« US Intelligence's Views Prevail on Iranian Programs | Main | Lebanese Futures »

11 January 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

William R. Cumming

Repectfully suggest no more than 100 weapons per person would be logically sound because I know personally many unregistered persons that have collections in the hundreds and have failed to register under current law. nregulated gun shows are also problematic!

Nancy K

We live in a very violent country. Those on the right seem to feel that more guns for protection is the awnswer, those on the left that fewer guns or possibly no guns is the awnser.
I unfortunatly feel there is no awnser. If everyone had a gun that day in Arizona probably more people would have been killed or injured. If guns were outlawed, as the saying goes, only the outlaws would have guns.
Until our country becomes more civilized and less violent such tragedies will continue. I don't feel optimistic.
And yes, we have a gun.


A lot of people (gun owners like me) would accept the idea of banning oversized magazines (not clips, look it up) for handguns.

Thank you, sir. This has long been a pet peeve of mine, like "reign in".


A few of us Yankees are gun owners too. I know quite a few Democrats who are also lifetime NRA members.


Yes 100 weapons per person sounds about right. It will help weed out the hardcore fetishists.


It really isn't the number of rounds in the magazine; it is how many you can put where you want them to go.
Likewise it is not the number of weapons in the cache, it is how many you can use sequentially/simultaneously
and efficiently.

Clifford Kiracofe

Do most, some, a few Americans understand the concept of the right to bear arms as per the Second Amendment?

Have most, some, a few even heard of the Second Amendment or read it lately?


My sense is the final objective of the radical "gun controllers" is complete confiscation/disarmament with licensing as something along the way. They could care less about the Constitution...evidently.


Congratulations to Justin Elliot for an incisive piece on guns; but the piece could have been written without the snide remarks about those (coastal elites, he calls them) who might have a different view.

Having spent quite a bit of time in the South, I'd suggest that some of his friends spend a bit less on guns and ammo in order to take care of their teeth.


Col: Peter King, R-Sinn Fein, wants to ban the carrying of weapons within 1,000 feet of federal office holders. Because we know, that law--and not the current law prohibiting murder--would have dissuaded Mr. Loughner. Sigh.

Oh, well, time to subpoeana the Muslims.....


Some random musings with no particular conclusions.

As an ex-NRA, current gun owner, and former member of my university rifle team I do not believe that licensing is a step on the way to confiscation. I'm not naive about the intentions of a few but I believe that the constitutional protections for reasonable gun ownership are sufficiently strong in the US. Of course I believed that about incarceration without trial too but terrorists have a much smaller lobby than gun owners and are not thought kindly of by the Supreme Court. I parted company with the NRA over the Teflon bullet hooha. If I thought licensing could prevent even a few events like the recent shootings I could accept it. I don't think it would though. In fact I can't think of any change that would have any significant effect on Arizona-type incidents other than severe restrictions and I agree with the post that that's a non starter.

I don't have a problem with most semi-automatic sporting weapons although I would prefer to see military automatic weapons generally out of civilian hands. I've never personally needed to put 30 rounds into a deer, turkey, quail, rabbit or paper target in a few seconds and don't expect to. The military is the proper place for such weapons but it's hard to define the line between military weapons and military-style weapons precisely enough. For my own uses I prefer the old fashioned simplicity and reliability of my pump and double shotguns, my bolt action rifle and my revolvers but to each his own.

I'd accept Mr. Cummings 100 piece limit with an exemption for antiques and I second his uneasiness with the gun show sales. There probably should be some limitations on the amount of ammunition that can be accumulated, mainly to get a handle on the militias which I believe are a bigger danger than anything I see out of overnment today. Regulating essentially private sales, however, would likely be too intrusive on individuals and too burdensome on law enforcement.

Overall, I'm not opposed in principle to reasonable regulation of guns and ammunition but I don't see that acceptable regulations would stop very many wackos and the NRA won't accept even reasonable regulation. Even of, say, bullets that can pierce law enforcement body armor. I'm afraid I'm in Nancy K's no answer camp.



Col. Lang:

As one old guy on a laptop to another, what do you think can be done about overcoming the "slippery slope" problem that may occur if more restrictions are placed on guns? Such things as restricting the size of the magazine, the kinds of ammunition, and whether the weapon can be converted to automatic fire.

John Minnerath

I wouldn't say gun control is dead in America, it's just at a lull for now.
Tongue firmly in cheek, I guess I could live with a 100 gun limit.
If I tried to add up all I've owned over the years, I'd still be way short.
I do have friends with serious collections who would take issue with such a low number though.

So much for that, I do agree with arguments against huge capacity magazines.
I had problems with the NRAs position on that subject and others.
A 30 round banana clip on one of my beautifully stocked and finished rifles would be an ugly sucker to me.
I just never have cared for military style weapons anyway.
And, never having been much of a handgun shooter, I'm down to just 1 now, but there are a few I had in the past I sure wish I had hung onto.

Lord Curzon

"Guns for show, knives for a pro!" - Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

William R. Cumming

Three powerful US Senators that just retired have announced staying in DC to lobby. All were NRA members.What there issues will be to lobby on might be of some interest but probably will just work behind scenes for a year or two until statutory restrictions lapse.

I think that GAO should produce a net worth statement on all MEMBERS of Congress as they retire showing net worth before election and as they retired.


A lot of people (gun owners like me) would accept the idea of banning oversized magazines (not clips, look it up) for handguns. pl

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you Colonel. Despite the logic of your position.

If you give these anti constitutional "gun grabber" idiots an inch. Then they and thier radical left brethern, will use that to demand more and more concessions.

Like the local sheriff told me,"It will be 30 minutes to 1 hour before, we can respond to your 911 call. In the mean time, it will be between the bad guys and you. I'd be well armed, if I were you."

Patrick Lang


I believe I agreed with you in my post and I am always armed and will defend myself. I own about a dozen handguns ranging in caliber from a .22 target pistol to a PPK .380 and a lot of classic .38 special revolvers. I also have a 20 gauge double barreled coach gun. i used to have a lot more but sold off a cabinet full a few years back. When I see something new in "American Rifleman" I am alswys tempted to go down to Clark Brothers on route .29 in Warrenton and buy it. Why do I own guns? Why does a carpenter like tools? ok

Patrick Lang


I think Virginia's laws are appropriate. Instant computer checks, very heavy penalties for conviction on crimes in which a firearm is used. I think the gun show loophole should be closed by extension of instant computer checks there. State laws should not superseded by federal law, especially to protect people we elect. they are not that important and if they are that afraid should seek other work as Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) has said. State law should be improved to make it very likely that the mentally ill are identified to law enforcement so that they are not legally sold guns, same thing for felons, people under restrictions for wife beating, etc. pl

Patrick Lang


Our teeth? What? you think we are British? Seriously, I remember a lot of cretins living in tar paper shacks in the woods in NH. Perhaps they should spend more money on housing. Just joking, there are no more cretins in NH than there are in New Jersey. Actually, I am not amused. Last chance. pl


I vote for simultaneously; sequence and effectiveness be damned. That way you can make a statement (Mad Minute-Like).

Patrick Lang


The idiot Matthews just said "you know the argument, they say that if you take their semi-automatics you will want to take their shotguns." At least he is clear, he wants my .22 Browning target pistol. pl

The Twisted Genius

I do agree that gun control legislation is a non-starter for the forseeable future. However, I think the "slippery slope" argument is bogus. There are already severe restrictions on private ownership of arms. I wouldn't mind owning a working Thompson submachine gun. You could legally own one in the 1920's. For that matter, a bagful of Belgian minigrenades could be an effective home defense weapon, but "the man" won't let me have them either. Yes there are already restrictions on what arms we may bear. In my mind, they are sensible restrictions.

I was a member of the NRA only while I was a competitive shooter. Now I find their agenda a tad too extreme for my tastes. Some restrictions, such as on the availability of extended capacity magazines or teflon bullets would be reasonable. Even registration wouldn't bother me.

Paul and PL, Cletus the slack jawed yokel and his extended, inbred family know no geographical boundaries in the U.S. I've met some real doozies in the Uwharrie forest and in the north woods of Maine.



Something terrible happens like the Arizona shoot-em-up and the political 'agendas' come out of the woodwork. We see the 'agenda' of Rep. McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Lautenburg (D-NJ) now playing with their introduced legislation. If the Brady Center, Rep. McCarthy, and Sen. Lautenburg had their ways, you and I (and every other gun owner) would be only able to possess sling-shots. Rep. McCarthy has been on a tear ever since she lost her husband and son to 'gun violence'. As for Sen. Lautenburg, I still don't know the full reasons why he wants no American to have firearms ownership.

Why can't our politicians put away their 'agendas' when people go and get stupid?

Paul in NC

I own two semiauto handguns, a varmint rifle, and a pump 12 gauge.

I think we can all agree that guns are every bit as dangerous as motor vehicles. The statistics certainly bear that out. Seems to me we might consider requiring gun owners to show some minimal knowledge and proficiency on the maintenance and use of firearms(surely we've all cringed and ducked when we see some knucklehead at the range doing something stupid and dangerous). Take a class, pass a test, then get a license (for the user not the gun). One time deal. License laws could have requirements and limitations like driver's licenses do, screening out the unbalanced, the criminal, etc. The state might even do something simple like put a symbol on your driver's license that you're qualified. Then all you have to do is show your driver's license to purchase a gun (even at a gun show) without repeatedly going through the permit process (here in NC it takes 30 days).

That this is the slippery slope to confiscation seems slightly paranoid to me, given the robust support for private firearm ownership in this country (to say the least). In any event, in every state there already is a database of every legal gun purchase and purchaser. That's all that's needed to confiscate.

And Clifford Kiracofe,the meaning of the Second Amendment has been a subject of intense legal debate for centuries. Nothing cut and dried about it. Concern about the unlimited proliferation of guns, especially military weapons, is not a character flaw.

Finally, who the hell needs 100 guns? That I don't get.

Patrick Lang


He is a millionaire from New Jersey. I sat in the Acela lounge with his wife in Penn Station once waiting for the train. I chatted with her and listened to her cell phone talk. These people live on another planet. In their world the police exist to protect them from the rest of us. A general possession of firearms by the masses is viewed by such people as a threat to them and their things. pl


"Law enforcement can use such immediate reserves of ammunition."

Most cops need to first learn to shoot and actually hit the target with more than two rounds. Secondly they need to learn how to use hand guns such as the 45ACP in a combat position and finally, they need to have automatic weapons at their disposal.

That is lastly, after they are really proficient with the weapons. Last thing we need is a fire fight downtown with a perp getting hit with two rounds after 650 rounds have been fired.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad