguns and how to use one, if not at least to the use and upkeep of a .22 rifle in the home and field. No one went on a murdering rampage, no one abused animals with the weapons nor one another. None of us grew up to be criminals or insane activists of harms upon society. But we all grew up to have families and know how to use guns and not to fear asserting ourselves if conditions required such.

More of education with weapons, about weapons, is required in our society, not less of that.

Lourdes on July 23, 2012 at 4:14 AM

Other than that, it’s a great gun. Want to buy mine? ;-)

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Sounds like my cheap, POS Jennings .380 (straight blowback). It shoots and I’m not afraid of it coming apart in my hand, but when I shoot it I have to take a few days for the “bites” to heal. Still, I won’t sell it. I regret selling every gun I ever sold and wish I had them all back. I just save up till I can upgrade. Next up (I think): XD single stack .45 (still need to shoot one to be sure).

swinia sutki on July 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM

More of education with weapons, about weapons, is required in our society, not less of that.

Lourdes on July 23, 2012 at 4:14 AM

Amen. If my daughter decided to never own a gun (she has two now and calls them her “babies”) I wanted her to understand, respect and not be fearful of them as some mysterious, forbidden monsters of death. Knowledge is never a bad thing; only what we do with that knowledge can be for good or ill.

swinia sutki on July 23, 2012 at 5:37 AM

Back when I was a liberal (and I was), the only thing I thought was wrong with liberalism was its view on gun control. It didn’t make sense to me. Not even then.

englishqueen01 on July 23, 2012 at 6:11 AM

Every time I hear Savage I get the impression that he’s a blowhard parody of a conservative talk radio host.

claudius on July 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM

LOL!- The other night he was almost crying about a show he saw regarding people who were being foreclosed. He was so sad about the lives that were ruined by it. He asked the audience to call. The first guy who called said he was foreclosed on, but some “Obama” plan made it possible to not have a judgement filed against him for the balance he owed after the house was sold. Savage then told the guy he was the cause of the rest of us having to pay the difference and really ridiculed the guy. Don’t ever call Michael Savage if you are looking for sympathy!

Night Owl on July 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM

englishqueen01 on July 23, 2012 at 6:11 AM

Just curious…was it a sudden right turn or a gradual shift? Personally, I think I was always pretty conservative. I just couldn’t put a label on it when I was younger.

swinia sutki on July 23, 2012 at 7:07 AM

The “seems like a bad idea” was under-statement based upon the fact that many convicted felons often leave prison with the desire to “get” the people who put them in prison. Allowing them to legally own firearms would seem to help enable that behavior. I realize that making it illegal for them to own a firearm won’t prevent them from acquiring one illegally, but it does provide the ability to re-incarcerate them before they commit murder or another violent act.

AZfederalist on July 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM

You are arguing that a person should continue to be guilty and to serve punishment for a crime, even if his time has already been served. Further, you are arguing for Orwellian thoughtcrime/precrime: make a person a criminal for his thoughts or before he commits a criminal act. I’m sure you’ve heard the quote, “When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM

You are arguing that a person should continue to be guilty and to serve punishment for a crime, even if his time has already been served.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM

It would be nice if ALL consequences of crimes committed would be eliminated by “time served” but that’s just wishful thinking.

Makes nice theory and will make some of us feel good but doesn’t work in real life.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

It would be nice if ALL consequences of crimes committed would be eliminated by “time served” but that’s just wishful thinking.

Makes nice theory and will make some of us feel good but doesn’t work in real life.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

No one is talking consequences being eliminated.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

I wish to God Fox News would get the facts straight,You expect this from MSNBC and CNN.All weekend long Fox has allowed theses so call experts to say no one should be allowed to own automatic guns and just now on Fox and friends they allowed BO Deetle to call the shooters gun a automatic weapon. For the hundredth time it was a semi automatic weapon.You need a class 2 or 3 FFL license to own a full auto weapon and you don,t get just by filling out a few forms.It took me over 14 months to get my class 2 license and i already had my class 1 FFL license.

logman1 on July 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM

I wish to God Fox News would get the facts straight,You expect this from MSNBC and CNN.

logman1 on July 23, 2012 at 8:43 AM

I expect it from all media. Fox is no different, and is certainly not the golden boy conservatives believe it to be.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:44 AM

(Dante) Your so right.My mistake for thinking Fox would be different.

logman1 on July 23, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Hey.. anybody remember this?

“Armed woman in Colorado stops heavily armed gunman” The pastor said 50 or more lives may have been saved. Some nut was going into a church to kill people.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/20/flashback_armed_woman_in_colorado_saves_lives_prevents_mass_shooting

JellyToast on July 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM

No one is talking consequences being eliminated.
Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:37 AM

The loss of gun rights along with voting rights and jail time is part of the consequence of violating certain laws. The jail time has a limitation in some cases. The others don’t. Why is that so hard to understand?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 9:20 AM

The loss of gun rights along with voting rights and jail time is part of the consequence of violating certain laws. The jail time has a limitation in some cases. The others don’t. Why is that so hard to understand?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Voting is not a right, it’s a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away.

I did misquote you, you said all consequences. I should have said that no one is suggesting eliminating all consequences. And all jail time has limitations; there is no jail time that doesn’t have a limitation.

I don’t think you’re quite grasping the issue, and instead defaulting on an ingrained belief that has been with you since birth or early childhood. Why should felons not be able to keep and bear arms? Give me a reason without using circular logic.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It would be nice if ALL consequences of crimes committed would be eliminated by “time served” but that’s just wishful thinking.

Makes nice theory and will make some of us feel good but doesn’t work in real life.

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

There is no reason that a person who has served their time should relinquish the right to self-defense. Some here have noted that released convicts might want to go after someone…but ignore totally the possibility that someone might want to go after them. Why should they not have the ability to protect their life? That is the most fundamental right of all.

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Absolutely serious. Why can’t a person over 21 years old and not legally restricted from owning a firearm (i.e, not judged mentally incompetent nor a felon) be allowed to carry on campus? You like the idea of Virginia Tech unarmed victim zones? Why shouldn’t high school teachers be allowed to carry? Why are parents picking up their kids from school required to disarm before going into school? They aren’t a threat in the grocery store, why are they a threat in a school?

You can’t really be serious with your question, can you?

AZfederalist on July 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM

My Daddy grew up in the 20s and in his elementary school it was not uncommon to see .22 rifles leaning against the wall in the cloakroom. Sometimes a boy would be sent to school with the expectation thta he’d bring home rabbit or squirrel for the pot. This was in eastern Pennsylvania, by the way. In college at Princeton, Dad had a friend who kept a broom handle Mauser in his room. Nobody thought much of it and the guys would absent-mindedly field strip the gun when shooting the breeze.

In contrast, a Princeton student had to have special permission to drive a vehicle because of the danger posed by cars. I mean, a kid could kill somebody with one of those things.

Cricket624 on July 23, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You make a persuasive argument when you argue that gun ownership is a fundamental right and not a privilege.

My argument is that society may have the option of curtailing persons’ rights if the laws governing social order are violated. Would not incarceration for life be an example of this?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM

My argument is that society may have the option of curtailing persons’ rights if the laws governing social order are violated. Would not incarceration for life be an example of this?

Cleombrotus on July 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM

So your position is that rights are not inalienable, and that they can be taken away because a group of people decide so? I just want to know why you think felons should not be able to keep and bear arms.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 10:19 AM

If someone can be sentenced to life in prison I see no reason why they cannot be sentenced to life without owning a gun.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

If someone can be sentenced to life in prison I see no reason why they cannot be sentenced to life without owning a gun.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

So people should now be sentenced again after having served their sentence? What other rights should be taken away? Free speech?

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 8:04 AM

When one makes the decision to break the law, one should also realize that breaking that law has consequences. Oft-times, far-reaching consequences.
And that those consequences often include the permanent loss of certain rights and privileges that we take for granted; and that non-law breakers continue to enjoy.
Are you now saying that people should not be responsible for their actions? That they shouldn’t accept the consequences of their criminal acts?

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM

And that those consequences often include the permanent loss of certain rights and privileges that we take for granted; and that non-law breakers continue to enjoy.
Are you now saying that people should not be responsible for their actions? That they shouldn’t accept the consequences of their criminal acts?

Solaratov on July 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM

They were responsible for their actions, were tried, convicted, and served. That’s accepting the consequences.

Why are you eager to deny fundamental rights?

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM

If someone can be sentenced to life in prison I see no reason why they cannot be sentenced to life without owning a gun.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

We twist ourselves into so many knots because we don’t’ want to do what we should. Murder, rape, kidnapping, treason and a few others should equal hanging. Period. People who commit lesser crimes can go to jail, short or long term imprisonment and then there is the good ol stocks. Right in the public.

I know that seems so inhuman. So is killing women and children whose only crime was to go to the movies.

Because we have rejected what works, we are only left with what doesn’t.
Unfortunately, too many Christians also think our punishments need to be humane. No they don’t Jesus does not love murderers. He hates them. We have perverted the Gospel in America and it has a trickle down effect of too many people thinking rehabilitation is better than hanging.
If someone has done something that would equal the loss of gun rights.. then they may as well be imprisoned. Or put in stocks for a few weeks or whipped in the public square. But we are too civilized for such brutality against murderers and thugs. Actually we’re not.. not when you think how easily we can kill a million unborn babies in the womb every year.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him:

a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren.

JellyToast on July 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Still wondering where an out of work 24 year old gets 10-15k for a high end arsenal…

Wagthatdog on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So people should now be sentenced again after having served their sentence? What other rights should be taken away? Free speech?

MadisonConservative on July 23, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Life without owning a gun is essentially part of the original sentence. It comes with being convicted of a felony.

Not advocating for or against such a sentence, only pointing out that placing restrictions on someone’s rights for the rest of their live is not without precedent. Restricting someone to prison for life certainly restricts their rights for life.

Also, if a life in prison sentence can be shortened then it should also be possible to shorten any other lifetime right restriction. So a felon should be able to appeal and win a shortening of his lifetime sentence to not own a gun.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Still wondering where an out of work 24 year old gets 10-15k for a high end arsenal…

Wagthatdog on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Credit cards?

If he has good credit and several cards he could easily have total credit limits that exceed that level.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM

People are always afraid that, in a situation in which bad guys are waving guns around, a good guy who pulls out a gun will start a gunfight. I wonder in what percentage of such cases the bad guys flee or surrender, instead of shooting?

In the recent Internet Cafe incident, the bad guys ran, right? And Holmes surrendered to the police outside the theatre?

I wonder if bad guys sometimes carry guns just to wave around in order to get people to cooperate. When confronted with a trained CCW person, some might just head for the door or drop the weapon. Just wondering.

A good book on gun rights and self-defense use of them: Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense, by Chris Bird. It’s on Amazon.

KyMouse on July 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Still wondering where an out of work 24 year old gets 10-15k for a high end arsenal…

Wagthatdog on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

So you keep ignoring the answer. Selling property isn’t difficult. Add that to credit cards and financial aid and it’s not a hardship. This isn’t 1912. 10k isn’t hard to come by.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Not advocating for or against such a sentence, only pointing out that placing restrictions on someone’s rights for the rest of their live is not without precedent.

farsighted on July 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

LOL. Of course it’s not without precedent. The story of government is the story of totalitarianism.

Dante on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8