Gun Control: Paving the Road to Hell

Posted: July 21, 2012 by doubleplusundead in Op/Sped, This Is My BOOMSTICK!

So, I made my opinion known that I find this article regarding the recent tragedy in Aurora from the New Yorker vile, and it was suggested I make a response.  Done and done.  I’m going to try and keep my usual foulmouthedness and snark to a minimum in this post and offer a more serious, in-depth post explaining my views on gun control, and why I find the modern gun control movement abhorrent.  Much of this is old hat for my regular readers, as most of us are Evil Gun-Toting Maniacs (TM) to begin with, so feel free to tl;dr this and check out our other posts for our trademark snark and foulmouthedness, and maybe some hotassery.

First things first, the Second Amendment is an acknowledgment by our federal government of our essential, individual human right to self defense, full stop, there will be no deviation from that position, on ne passe pas.  Government does not grant us this right, because that would indicate that government can take this right from us, they can NEVER take this right from us, just as they cannot take the right to free speech away from us.  To argue otherwise is not only wrong, morally and intellectually, it is cruel.  It is NOT about militias or the state’s right to maintain arms, those rights have never been in question, every single one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are a recognition of natural rights for the individual, despite modern efforts by liberals to argue that somehow, as if by magic, that just the Second is for the state.

Of course the Supreme Court recently affirmed this and stated that the Second Amendment IS an individual right, as is the right to own a firearm in Heller.  Gopnik and the New Yorker crew can feel free to choke on that.

As most of my regular readers know, I have my degree in western history, as well as a strong background in political science.  With that sort of background, you become fixated on learning what something is, why it was designed the way it was, what came before it, what came after it, learning the what and why of that technology, and of course its broader role in history.  When I purchased my first firearm, I knew in my heart of hearts I’d end up with a full size .357 revolver (6″ S&W 686P, I love revolvers), but that didn’t stop me from learning about as much of the total history of individual firearms development as I could.  And I’m glad I did, it provides me with increased general knowledge, the means to argue against the gun control movement, and to show that even if they do have the best intentions in mind, their policies will inevitably be ineffective at best and a catalyst for greater human tragedy at worst.

So, what does my oddball fixation on having to know the full history of random crap I’m interested in at the time have to do with the gun control movement, and this New Yorker article?  I’ll explain, one of the things that gun control supporters or sympathizers often fail to understand or opt to ignore (whether that’s willful ignorance or malice) is that the basic technology of individual firearms (individual firearms being defined as a firearm that a single person can move, manipulate and fire on their own) is very mature technology, over 500 years old.  Sturm, Ruger & Co. are one of the largest firearm manufacturers in America, and have a very handy series of videos on Youtube that give a very brief basic overview of the major advances over the centuries in firearm technology, please utilize these videos in order to understand some of the terms I’m using here.  Firearms are machines and tools, just like there are terms one uses for parts or functions of a computer that we’ve all learned, so too are there such things for firearms, and these individual terms are significant.

Understand, the modern repeating firearm using self contained cartridges (bullet, powder, ignition source in a cartridge of some sort) has been around for over 150 years, and there were black powder muzzleloading (sort of) repeating firearms long before that. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns have been around for over 100 years.  The M1911 has been around for over 100 years now, and is STILL one of the most popular handguns in America.

Even the AR-15 and AK-47 are old hat, both are around 50 year old designs, modern polymer semi-auto pistols are not that far off from the 1911 seen above, they’ve just been simplified, larger magazines made and new polymers have been incorporated.  Gun control advocates and sympathizers need to understand this fundamental fact: firearms are really not that damned difficult to make, they’re not magic talismans, they’re not some blight or disease, they’re a machine, a tool that mankind has been making for half a millennium now.  Pandora’s box was opened long ago, and there’s no closing it.  There are hobbyists in America who manufacture firearms at home from almost every era of firearms development, up to and including major components of or entire AR-15s, some will use period correct tools and techniques, others will use modern tools and even small CNC machines.  Even if one only has access to things such as revolvers (single or double action), pump action shotguns and lever action or bolt action rifles, you can still fire and reload fairly quickly, it just takes a bit more work and practice.  If someone plans on doing something evil, and are determined to get access to a firearm, they’ll get it, or they’ll find another way to do the damage.

How easy is it to make a firearm?  Ever hear of the FP-45 Liberator?

What is that POS?  I hear you say.  The FP-45 was designed and manufactured by a branch of GM (yes, the auto manufacturer) during WWII.  Approximately 1 MILLION were manufactured by a small manufacturing plant in about three months.  Yes, but what was the Liberator?  It was a cheap, single shot hunk of junk made out of a small number of stamped steel parts, firing a .45 caliber pistol round out of a smoothbore barrel, so very inaccurate on top of being built out of cheap crap stamped steel parts.  It came in a small box with a few cartridges and a sheet of paper with instructions on how to load, unload and fire (you had to use a rod, pencil or stick to extract a spent cartridge).  Looks like a somebody grabbed a fistful of odds and ends from Lowes or Home Depot and cobbled ’em together, right?

The plan was to airdrop these FP-45s across Nazi-occupied parts of Europe, where resistance fighters could use them to ambush German soldiers in the streets, kill them and take their weapons to use against the Reich.  The OSS opted not to follow through and use them in Europe, we did however use some of them in Asia, China in particular.

Let that sink in, one MILLION guns, in THREE MONTHS, in a small manufacturing plant, in 1942, with 1942 technology.  And these weren’t gun people, these were people who were normally building auto parts.  Guns aren’t hard to make, you can find blueprints in books and online easily, any mouthbreather with a small workshop in his basement or garage, a set of instructions and a will to manufacture can make a serviceable, if crude firearm, then you have guys with more advanced stuff, including small CNC machines.  There were some pretty sophisticated clandestine gun making operations in IRA circles during The Troubles, building up to and including submachine guns.

That’s just manufacturing, but consider the logistic implications of the FP-45 too, we could have airdropped those damn things by the million if we wanted to in WWII.  Now think about the problem of drugs being smuggled into our ports and borders.  How many billions have we put into stopping the flow of narcotics, and how much success have we had in stopping the flow of said narcotics?  On another front, we now have, depending on who you ask, anywhere from 12 to 50 million illegal immigrants in the US right now.  We apparently can’t stop billions of dollars of illegal narcotics and millions of illegal immigrants from making their way into this country, what the HELL makes you think you’ll stop millions of guns and mountains of ammunition from getting in?  You won’t, and you can’t, or the illegal immigrant issue wouldn’t be an issue, and we’d be winning the farcical War on Drugs.  And that’s not even considering the fact that there are as many guns as there are people in the US, quite literally, there are approximately 300 MILLION firearms owned by the general public in America.

And, grim as this is to say, explosives are far more effective at killing large numbers of people.  We should be thankful that most of these psycho freaks grab a handgun before they grab a rifle, and a rifle before they build a bomb, and I don’t see Gopnik calling for the banning of petroleum, common household and industrial chemicals.

So, knowing how easy weapons are to make, move and procure, whether legal or not, who is actually effected the most by gun control measures?  Typically, it’ll be law abiding citizens, who are very much about keeping The Man out of their life, and do so by staying on his good side.  In essence, you’ve weakened the defensive capabilities of good people against the criminal element, against psycho freak aberrations like this guy in Aurora, and against governments, both foreign and domestic, who almost always either don’t care about the law, or they are the law, so to speak.  Is it a guarantee you’ll be able to make a successful defense against any such things?  No, of course not.  But is there anything benevolent about making a decent individual less able to defend themselves?  No, it’s actually pretty damned cruel.  That however can be hard for people to see when they’re reacting with emotion, not sitting back and applying logic and common sense to the situation, and lack historical perspective and knowledge on the subject.

As far as the scale of these tragedies, one should keep in mind that even the worst of these rampage style attacks is not nearly as common as individual criminal acts where a firearm is often used as both defense and deterrent, and absolutely pales in comparison to the kinds of massacres and atrocities inflicted on citizens by governments, both foreign and domestic.  The most obvious of these are course the Holocaust and German atrocities in WWII, but there are many others, the Armenian Genocide, the Soviet destruction of the Kulaks, The Great Purges, the Holodomor, the Soviet Gulag system, the Rape of Nanking and the millions of civilians the Japanese slaughtered and violated in China and elsewhere in WWII, all the atrocities committed and still being committed in North Korea by the Kim dynasty, the Khmer Rouge, Tienanmen Square, the Great Leap Forward, all the other atrocities committed by the Communist regime in China, Rwanda, Sudan, the Balkans, Saddam’s attacks on the Kurds, the Taliban’s general shitheadedness, the list is endless, and that’s just a bunch of the big ones over last 120 years.  I’ve rattled off a list, and we all say yeah yeah yeah, but Stalin was right in that we DO look at a million deaths like a statistic, but the reality is we should look at them as a million individual tragedies.  That is real horror right there.

So yes, I want to maintain my right to own a gun, up to and including AR and AK type rifles, odds aren’t in my favor if the government goes off the rails to begin with, but I want a sporting chance at dodging that cattle car ride.  And yes, our government is capable of doing vile things too, the two obvious ones being the upholding of the institution of slavery and the numerous wrongs committed against Native Americans.  Anyone who is ready to make the argument that our government can’t or won’t go off the rails again either lacks perspective or a respect for history, or are arrogant enough to believe that their ideology will prevent such from happening, or don’t care if it happens.

So, what about compromise?  How about no?  We’re winning the argument readily against the gun control movement and expanding our rights considerably, why the hell would we compromise with people we’re absolutely dominating, this would be like asking the Harlem Globetrotters to please not beat those poor Washington Generals again…sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.

On top of that, gun control advocates have proven to be dishonest players and untrustworthy opponents time and time again, visit any popular gun blog or read any NRA publications for an endless list of examples, also go to any pro gun control website, almost to a one they lock out opposing comments, delete opposing comments, or outright scrub their website of dissent, it has become a running joke amongst gunbloggers.  Needless to say, it doesn’t look good when you’re having to furiously delete dissenting comments of your legitimate opponents.  Those of us that accept the logic of the Second Amendment opt not to cooperate with groups such as the Brady Campaign and the VPC for this and many other reasons.

As for being libeled by Gopnik as part of what he calls the “blood lobby” and yes, I am part of what he calls the blood lobby, I support the NRA, and will continue to do so, he can feel free to get bent.  You want to know who is really, truly the most cold and indifferent to suffering in these events?  The media, people like Gopnik, they’re the blood lobby.  There’s a reason the line If It Bleeds, It Leads exists when talking of media.  Wanna know how I know?  We had a somewhat high profile shooting at my high school when I was a junior (no one killed, thankfully).  I wasn’t in the cafeteria where it happened, no, my younger sister had that privilege (it still disturbs me that my younger sister had to deal with that rather than myself).  I could however hear the shouting and screaming, I could hear the tables being tipped over by students to make cover/concealment.  Nothing quite like having to wonder if your sister was alive or not, or siblings of your classmates, I still get that queasy feeling I had at the time when I think about it.

The police were actually very good, very professional and had clearly prepared for such an event, in contrast to most of the school staff, who couldn’t have been worse if they tried.  We were separated by home room, checked by police behind a divider, a female officer checked female students, then escorted by other officers in small groups to a nearby sports bar/grill as a staging ground, and then taken by city bus to another location to be reunited with our families.  The sports bar had their bartenders and waitstaff bring out soda and water for students as we waited for the buses.  This sports bar has a wall of enormous TVs, usually playing different games, the tables have speakers and a dial to get sound for the game you’re following…like every other sports bar you’ve ever been to.  I gotta tell you, watching yourself and classmates being evac’d from your school live via chopper cam on CNN is a bit of a mindfuck.

So, okay, onto the buses we go, and we’re warned that the place is already crawling with media.  Sure enough, the short drive was littered with media types with cameras, and walking into the building to meet our families, the walkway was flanked on both sides by media types shoving cameras into our faces.  No regard for anyone or anything, including the landscaping.  None. And it didn’t end there, some students were followed home by media types, we happened to live near one of the guys from the local newspaper, so he was trying to get information and quotes (was promptly told to get lost).

My family, being fairly well known, got phone calls from the media, as did others, after calling family and a few other people, we actually disconnected the phone.  When we went back, the media was waiting too, snapping their cameras in your face as you went in and then published them, even if you asked them not to.  These shitheads hung around for a week…A WEEK…before they dissipated.  Media types love to pretend they’re sensitive and concerned about human tragedy, but it’s a lie, they are the most callous, intrusive shameless group of motherfuckers you’ll ever meet, right up there with slimy used car salesmen and ambulance chasers that advertise on late night TV.  So I’m not about to be libeled by Gopnik and the rest of the media and not respond.

Needless to say, I’m not indifferent, I’m not callous to this sort of event, though by no means was the event I experienced as bad as Aurora.  I have experience being in this sort of situation, and I don’t take well to Gopnik’s vague insinuation that those of us who recognize the Second Amendment says what it says, and does so for a clear logical reason are cold to this sort of tragedy.  Not at all, in fact, this is why many of us choose to exercise our right to self defense, this is why we have fought hard to expand our liberties and rights, to increase our chances of surviving, stopping or minimizing such tragedies.  We’re not glory-seekers, we just want to live in peace, and maybe shoot up some paper targets, break clays or go on a hunt for recreation, you know, enjoy life, which many buzzkills and nanny-staters want to make as dull as possible.  Any resistance to a rampage shooter can be quite effective.  Needless to say, given my background, I follow these sorts of events closely, and one of the characteristics of rampage shooters is that they almost always crumble at the first sign of violent resistance, whether that is by cop or by armed or sometimes unarmed citizens, obviously armed is going to be better.  This is not stated to encourage people to try and be heroes or whatever, that’s not my place, but rather a statement of fact, it is and should remain up to the individual to decide what action to take from there.

As for myself, this is why I choose to own firearms, this is why I will always own firearms, and this is why I’ll never surrender that right.

And I mean it.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Excellent piece of writing.

    I’ll be linking it.

  2. Sean M. says:

    I’m disgusted by the fact that Mr. Gopnik lacks the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed knives and what they do to American life. Did you know that you can walk into any Bed Bath & Beyond and buy a knife (or, indeed, several knives) that can be used to stab someone? And without even a cursory background check!

    How can you even argue with someone who thinks that they have the “right” to have their food sliced into conveniently small pieces when people are being killed and maimed every day? You can only shake your head and maybe cry a little.

  3. Veeshir says:

    As we can see, if he hadn’t used guns he would have been quite able to use explodey things.
    Lacking those, he could have driven his SUV into the crowds outside.

    Crazy people are gonna be crazy. The doesn’t mean that you take my stuff away.

  4. Fuloydo says:

    Amen.

    And, Thank You.

  5. […] DPUD has some MOAR relentless fact and logic for the gun-fearing wussie crowd, and as always, its a good read. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

  6. Lemur King says:

    Well written. Extremely well written. Thank you for the reminder that the 2nd amendment should not be the only one that isn’t meant to apply to individuals. I don’t keep that in sharp focus as often as I should.

    A determined asshole will find a way to kill innocent people one way or another if he is hell-bent on doing it, as the Aurora asshole proved. He made up other non-gun-based nasty stuff for the theater party and the party he left at his apartment for the police so the arguments that gun control would have hindered him are kind of pointless.

    You’re absolutely right. There can be no defense for the idea that the rest of us should be defenseless. A lot of gun-control people are even well-intentioned, and their hearts may be in the right place even if their minds are unhinged from reality, but it can go no further – the rest us have the right to have a hand in our own destiny.

  7. […] writing there.  A passionate and well argued piece about why gun control is about the most useless tits-on-a-boar th….  Well, that wasn’t exactly the argument, but close.  DPUD’s point is that not […]

  8. alexthechick says:

    Very very well done.

  9. Thank you. This is an excellent reminder. Several libs on FB have begun to respond towards more gun control, and as usual, they miss the FACT that gun control will never deter the criminals, only the victims.

  10. Keyser Söze says:

    This entire debate is about what is, or is not Constitutional. In Madison v. Marbury, the court ruled…

    “that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO.html

    This in itself puts all politicians and government employees on notice, they are responsible for supporting and defending the Constitution…the reason they are required to raise their hand and take an oath to that affect. When these people act in a manner which is repugnant to the Constitution and their oath, they can be declared…”domestic enemies”. With this declaration the people have recourse to remove them from their position of power or employment.

    When Bill Clinton and the Democrats passed the assault weapons ban, they all violated their oath and should have been impeached, because in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled assault weapons were perfectly legal to own by the general public. The case involves a man named Miller, who got caught with a sawed-off shotgun and tried to claim it was his right to possess it under the Militia clause. The court went as far back as 1632 in an effort to determine what weaponry was compatible for use in the Militia and came to this conclusion…

    ” ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

    The operative words here are…”and of the kind in common use at the time”…Miller lost his case because sawed-off shotguns were not of current military issue. Under Bill Clinton however, assault rifles of the time are compatible with military weaponry of today and would therefore fall into the Militia clause category.

    Bill Clinton and all of the Democrats who perjured their oath with enactment of the assault weapons ban, should have been impeached immediately…not over some silly cum spot on a blue dress.

  11. Cruel Wife says:

    Lemur King pointed me to your blog article today. Your logic is well stated, but your personal experiences are where it really hit home. Thank you for sharing.

    Personally, I think Don Henley nailed it in the song “Dirty Laundry”. (For anyone too young to remember the lyrics, I encourage you to look it up.) IMO, media types are the largest group of blood-suckers in this nation. They thrive on tragedy – the more sensational, the better. They use the course of events to justify pushing their personal agendas. Concurrently, they turn a blind eye to the fact that constantly focusing their attention on the ugliness only makes it worse. They put the victims through a greater scope of hell than has already been inflicted upon them, they elevate the perpetrators to near iconic villain status, and thus many copycats are born. Yet those of us who choose to exercise our 2nd amendment rights protect ourselves from the criminal element end up being vilified, regardless of any logical correlation (or the lack thereof).

    As many astute writers have said above, guns are not necessary in order to perpetrate a tragedy, They are simply a means to an end. The nut job who wants to perpetrate a tragedy will find the means to do it. Think Oklahoma City. Think World Trade Center. Craziness is craziness, end of story.

  12. Anna Tarkov says:

    Again, thanks for writing such a thorough response.

    First off, let me tell you where I’m coming from. My family came here from the former USSR in 1989. We are Jewish which didn’t mean much most of my life since religious practices were long suppressed as I’m sure you are aware and scientific atheism was taught in schools. But it sure meant something to my grandparents who were thisclose to being massacred in Babi Yar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar). Luckily they had gotten out because my grandfather’s factory was relocated to another town and the family went with him. My grandmother already had two sons, but my mother had not yet been born. So I was very close to ceasing to exist altogether. If they had stayed, they would have almost certainly died. I say all this to explain that the concept of governments perpetrating atrocities on their citizens or the citizens of other countries is not a foreign, outlandish concept to me.

    Since I too studied politics and history, let us tackle that point first. Is it impossible that the U.S. government could one day lose their minds and come after us? No. Nothing is impossible. Is it even mildly probable? Also no. We are a highly mature democracy with a very active civil society and a very heterogeneous population. Thus, the odds of some insane government coming to power are very slim. Again, the odds are not zero, but this strikes me as the poorest example of a legitimate reason for personal gun ownership. It’s kind of like having flood insurance in the desert. Could there be a flood there? Sure. But it’s probably not going to happen. This doesn’t even begin to address the type of thinking that has to happen for someone to own guns to protect themselves from one’s own government. I have as healthy a mistrust of government as the next person (maybe healthier; remember I come from the former Soviet Union), but there are positive and negative ways to be wary of government. Paranoia is not a positive one.

    Perhaps here I should state that I am not against legal personal gun ownership per se. It is VERY difficult, if not impossible, for me to say that if someone breaks into your home, you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself with any means necessary, up to and including a gun. It is very difficult for me to say that someone shouldn’t be allowed a rifle for hunting. There are other scenarios too where I ask myself: am I ok with saying this person in this situation shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun? And I answer no, I’m not ok with that. But I think we all know that the problem isn’t those scenarios. The problem is all the others, of which the theater shooting is only the latest example.

    This is the point at which we get to the argument that people have always been crazy, disturbed, etc and a gun is just a tool. If it wasn’t that, they’d use something else. Perhaps. But the point is that they don’t. When someone decides to kill, they seem to most often opt for a gun. There is nothing else that is quite as expediently lethal. Again, I’m not trying to paint all guns as evil here. But I’m saying it’s disingenuous to call a gun a tool and nothing more. A hammer is a tool. If you could kill people with a hammer the way you could with a gun, I’m thinking we’d have a hammer control debate going on. Anyway, the point is moot. A hammer has a specific purpose: to hammer nails. Yes, you could also use it to bludgeon someone and kill him, but that’s not its primary purpose. What else is a gun for other than killing? Same thing applies to ingredients which could be made into a bomb. They all have other purposes which makes them much more difficult, if not impossible to regulate.

    You wrote also that weapons are easy to make, but your example cites a factory. Could I make a gun in my basement? I guess the answer is yes based on what you wrote. But is it as easy to make as a bomb? You have to be intellectually honest here.

    FInally, I have to address the media bashing. This could be a book of a response in and of itself, but let me just say that people who work in media are like people who work in other jobs. Are they all a credit to their profession? No. Are they all in it for the right reasons? No. Is this different than people in other industries? No. And painting everyone who works in a field with the same brush is a lot like painting all gun owners as members of a “blood lobby,” wouldn’t you say?

    Again, to wrap up, I don’t want to make it impossible for a sane, law-abiding citizen to own a gun. But we should remember than many killers were perfectly sane and law-abiding until they weren’t. Indeed, we never know when someone will snap. That’s what makes this issue so difficult and I don’t have any easy answers. But I’m pretty sure that the way things are right now is not the best that they could be. Can we at least agree on that?

    • doubleplusundead says:

      This doesn’t even begin to address the type of thinking that has to happen for someone to own guns to protect themselves from one’s own government.

      Dude, you’re Jewish, you come from the USSR, and can’t see why someone would make provisions to protect themselves from their own government… You’re from the ethnic group that the little Austrian with the funny moustache nearly had completely destroyed, and of course the USSR, responsible for more human rights abuses on a massive scale than pretty much everything in the history of fucking EVER, with the possible exception of China, and still can’t see making a contingency plan if things go way wrong, really? GIANT TRUCKLOAD OF FAIL.

      And have you considered the possibility that part of the reason America has been successful the way it has is that the public maintains its right to defend itself against abusive government, keeping it in check and out of excess? You’re less likely to engage in Stalinesque evilness when you know some citizen’s probably going to pop your melon with his deer rifle from 300 yards for doing it.

      Is it even mildly probable? Also no. We are a highly mature democracy with a very active civil society and a very heterogeneous population. Thus, the odds of some insane government coming to power are very slim.

      Let’s not forget, we’ve had a pretty vicious civil war here before, heterogeneity works both ways, it can make it so no group dominates, but it can also make it where factions decide they fucking hate each other and have had enough of the other guy’s bullshit.

      But the point is that they don’t. When someone decides to kill, they seem to most often opt for a gun. There is nothing else that is quite as expediently lethal.

      So because something is expedient and lethal, we should ban it? McDonald’s has probably killed more people than guns in this country, maybe we should ban it. Cigarettes are expedient deliverers of nicotine, obviously quite lethal, should we ban them? Ditto alcohol, ditto fast cars and motorcycles. Do we really want to use the Mike Bloomberg model for our daily lives, waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night because someone, somewhere is having fun? Declaring IT MUST BE BAAAAAANNED! I’d rather gargle buckshot.

      Sorry, I’m willing to take the downsides to expediency so that people who find themselves suddenly swallowed up in a dangerous situation (classic example being a wife or girlfriend trying to escape an increasingly abusive husband/boyfriend) to be able to defend themselves effectively. And guns are a great equalizer, makes it easier for weaker, older and disabled people to defend themselves. And the criminal element preys on those they perceive as weak, and they also team up, and even for myself, I’m not a small dude, but I’m not gonna be able to single-handedly hold my own against multiple people. I will maintain my right to level the playing field.

      And as an example, I’ve got a friend who, like you, just isn’t sold on the whole keeping a firearm to defend yourself thing. He also thinks its nuts that I spent as much as I have on guns, ammo, holsters and other defensive tools…this same friend owes 4.5X what I’ve spent total on all my defense gear on one hospital bill (and he didn’t even take the ambulance ride, *I* ended up driving him there) after he got jumped in the street by a bunch of ghetto shitheads. He’s not a small dude, either, he’s thinner than my fat Yankee ass, but he’s taller. He’s still making payments.

      I realize these are considered acceptable government intrusions in NYC, Chicago, DC and California, but they are far from acceptable in the rest of the country. There’s a reason that concealed carry is available shall issue in most states, and limited carry available everywhere except Illinois. And that’s only because of Chicago, which is a violent liberal hellhole where thugs shoot and stab each other and innocents with impunity.

      You wrote also that weapons are easy to make, but your example cites a factory. Could I make a gun in my basement? I guess the answer is yes based on what you wrote. But is it as easy to make as a bomb? You have to be intellectually honest here.

      Any schmuck with a half decent home workshop, a set of instructions and a desire to do so can build a crude submachine gun for about $100-200 worth of crap at any hardware store, and besides, who says the crazypants has to build it? Do stoners all grow their own weed? Fuck no, they buy it. You being from the USSR should know all about black markets, that was capitalism rubbing its jock in Moscow’s face, just like the cartels are capitalism rubbing its jock in DCs face.

      As for whether a bomb or a gun is easier to produce, both are easy, the question then becomes a question of time, materials and labor/tools. FFS, the cartels had a mini-subs built to smuggle drugs, you can buy pretty impressive copies of damn near any gun you want from inbred illiterate smiths in Afghanistan. Why would you bother to roll your own, you pay some guy in the black market to do it for you.

      If we can have tens of millions of illegals smuggled here, and billions in narcotics, why not guns and ammo? Someone, somewhere will always be building, and someone, somewhere will always be looking to buy. Would you rather have the ability to have your own too with the okay from The Man, or just hope that if you win the Shit Lottery you walk away with your life? Sorry, been there, done it, not gonna rely on luck or mercy or someone else again, and I’m not gonna spend my life running. I’m a fat Yankee bastard in boat shoes, I hate running.

      And painting everyone who works in a field with the same brush is a lot like painting all gun owners as members of a “blood lobby,” wouldn’t you say?

      No, I wouldn’t. Because there is no blood lobby on our side, we’re tired of being slandered as such, so I’m throwing it right back in the media’s face. I’m tired of the media calling for the end of our constitutional rights.

      But I’m pretty sure that the way things are right now is not the best that they could be. Can we at least agree on that?

      Yeah, but that’s because I want more individual liberty and capitalism, not less.

      BTW, polls show that the gun control movement’s support continues to erode, they’ll get a blip from this, then they’ll dip down. We’re winning.

      • If we can have tens of millions of illegals smuggled here, and billions in narcotics, why not guns and ammo? Someone, somewhere will always be building, and someone, somewhere will always be looking to buy. Would you rather have the ability to have your own too with the okay from The Man, or just hope that if you win the Shit Lottery you walk away with your life? Sorry, been there, done it, not gonna rely on luck or mercy or someone else again, and I’m not gonna spend my life running. I’m a fat Yankee bastard in boat shoes, I hate running.

        I’m laughing so hard I’m crying here. Mostly because I’m right there with you.

  13. But is it as easy to make as a bomb? You have to be intellectually honest here.

    You do know how a black powder rifle works, do you not? It’s a simple process, and if we were going to get in the weeds over it, yes, I could fashion a very crude firearm from things I could find in any household with just normal tools every household should have.

  14. But I’m pretty sure that the way things are right now is not the best that they could be. Can we at least agree on that?

    We might, but I have this sneaking suspicion that you and I are not on the same page as to the meaning “shall not be infringed”, and that a world of unrestricted open and concealed carry might give you the vapors.

  15. veeshir says:

    I’d say that, more than having guns for use against the gov’t, it’s that a gov’t that doesn’t try to take away Teh Peepul’s guns see them as citizens.
    A gov’t that doesn’t trust their subjects with guns usually doesn’t trust them with many things or decisions.
    Besides, the people making the worst decisions are often not the ones who enforcing it.
    That’s the beauty of a bureaucracy, you are never called to account for your actions.
    Unless you piss off your boss of course.

  16. CBD says:

    I reject your entire argument. Anyone who doesn’t have an extended grip safety on his 1911 is a savage and can be safely ignored.

    Although….the 686 is a mighty nice pistol and gets you a slight reprieve.

    • doubleplusundead says:

      That’s not my iron, however, did JMB put an extended grip safety on his greatest masterpiece? I don’t seem to recall him doing so, no beavertail safety may be savagery, but having one could be blasphemy.

      The funny thing as far as all this, I’ll defend everyone’s right to have what they want, and yet, I’m always going to prefer the older stuff, I have no autos, wheelguns only. I could be content with wheel, pump and lever as far as guns go. My next new guns I think will be a S&W model 64 as a middleman for my 686P and 642, Remington 870 Marine Magnum (possibly a Police Marine Mag if I can get my grubby paws on one), and a stainless Marlin 336, to which I’ll add an aftermarket compo stock, and maybe a S&W 640, from there, probably look at building a collection of old S&Ws and Colts, a nice pre-64 94 .30-30 Winchester, a couple of Winchester Model 12s in the different gauges, maybe some old Ithaca 37s, I’d like a full complement of 870 Wingmasters, 12, 20, 28 and .410, Savage 99s in the Savage calibers. The old 99s are just gorgeous.

      • CBD says:

        JMB might have liked the beavertail, it certainly lends a certain elegance to an already gorgeous pistol. And it also helps with repeating one’s grip, and he would have liked that!

        Interesting that you want a 640. I find them (and all other hammerless revolvers) odd looking and ungainly. I applaud your choice of the older stuff however…there is nothing quite so beautiful as a Colt Navy, or perhaps a Schofield.

        Excellent article by the way. Thank you.

  17. Moron Pundit says:

    Boom, motherfuckers.

  18. Dang says:

    Excellent read. Great job.

    • Veeshir says:

      Nice pair. The stainless Lightning sounds hot.
      My .45lc pair are both blued/case hardened Ubertis, a Lightning and a Top Break.

  19. Russ from Winterset says:

    New acquisition alert: Taurus Thunderbolt stainless rifle in .45 LC (modern copy of the old Colt Lightning pump). It’s going to be a companion piece to my Ruger Bisley convertible in 45LC/45ACP. Not really adding anything to your most excellent exposition on Second Amendment rights: More of a “NYA NYA NYA NEENER NEENER NEENER” to veeshir.

  20. Very well said – I’ll be referring/linking back to this a lot, I’m sure.
    Thanks.

  21. jb books says:

    A good read, thank you, added to favorites and passed on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s