Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

conservativebrew:

At long last, MSNBC gives us some real news that we can all use! 


I happened, per chance, to be flipping through the channels last night when I came upon MSNBC’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. This final bit of the program had to do with the fact that, according to O’Donnell, the “assault weapons” ban that was dropped in the Senate earlier this week  is not really dead yet and there is still hope for the ban to be included in a future Senate bill!

According to O’Donnell, the plan to introduce this legislative ban is a simple one: simply add it as an Amendment and have the Senate vote on it. The interesting thing about this is that THIS IS EXACTLY what Feinstein did in 1993 with the original assault weapons ban! 

According to O’Donnell:

“…The question is always the same: what happens to a bill if a certain controversial provision is in it from the start and what happens if it’s left out? And, leaving it out does not mean the controversial provision won’t end up in the bill through the amendment process, which is exactly how Dianne Feinstein’s original assault weapons ban ended up in the Crime Bill in 1993…Senator Dianne Feinstein offered it as an amendment on the Senate floor and argued her case and, in on November 16th 1993, there was a roll call on the Senate floor and Dianne Feinstein’s amendment #1152 to the Crime Bill and the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban passed with 56 votes…”

In other words, to pass a ban on firearms, the democrats in the Senate will add it as an amendment to - more than likely - a popular bill and, as soon as the GOP members refuse to vote on said popular bill, the democrat’s will scream: “See! We told you so! Their simply obstructionist! They refuse to vote on this bill that the American people want!” The MSM will, naturally, follow suit in portraying the importance of this popular bill and portraying the GOP as insensitive and uncaring in order to shift public sentiment towards the democrats, heck, I’m sure we’ll see Obama on TV stumping for it as well as stating that the Senate minority has to “listen to the American people” or, that the Senate GOP “has to get their priorities straight.”  

Shortly thereafter, several GOP Senators will start caving in since they have - more than likely - attached riders to the popular bill that they want passed for their constituents back home. At which point, Harry Reid & Co. will legislatively sweeten the deal for the GOP Senators who may be on the fence as to whether or not they should vote for the bill with Feinstein’s weapons ban. 

How do I know? That’s exactly what happened in 1993! Several of the GOP Senators that voted for the bill stated that they supported it because it would expire in 10 years, at which point, they could reevaluate the situation. Feinstein’s new ban NEVER expires, it becomes law if passed and the freedom of law-abiding citizens to purchase what ever gun they so wish to buy for their protection/hobby/collection/investment comes under governmental scrutiny. 

Make sure that you know your Senator’s office number so that you can flood it with calls the moment the Senate Leftists try to take away our right to own and posses firearms.

I just puked all over myself. 

Dianne Feinstein is the worst thing ever. WORST. 

(via anarcho-americana)

With New York passing very strict gun laws, I’m reminded of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers #29 

Federalist No. 29: Concerning the Militia.  Thursday, January 10, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes “Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire”; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d’ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS.

With New York passing very strict gun laws, I’m reminded of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers #29, written almost 225 years ago, to the day. Alexander Hamilton explores the ideas of a militia, right to bear arms and the real defense of liberty and freedom for the people.

I urge everyone in the state of New York to email a copy of this text to every single state and federal representative and ask them to reconsider their actions. 

- Sha

Ben Shapiro destroys Piers Morgan and his opinion on guns. 

Being Armenian, Jewish, Bosnian, Assyrian, Greek, Kurdish, Russian, or any other race that’s been the victim of their own government, you know better than Piers Morgan that governments are capable of heinous, disgusting, illogical crimes against humanity and often times there is no warning until the moment they strip the citizens of their arms. 

What this idiot doesn’t understand, and it’s probably due to the fact that the Brits for the majority of history have been the oppressors and not the oppressed, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely and never underestimate the stupidity and evil that can arise when people get together in organized group that thirst for power. 

Why do we have the second amendment? To ensure that the likelihood of democide occurring in this country is very, very low. 

Watch, share, enjoy. 

- Sha

Why is the media telling you that the Newtown shooting was conducted with an AR15 “assault” rifle, when no AR15 was even on the scene, not even in his car?

If you look at the video, that’s not a fully automatic rifle, it’s not even the semi-auto AR15 Bushmaster that the media sold you on. It’s a shotgun with a pistol grip. It never even left his car. 

So, why is the media manufacturing a story? Is it for your safety? Or is it to scare you into obeying the new gun ban that’s about to be voted on?

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Why Ban Guns And Why Now?

Gun bans are ridiculous because they don’t even try to ban the right guns.

Almost all gun-related crime is done using handguns. 

Only 3.7% of gun-related crime is carried out using a rifle (Semi and Fully automatic riles like AR15s and M4s included.) That’s 323 known offenses committed using a rifle out of the 8,583 gun-related crimes in America in 2011, according to the FBI

Just looking at statistics, we see that gun ownership has increased for the last couple of decades. We also see that gun-related crimes have decreased. We can get further down into the details and see that gun-free zones is where all mass murders take place and gun-control cities have worse violent crime than gun-lax cities. 

But the fact remains that according to the FBI, if we’re going to ban guns, we shouldn’t ban rifles — semi automatic or even fully automatic — the guns we should logically be going after are handguns and small, concealable weapons. I don’t advocate this but if politicians really wanted to pretend they where here for our safety, they’d start here. But they won’t. 

We are living in turbulent yet remarkable times. Just look at all the protests, riots and revolutions around the world. Full on over-throws of government are in fashion. People are ousting oppressive regimes using none other than “assault” rifles. And they use those rifles to capture their governments tanks and rockets and larger weapons so that they can succeed. 

Have we ever seen such a worldwide political unrest ever before? We are in the middle of historic times and yet, here in America, our government is building a totalitarian police state. The push for gun bans in America stem from the current affairs of the rest of the planet. Our government sees the writing on the wall and they want to act before the people have a chance to react. 

Politicians want to ban “assault” rifles for one reason; They don’t fear for the safety of the public, they fear for the safety of themselves and their position of power. 

Politicians fear that they will be tossed to the side using the guns that they banned in 1986 and the weaker, semi-automatic, versions that they are trying to ban now. 

How can the gov’t roll out SS/KGB style full warrant-less surveillance? Gitmo style, NDAA backed, indefinite detention? How can gov’t slowly start to tax 50%, 60%, 75% of ALL (not just the top 1%, the top 2%, top 5% but 100%) of our income? 

Who’s easier to control, unarmed citizens who depend on the state from cradle to grave or smart, independent citizens who are armed and vigilant? 

So the next time you hear a politician say “we need to ban assault rifles” ask them three questions:

1. Didn’t we already ban “assault rifles” in 1986?

2. Aren’t almost all crimes conducted with handguns and not rifles and certainly not “assault rifles”? 

3. If gun-related crime rates are decreasing, why is gun-propaganda increasing?

So, why ban guns and why now?

In short; to preserve the totalitarian state which our government has worked so hard to build over the last 100 or so years. They can’t let all of their hard work go to waste, not now, when they are oh so close to finally achieving absolute power. 

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.” 

- Sha

When the government tries to disarm the people, it’s time for the people to disregard their government. — Sha

amagi-nation:

Petition to ban guns from government…

"I think that the only people we should trust with guns are government trained 19 years olds that we send over seas to kill other 19 year olds because we need guns for protection from terrorists but private citizens don’t need guns."

herp derp herp derp. 

American gun manufacturers produce guns in America using American laborers which the American government buys with the money taxed from the American people or borrowed on the behalf of the American people and uses the American military and American intelligence agencies to ship the American guns to supposed enemies of the American people — Muslim extremists (War on Terror) and Mexican drug cartels (War on Drugs) — yet at home Americans are told that we, ourselves, can’t purchase such weapons. That’s the logic of our supposedly “American” government. And sadly, that’s the rising opinion of our American populace. — Sha

Why do I need or want an assault rifle?

gunsgeargallantry:

I actually don’t want an assault rifle. 

What I really want is an endless ammo laser-ray gun and a blast shield. 

But since I can’t have any of those, I’ll settle for the assault rifle. 

freemarketsandfreeminds:

awesomeness2:

husssel:

DemandAPlan

how about this for a plan…stop with guncontrol. It doesnt work. Blaming the inanimate object for the actions of the human is idiotic. With this logic; drunk drivers dont kill people it is the car. People dont make spelling errors it is the pen.


 

The actor that plays Ron Swanson…speaking in favor of gun control…my heart weeps.

RON FUCKING SWANSON? 

Remember when I asked if Ron Swanson was a a tribute to libertarians or if he was a joke

I’m more and more leaning towards Nick Offerman’s character being a big joke where the Hollywood left are poking fun of libertarianism. 

(via visforvoluntary)

Gun Control To Total Control: The End Game Of Today’s Federal Government

Gun laws have always been racist or evil in nature. From the Dred Scott decision and subsequent disarming of minorities and slaves in the Southern states to British disarming colonists and seizing arms and gun powder right before the Revolution. Disarmament of Germans by the Nazis, Russians and Chinese by the Communists and all the way to Governor Reagan, yes Ronald Reagan, disarming the Black Panthers in California, who were notorious for overseeing arrests of minorities and protecting and providing free legal council to citizens. Democide can only start when the right to bear arms ends. 

Look up the history and the purpose of gun laws in America and in any country around the world and you will see two  common motives: racial/racist fears or the need to shift power from the people to the state. There is no other reason for gun “control”. No criminal will turn in their guns due to the passage or existence of a law, and no criminal will obey new laws simply because they exist. You’re foolish to believe otherwise. ‘Law-abiding criminals’ are an imaginary creature. 

America is on the verge of becoming a police state. Drones in the sky, 4 or 5 domestic spying organizations (NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA). Checkpoints at airports and on highways (TSA, ICE) Databases of private, unwarranted and illegal information on every single American citizen. Local police armed with military weapons, vehicles and fatigues. A President with a secret kill list and executive orders that allow him to assassinate citizens both abroad and here, on American soil as well as the ability to indefinitely detain any of us and hold us. All of this with no due process of law. 

Private citizens are no longer able to keep private while the only public good we own as a collective country, our government, has the least public records available for access. So much for the “most transparent administration in history”, right? We know less about what this admin is doing than we did about W’s and W and his NeoCons were a text-book totalitarian. 

So why take away guns now? Because if citizens are armed, how can you have a police state. Americans are a unique and vigilant bunch. Look at the occupy protests. Riots and protests and marches in every major American city. Protected by the first amendment and backed up by the 2nd. Taxes aren’t the only thing the Federal Government is after. They want more. They want it all. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take away the guns and you can quickly strip away the freedom of speech. With those pesky rights out the way, the police state has an open road and rolls right  in. 

That’s the end game here. Control. Not just of guns or property but of people and of the entire nation. 

- Sha

This is what happens when you debate a clueless person long enough. They end up hanging themselves with their own stupidity. This individual really thought that citizens weren’t allowed to own or carry guns until the NRA was formed.
If you guys want, I can post the rest of the back-and-forth. It’s really hilarious. She argues that semi-autos should be banned because they are the type of guns that can kill people.
She also said that we should allow home defense but ban guns because no one needs “assault” type weapons. For about 4 comments in a row the only question I asked her was “Is ownership of an “assault weapon unconstitutional. Also, does my ownership of an automatic infringe on any of your rights?” She has posted 20 comments to this status and has yet to answer this one. 
Where do I find these people from? 

This is what happens when you debate a clueless person long enough. They end up hanging themselves with their own stupidity. 

This individual really thought that citizens weren’t allowed to own or carry guns until the NRA was formed.

If you guys want, I can post the rest of the back-and-forth. It’s really hilarious. She argues that semi-autos should be banned because they are the type of guns that can kill people.

She also said that we should allow home defense but ban guns because no one needs “assault” type weapons. For about 4 comments in a row the only question I asked her was “Is ownership of an “assault weapon unconstitutional. Also, does my ownership of an automatic infringe on any of your rights?” She has posted 20 comments to this status and has yet to answer this one. 

Where do I find these people from? 

I’ve gotten a lot of great questions on guns and gun controls, gun licenses and such. This particular individual asked that I keep his identity private but allowed me to answer publicly, so here it is. 
Gun Licensing & Free Market Solutions
Licenses, Training, Cool-Off Periods, Etc.
I think it’s important to state, before we go any further, that federal gun laws are not constitutional in my opinion and that only states can regulate their gun industries. But banning of guns, even at a state level, is unconstitutional.
I actually believe in certain levels of gun “control” or gun “regulation”, but I think that the Free Market can provide that without government interference (or incompetence).
 Why do I believe in gun “control”, such as background checks and cool-off periods? It’s simple, I own guns for protection. Protection from a lot of things, including other gun owners. Usually the threat is from illegal arms but we also have to be suspicious of legal owners at times (as the statistics show). I’d like to know that an industry I support doesn’t also support the exact type of evil which caused me to arm up in the first place. I think that any sane gun owner is okay with this because it also protects them, as gun owners. I know a lot of people fight back on this issue, some because they fear that it’s only the start of regulations and that they will evolve into more restrictions. I think that’s foolish. Only the idiots at the NRA think like this (FYI, I hate the NRA). Think of this as no different than wanting to know other drivers are capable of driving or that your doctor is capable of operating on you. 
I think everyone should take gun safety classes and get certified. I think cool-off periods are logical. I think background checks are logical. I think that periodic tests are logical. No different than owning a car. This is an tool for capable, skilled persons and I expect only capable, trained and skilled persons to own and operate them. If you’ve ever been to the gun range and seen “that guy’ that has no idea what he’s doing yet he refuses to learn, you know what I’m talking about. Other gun owners aren’t just weary, they don’t approve of this type of behavior. 
 All of this is not just logical, it’s actually good for me and my family’s safety, the very thing I own guns for. 
Free Market Solution 
I don’t think this has to be done by force. I think there’s a few free market solutions to achieve this outcome. One idea I’ve been working on is the idea of a gun and ammo store which gives people a discount if they get periodic training and won’t sell you ammo unless you have gotten training. It will attract people with low prices or the idea of a discounted training session with purchase and eventually, other stores would follow suit because not only do people like “deals”, most gun owners actually love gun training and they also love gun safety. This is also beneficial to the gun stores since most people who come in for training usually end up spending additional money on ammo, targets, gun rental, accessories and sometimes new guns. Just like the business model of other stores, use cheap ammo as a loss leader to get people in the store, use licenses and training as a form of membership, a price to pay up front for future discounts and you will generate profit. It’s the Costco model. Those on the fringe who don’t want gun safety will soon be left to choose between more expensive guns and ammo or training and discounts. Over time, we will breed smarter and better prepped gun owners. 
This isn’t the only solution, it’s something that just came to mind. I’m sure some others have their own solutions. This doesn’t fix everything, but it’s a good start.

I’ve gotten a lot of great questions on guns and gun controls, gun licenses and such. This particular individual asked that I keep his identity private but allowed me to answer publicly, so here it is. 

Gun Licensing & Free Market Solutions

Licenses, Training, Cool-Off Periods, Etc.

I think it’s important to state, before we go any further, that federal gun laws are not constitutional in my opinion and that only states can regulate their gun industries. But banning of guns, even at a state level, is unconstitutional.

I actually believe in certain levels of gun “control” or gun “regulation”, but I think that the Free Market can provide that without government interference (or incompetence).

Why do I believe in gun “control”, such as background checks and cool-off periods? It’s simple, I own guns for protection. Protection from a lot of things, including other gun owners. Usually the threat is from illegal arms but we also have to be suspicious of legal owners at times (as the statistics show). I’d like to know that an industry I support doesn’t also support the exact type of evil which caused me to arm up in the first place. I think that any sane gun owner is okay with this because it also protects them, as gun owners. I know a lot of people fight back on this issue, some because they fear that it’s only the start of regulations and that they will evolve into more restrictions. I think that’s foolish. Only the idiots at the NRA think like this (FYI, I hate the NRA). Think of this as no different than wanting to know other drivers are capable of driving or that your doctor is capable of operating on you. 

I think everyone should take gun safety classes and get certified. I think cool-off periods are logical. I think background checks are logical. I think that periodic tests are logical. No different than owning a car. This is an tool for capable, skilled persons and I expect only capable, trained and skilled persons to own and operate them. If you’ve ever been to the gun range and seen “that guy’ that has no idea what he’s doing yet he refuses to learn, you know what I’m talking about. Other gun owners aren’t just weary, they don’t approve of this type of behavior. 

All of this is not just logical, it’s actually good for me and my family’s safety, the very thing I own guns for. 

Free Market Solution

I don’t think this has to be done by force. I think there’s a few free market solutions to achieve this outcome. One idea I’ve been working on is the idea of a gun and ammo store which gives people a discount if they get periodic training and won’t sell you ammo unless you have gotten training. It will attract people with low prices or the idea of a discounted training session with purchase and eventually, other stores would follow suit because not only do people like “deals”, most gun owners actually love gun training and they also love gun safety. 

This is also beneficial to the gun stores since most people who come in for training usually end up spending additional money on ammo, targets, gun rental, accessories and sometimes new guns. Just like the business model of other stores, use cheap ammo as a loss leader to get people in the store, use licenses and training as a form of membership, a price to pay up front for future discounts and you will generate profit. It’s the Costco model. 

Those on the fringe who don’t want gun safety will soon be left to choose between more expensive guns and ammo or training and discounts. Over time, we will breed smarter and better prepped gun owners.

This isn’t the only solution, it’s something that just came to mind. I’m sure some others have their own solutions. This doesn’t fix everything, but it’s a good start.