Gun Control Groups must be wondering what happened this week.

Gun Control advocates must be feeling a bit disoriented during the closing of this year and it is no wonder they do.
It should have been over and done with. This was supposed to be the day/week/month/year they finally triumphed over the evil forces of the Gun Nuts. Madman commits a massacre in an elementary school, Mainstream Media goes bat-guano in support of more Gun Control, a couple of RINOs are seen wavering on their their previous pro-gun stance, “people” take over the social networks demanding the killing of the NRA (both figuratively and for keeps), the President goes to the kids funerals to make a political statement against guns and the need for more gun control and Senator responds with an all-encompassing bill. Everything was ready in one nice package of victory. And yet you can almost hear them scream:

WHAT THE F*** HAPPENED THAT WE ARE SUDDENLY IN THE DEFENSIVE?

The answer is obvious: Gun Ownership became mainstream. From 9/11 to Katrina, it became obvious that people could not expect that the government deliver in the promises they made to keep them safe. People that before could not even come to terms with the idea of owning a gun, suddenly realized it was their responsibility to keep themselves and their loved ones alive. And with the acquisition of a gun came the acquisition of knowledge and the lifting of the veils of propaganda. When Gun Owners were attacked by the Opposition, it became personal. When a Gun Control advocate accused Gun Owners of murderers, the new gun owner said “wait one darned minute. I am a gun owner and I certainly did not murder anyone! How dare you!” And then came the nagging suspicion that all those tales and stories about the crazies of the Gun Culture might have been vulgar exaggerations that needed to be examined instead of taken as articles of faith. And once the examination started, the rest was history.

Even after the avalanche of negative stories and upfront attacks from almost every Mainstream media outlet, the NRA has the better image while the Media itself is reaching new lows in trust amongst Americans.

As the emotions subside from Sandy Hook, we are facing a great opportunity. There is no doubt that one or many gun control proposals will be brought in the new year via Congress, but we are now in a position of not only present an effective opposition but start a devastating counter attack both at the Federal and State levels. My particular predilection is to see the passage of the Federal Reciprocity Law now that we have Carry across the nation (even if it is only De Jure in places like Illinois and New Jersey) as  I believe it will force those states with May Issue laws become Shall Issue. And yes, eventually I wouldn’t mind seeing Constitutional Carry across the Land.

At the State Level, it is up to you alongside your State Gun Rights organization to decide what problem to tackle first and go after it. I am guessing the elimination of most Gun Free Zones will be hot in the agenda but whatever topic is decided to address, you must support it full tilt. Don’t act like a 6 year old and refuse to help just because it might not be something you consider has more value. We are in this together and every victory chips away at the Opposition’s dwindling strength. Also, do not get discouraged if you lose some cases or fights: it is bound to happen, but we have been winning more than losing so the future is bright if we all help.

It goes without saying that if you are not a member of the Big Pro Gun Organizations, you are being inconsiderate. Please spare me why you don’t like this group or the other because they don’t do enough-do too much-are too agressive-not agressive enough because so far I have not seen anyone rejecting their achievements, just the opposite. Memberships are very cheap and this is a numbers game.

Although I am painting a somewhat rosy picture, get ready because it is gonna get ugly. You will be called all the names of the nasty book, accusations against your mental state, sexuality and right to live will be thrown carelessly as they try to embarrass you into silence and lack of action. Don’t fall for it and strike back with smarts. Do not play their game, make them play ours. Research, research and research, seek support and don’t let them breathe.

And f*** ‘em if they can’t take a joke.

11 thoughts on “Gun Control Groups must be wondering what happened this week.”

  1. 100% right! Stop them, or they will enslave us. Motion is continuous, either we will roll back the tide of collectivism, or we will be drowned “for our own good” by the psychotic so-called “liberals”.

  2. I am a legal gun owner who submitted to background checks, completed the appropriate training, and take gun ownership seriously. As law-abiding citizens we are expected to navigate the labyrinth of conflicting state laws regarding firearms and we do successfully everyday. Although many of these laws are conflicting between neighboring states, we still respect them and abide by them everyday. Let’s make it easy for everyone (including David Gregory) and develop a basic framework across the United States.

    With 300 million firearms in private hands (one-third of them pistols), the overwhelming majority of gun owners ARE responsible, law-abiding citizens, which is why these horrific massacres are not commonplace, but rather horrific outliers that can never be legislated away (e.g. DC, Chicago, and “Gun Free Zones”). We need teach personal responsibility to our children, family, friends, neighbors and politicians and hold them accountable for their actions.

    For several examples for the recent use of firearms for defensive purposes not typically reported by the national media please visit: http://www.equalforce.net and forward this address to others to whom this information may be useful. @forceequalizer

  3. I find it interesting that the gubermint and the MSM both shot themselves in the foot on their wet dream fantasy of gun control due to their incompetence. The gubermint forced a lot of people to buy guns when they demonstrated they cannot help out in a crisis (FEMA=pathetic). The MSM cheer-leading the POTUS, spiking F&F coverage and inaccurate coverage of all gun topics shows their biased agenda, so few believe them. Gun owners know the truth and ignore their lies.

    So, the two forces that are needed for gun control fled the field of battle. Good!

    1. I hope it is a full bitch slap (and the pun is intended).

      Where is her oath of office to uphold the Constitution? Last time I checked the 2A was part of it.

      1. There are a couple petitions on the white house site. One is to impeach her for violating her oath to support and defend the Constitution. I can’t recall what the other one was, but it had her name on it.

  4. “The answer is obvious: Gun Ownership became mainstream.”

    Yes, gun ownership is going mainstream with previously anti-gun demographic groups such as liberals, democrats, women, and various minorities now becoming gun owners. I’m fairly new to this site and I really like the calm, measured, long-term big-picture thinking that goes into the articles at this blog. Thank you.

    The mass media and the gun-grabbers could have achieved so much more over the years if their goals had been set more modestly. For example, if they had called for the secure storage of guns and a national database of mentally unstable people to be kept from buying guns they might have been able to achieve those vs. trying to ban all guns and limit ammo sales.

    1. I’m fairly new to this site and I really like the calm, measured, long-term big-picture thinking that goes into the articles at this blog. Thank you.
      My wife paid you to say this, didn’t she? Thanks for the kind words.

  5. And make no mistake, Feinstein’s bill attacks the “mainstream” of gun owners:

    The Proposed “Assault” Weapons Ban: Facts and Consequences- Craig Wisnom

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

    Yesterday marked publication of the proposed bill by Senator Feinstein about banning “assault” weapons. While I obviously have very strong opinions about the effectiveness and rectitude of this concept, I do think it important to point out to those who haven’t read the bill, and/or are unfamiliar with practical function and characteristics of modern firearms, the specifics, and the logical conclusions, from this proposed bill. I will try, unsuccessfully I’m sure, to at least minimize my more polemic tendencies on this issue, and to at least emphasize the more objective information.

    Whatever people may view as the effectiveness, benefits, constitutionality, or dangers of a proposed assault weapons ban, what is proposed here has cast a huge, enormous net beyond what people think of as an “assault weapon.” Those who believe that no private citizens should own and/or carry guns at all may very much like this approach, although even I think they will have to see how the self-reporting nature of the registration will not be effective in whom it impacts. But those that generally think their responsible friends and families should be able to own or carry “reasonable” guns, may find that the specifics of this bill exceed any perceived “solution” they would have imagined.

    (BIAS ALERT: The media and politicians calling for this type of ban seem to focus on the look of a weapon, over its function. How many times in the past two weeks you have seen a photo of an “assault weapon”? How many times has it been referred to a as weapon of war, or something that belongs on the battlefield or something similar? And how many times have you actually heard a discussion about the ballistics of a .223 round, and whether it’s any more dangerous or destructive than your standard self-defense round for a pistol? Which of those is actually relevant? The latter has at least logical relevance to its danger and destructive power, the former two do not)

    While the bill takes aim at what the media and politicians have dubbed an “assault” weapon, written into the bill is a prohibition against (a) any weapon that holds more than ten rounds, (b) any magazine that holds more than ten rounds, and (c) any weapon that CAN hold a magazine which would hold more than ten rounds.

    For those not familiar with modern firearms, this includes the vast majority of typical pistols produced, sold, and used by law enforcement and private citizens alike. There are a few exceptions, notably revolvers (a venerable, respected, and reliable side-arm, but one which has become far less utilized for general purposes), “pocket” guns that attempt to be as tiny as possible and therefore carry few cartridges, and 1911’s, a still very popular semi-automatic, but one which was designed for World War I and is still essentially the same pistol created at that time. But everything else in a typical, middle-of-the-road mid or full sized pistol holds more than 10 rounds in its magazine, or at the very least, can hold a magazine which holds more than 10 rounds.

    As an example, pretty much every police sidearm currently used by U.S. law enforcement would be banned under this law. The most prevalent sidearms like Glock 22’s (.40 caliber) hold 12 rounds, police carrying the smaller 9mm cartridge handgun (which is less prevalent since law enforcement went to the .40 as their round of choice) in a Glock 17 have a 17 round magazine. What the media hypes as “high-capacity” magazines, are pretty much the standard. While California currently has a ban for citizens on any magazine over 10 rounds, even the guns legal in California that only have ten round magazines can “accept” the standard capacity magazines, and would be banned under this. Now, maybe you think, “I don’t think private citizens should have any guns, and don’t need what a policeman carries.”

    However, I’m betting some people viscerally scared by the picture of the “assault” rifle they’ve seen might think that if an individual citizen is allowed to have a gun, the standard police sidearm, which society deems appropriate for a police officer to carry everywhere they go, in a civilian situation, including schools, stores, etc., just in the slight chance they need it, is a reasonable gun to have as well.

    So, this ban makes illegal typical defensive pistols, except those categories mentioned above. So, how many is that? With an estimated 300 million guns owned privately by citizens in the United States of America, when you combine the AR STYLE rifles that people “picture” as the “assault” weapon, with most typical handguns kept by people for defense, practice, competition, etc., I know I’m guessing, but I think a 100 million estimate is quite conservative. So you have a bill that outlaws approximately 100 million items lawfully purchased and currently lawfully owned by private citizens who have committed no crimes or shown no sign of danger.

    It also outlaws any of the magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Consider that most shooters, especially the more responsible ones who practice and train with their pistols will usually have a few spare magazines for each gun. Most pistols come with 2-3 magazines initially. But I’ll also “discount” on the average any of the magazines, mainly in California and a few other states, that hold ten rounds or less for the same guns. All put together as just an approximation, I think it’s very conservative that each of those 100 million banned handguns has an average of 4 magazines which meet this law’s bill of “high capacity” and would be banned.

    So, under this law, 500,000,000 million lawfully purchased items, lawfully held in the hands of citizens convicted of no crime or transgression, would suddenly become illegal to make or sell.

    Hmm, does that really sound like the “common sense” gun control that the administration and advocates are telling us all “reasonable” and responsible gun owners are in favor of? Now, again, I realize there are individuals, including those reading this, who think taking as many guns away from private citizens as possible is a good thing to do. That is an honest opinion, and while I disagree, it doesn’t carry the hypocrisy of, “Of course we want to protect your rights! Here’s what we are going to do to drastically curtail and/or eliminate them.”

    As to how many citizens this would impact, there are approximately 65,000,000 U.S. citizens legally owning guns in this country. Again, while trying to err on the side of being conservative, let’s say just under ½ of these people own one of the type of guns mentioned above. So, easily, there are 30,000,000 United States citizens that currently own guns and magazines that would be banned under this new law.

    That is the scope of the law. What about the “grand-fathering”? Well, without it, those 30,000,000 citizens would become criminals the moment the law went into effect, or, more practically, if they did not turn over all these banned items within whatever “grace” period the government grants all of those individuals. Logistically, practically, politically, and for all other purposes, this would have been essentially impossible to pass under the law, and it would instantly create a number of “criminals” in the millions who did not or would not turn in their guns, and it would be a massive confiscation of weapons from unconvicted U.S. citizens. Confiscation is the ugliest, scariest word related to government action to a gun owner who cares about his rights in this regard.

    As a general rule, grand-fathering also removes most of the putative benefit from the ban (I don’t think there is a benefit, but for those who do), because all these guns that were “bad” enough to ban are still out there. (Bias Alert: Of course, even if you did make that mandatory, do you think any of the people you’re worried about, the criminals, the psychopaths, even the irresponsible, will be turning in their guns to the law enforcement?)

    One can argue that at least we’re safer because we’ve stopped the influx of these weapons, and at least we’re not making the situation “worse” (if you believe it’s the quantity of guns in the hands of citizens which is a problem), and that it’s better to start somewhere, if you believe guns should be removed, then never taking any action. But, still, with the necessary grand-fathering, 100,000,000 guns that were considered so dangerous they had to be banned are out there, as are another 400,000,000 “high capacity” magazines. To those that feel the number and presence of guns is in itself a problem, does this ban, in that context, make you feel any safer?

    But here is where gun owners like myself become scared of what the government is trying to do. There is a price for the “grand-fathering” exemption. It still makes it rather useless in keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerous, but it seems the obvious first step from later confiscating the guns from the hands of those who are so law abiding they will fulfill the onerous requirements.

    The requirement is “registration.” Some of you may think this is a great idea, a gun is dangerous, why shouldn’t they be registered. Cars are registered! (BIAS ALERT: The answer to the latter is that no government has tried to seize all automobiles based on the license and registration for social control, many have with guns. On a less important issue, cars are big machines out on the public road where their registration or lack thereof is easy to see, report, and respond to, not so with an unlicensed gun.) Why shouldn’t gun owners be licensed? Well, this proposed registration not just to know who is gun OWNER is, and license him or her, but to document all guns he or she has.

    Now, a word to combat the misconception spread lately that guns are easier to buy than hamburgers. I have a concealed carry license, which required me to take a class on legal issues, pass a practical test, submit my finger prints, and run a background test. Even though Arizona is one of the most respectful states of gun rights in the country, every time I purchase a gun, even from the same store owner who knows me well, I have to fill out the same Federal form, and they run a background check on me. One improvement that can be made in that system is since the gun stores are doing their job, other disciplines, including the mental health system, APS, CPS, etc. to get information reported so that the background check will stand a better chance of stopping a bad person from buying a gun. Additionally, I don’t mind if they eliminate the “gun show” loophole, which really isn’t, and hasn’t impacted any of the high profile shootings, but, since people mistakenly think that is such an issue, please go ahead and “close” it. So there are already a great deal of registration and laws in place, especially at the point of purchase.

    But, this required registration takes everything to an unprecedented level, it requires all of these common firearms to be registered as currently provided only for fully automatic weapons and things of that ilk, along with photographs, fingerprints, and, and yes, extra money to the ATF to deal with this bureaucracy! Most onerous of all is the requirement that each person registering receive a certification from local law enforcement that they can legally own the gun. WHAT?!!? Is that a practical and a good use of the police’s time, to go provide certifications for every gun owner? Think of the idea that every person with a 12 round Glock magazine needs to get a personal certification of law enforcement is some combination of ridiculous and utterly unworkable.

    At absolute best, this is an incredibly cumbersome, expensive, intrusive, and ridiculous process that will be only be met by the most assiduously law abiding gun owners. That will leave everyone else (a) forced to give up all these guns to stay legal, or (b) keeping them illegally and unregistered. Which category do you think the most dangerous people with guns will fit under? If local law enforcement won’t cooperate with this ridiculous strain on their time and resources, then everyone will be under (a) or (b).

    Even if you play the “good boy” role, and it is possible to get your guns registered, it seems not only possible (although I know many of us will paint us gun owners as paranoid for thinking this), but the only real logical result, that the registration will ultimately be used for the confiscation of the weapons. Specifically, when the next psychopath proves that this latest gun bill does not stop his ability to kill innocent people, and he does so with some illegally obtained or unregistered gun, the government can take the next step they deem to be necessary by confiscating all those guns from the law-abiding-to-a-fault owners who have dutifully registered them. “Dear sir, here is your list of guns you have registered, we are coming to pick them up Thursday, love, government. P.S. Make sure none are missing.”

    So here is the question, what in the world could be the point of the registration in these circumstances OTHER than to set the stage for confiscation? It does nothing whatsoever to take all these “bad” guns away from the criminals, the dangerous, the psychopaths, and, folk of lesser evils, the irresponsible, those that bend the rules and law if they can, etc.. Those people, who are generally the only ones we really worry about with guns, will simply put all these guns in a closet or basement or cedar chest, and whether they simply leave them there to be available if a more evil person comes and steals them, or they hold them until they actively use them for crimes and mass murder. I don’t know how anyone can think that registration requirement does anybody any good whatsoever? What is the logic of that?

    A background check when you buy a gun at least has some logical basis. We are trying to test whether this is a bad guy before we give him the gun. But in this case, everyone we’re saying has to register already has the guns! And so if they are a bad guy in any of the ways we think about this, what are the odds any of these people either register, or divest themselves of these guns?

    So that is what is being proposed. If you want all guns out of citizens’ hands, I guess you like it, but I would expect even you admit that it is a disingenuous way to get there. Maybe that’s the fault of the awful NRA and the people who own guns, you can’t get your goal of eliminating all guns more honestly. But if you think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to have reasonable weapons to defend themselves, please consider the substance of this ban.

    I will end with black humor and some BIAS ALERT I cannot suppress. Senator Feinstein is proud that this “[p]rotects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners”, because, in addition to this grand-fathered registration, it will exempt “antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.”

    Now, every gun I own and have ever seen is “manually-operated”, so maybe there is no problem with this ban? I’m fine giving up my robotic guns.

    But, “permanently disabled weapons”? I will say with great sincerity that I do not believe that the Second Amendment is about hunting (the straw man of anti-gun advocates, that the only reason we want guns is to hunt) nor are the independent benefits I see in an armed, free, and responsible society. It is about the ability defend myself and my family from violent attack, and to protect us from potential tyranny. I do not really feel that right is about “permanently disabled weapons.”

    However, at least the cast of “Pawn Stars” will feel better about that exemption!
    -CHW

  6. As a lawyer, and I know it’s been stated by others but it’s worth keeping in mind, we actually need some lost cases. And I mean *need*.

    The cases the Supreme Court can take are pretty limited, and the ones they actually take are even more so. One of those that gets taken a bit more seriously is conflict of laws cases. Where one state says: The Federal Second Amendment means X, and another says The Federal Second Amendment says Y. Since both are interpreting federal law, and the SCOTUS are the ultimate arbiter of federal law, and one of the only ways to resolve disputes between states, it comes to them to resolve the difference. The states can differ on state laws, but everyone has the same federal law.

    So, we need some wrongly decided (loss), preferably only in a few places, decisions to set up against the rightly decided (win), preferably a lot of them. Then it goes to the Sup. Ct. to say who’s right, and the majority matters. It’s no accident two important cases ended up in Illinois. They were the last hold out to fix, sure, but they also were *the only ones* with those restrictions.

    That’s really simplified and should someone with more legal experience on the topic say otherwise, *believe them*!

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .