« Casualties by Richard Sale | Main | It's the "Sequester," stupid! »

02 January 2013


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

David J.

A week ago a NY newspaper in White Plains published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor.

I am having trouble thinking of anything more hypocritical than declaring that other people should not enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns, while defending yourself with guns.

Al Arabist

Well it's is a sign of great faith in the State. OR a sign that citizens feel their lives threatened by things not related to guns. Objectively, historically that can change, so I think faith is unwarranted. Every day I open my eyes to friends being killed by an arab state on the rampage against a population absolutely forbidden to hold guns. No, I'm not okay with state monopolies on violence.


Every time you leave your house, you turn over your life to the State. When you are home and if your house starts to burn, you turn over your life to the State. While you are asleep, the State makes sure your insurance company actually insures you.

This list is expandable.


If both family members are licensed to own the weapon in question, no more government action is needed.

scott s.

Contrary to other statements, the requirement for serial numbers (and other info) is imposed on licensed manufacturers and importers. There is no requirement for a person who is not in a "regular course of trade or business" to put a serial number or other mark on any firearm. Note that importation of firearm by any person generally requires a licensed importer and an ATF Form 6. Also note that importing handgun barrels by non-licensees is also regulated and must meet the "sporting purposes" test, and prohibition of assembling certain firearms from imported parts.


I believe the paper only did that after a local blogger followed the paper's example of promoting publicly available (as in go down to the court house and look at files - in this case hundreds - one at a time) information showing where various employees of the paper lived. Shocking how promoting a list of records might get a similar response. The local police also reviewed an email the paper claimed was a 'threat' and decided that no, it in fact was not.

The Twisted Genius

Just read an open letter from Ted Nugent to Joe Biden offering his ideas and services to Biden's commission to end gun related violence. I hope old Joe takes up Ted's offer. I'd also like to see that commission study the history of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the effort to keep automatic weapons out of criminals' hands. It took 50 years for that effort to be settled in a way that seems satisfactory to all. The NFA didn't ban anything. It just made it very difficult and expensive to own an automatic weapon. However, today's acceptance and apparent success of the NFA may be due more to cultural and technological changes rather than any legislative magic. I'm not sure if a close study of the NFA would show that smart legislation is possible or if it would be ineffective. Either way, it would be worth the study.

Ted's letter:



And if both are not licensed?

For example, a father dies and leaves his son 17 long guns and one handgun. The son then threatens people at the condo complex pool with the handgun. The SWAT team, police helicopter and mutual assistance arrive. They knock on the door. No answer. Maybe be passed out, drunk. No threat, so eventually they go home. (Did I mention that the gun owner is a raving drunk, has previously passed out and cracked his head open on the sidewalk, and hit and run with his car on a complex fence. Every morning he carefully throws his 24 beer can into the recycling and drives off to buy more beer.)

When a detective comes to follow up, the owner says he mailed the handgun to a friend. Doesn't have it anymore.

What do you do about a gun owner like that?


Reductio ad absurdum. Somehow, people other than the rich can afford homes and cars and the required insurance on these. But I'll play along, you might need to be rich to do so, but if you can afford a Keltec SU 22 (a $500 rifle), you can afford the insurance. Guns are not a cheap hobby.


Well, violent films and video games don't seem to provoke much violence in other developed nations. The problem lies within American culture.



Yes, I can afford to buy insurance in order to indulge my "hobby." I can afford a lot of things. That is confirmed to me every time my wife gives the money you all contribute to some charitable cause that she favors. But, can the two brothers who come in from Greene County to do yard work for me afford the insursance? They hunt to feed their families. pl


Not a house by house search, no, but rather a process over time whereby the law is enforced through normal law-enforcement and things like buy-backs and voluntary compliance.


If you are not familiar with his work, Sam Harris is a Philosopher, Neuroscientist, Atheist, and gun owner. I apologize if any find his views on religion offensive but his recent Blog post on this topic is very interesting and thought provoking:

I no longer own or need guns as I live in a high rise condominium building. However, I am of the opinion that reasonable, law abiding citizens should have the right to do so.

People drive and people drink. When they do both, law enforcement steps in and restricts their right to do so. This would seem to require a law enforcement solution rather than a law making solution.




If you want an insurrection in this country outside the "fantasy islands" like NYC, just try it. pl


The funny thing is if they gave the order for the "law enforcement process" to go ahead, who's going to enforce it? Many of the police are gun enthusiasts and enjoy shooting, hunting, etc, as a recreation. You think they're just going to blithely follow orders just because some muckety muck in a suit tells them to?

Then there are the military veterans, another group that enjoys firearms recreationally and isn't all about 'banning things that scare me'. You think law enforcement, many of whom are veterans like myself, are just going to round up their brothers in arms?

So you're basically turning your security apparatus into an insurgency. A recipe for civil war if I ever heard one.


This is the same kind of farcical thinking that goes "Well who would build roads if it wasn't for the government!"

Someone would. We do not need a nanny in DC trying to pretend every part of the nation should be like New England. There's a huge difference between the nest of bureaucrats that rule the roost now and a local government of people who know each other. Stop being disingeneous with your sophistry.


Let's go shout fire in a crowded theatre while we're at it.


The Ruger looks like a deer rifle. The Keltec looks like it's designed to kill people. The Bushmaster used at Sandy Hook looks like the Keltec.

Of course we can't base legislation on what a gun "looks like". That's the problem with outlawing "assault weapons". But the obvious difference exemplifies the worst of what's happened to our society through my lifetime: the glorification of killing.

Hollywood bears huge responsibility for this (I'd gladly help string up Tarantino), but the gun manufacturers share the blame. They have consciously marketed military weapons for civilian use. They have contributed large amounts of cash to the NRA's campaign to fight against even the most sensible restrictions (who needs "cop-killer" armor-peircing bullets, except gang-bangers & "preppers"?).

I know I'm no expert on guns. I had hoped those of you who understand the technology better than I would propose some useful changes to help prevent more Sandy Hooks, but I've been disappointed so far. Smaller magazines are the only concession I've heard here so far, and that's something I brought up.

And no, "more guns" is NOT the answer to too many guns in the hands of too many crazy people. Frankly, anyone (particularly the NRA) who says it is just sounds crazy to the rest of us.

PS: Thx for the education on "magazine" vs "clip". Learn something new every day!


I suspect, Tyler, that you may have some trouble passing the civics test required to obtain a US citizenship. A good argument can be made that the government, most that is not based in DC, is doing too much in some areas but another argument can be made that they do not do enough in others.

It would be nice, however, that if they decide to do something, they pay for it. When it comes to roads, they actually do, even if the results are at times somewhat uneven.

But if you like that small government and abhor the much larger one, I suggest you spend some time in places like Somalia. There you would have an opportunity to practice what you preach.


So if someone were to commit a crime there would be one more statue to charge him/her with violating, otherwise nothing is going to happen? Just who is that going to deter?



Tyler is a former combat infantryman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and now on the Mexican border in ICE. Think about how pompous you sound. pl



You do know that many public schools already have armed guards? You do know that, don't you? the schools in connecticutt that the Newtown kids are at has armed police guards. should they be withdrawn? pl


The problem in Somalia isn't "small government". Try again.

Our problem is the people who think "more government" is the panacea to all ills.

Civics? You mean like Washington's farewell address that said we should be careful of large debts, foreign entanglements, and large governments?


No, I was more making the point that stupid people doing stupid things is more a matter for law enforcement and not a reason for the nanny staters in DC to ban everything tangentially related.

No one made any threats to the White Plains newspaper that decided to publish gun owners addresses and then hired armed guards because they were scared. The letter in question said "actions have consequences", and the same people who were bravely comparing gun owners to sex offenders and huff puffing about "safety" were terrified.

I see that people have a right to free speech, and a right to bear arms. The two go together splendidly. They banned guns in the UK, and now you can go to prison and lose your children to the state for expressing "racist" thoughts.

What you don't have a right to is being swaddled in bubble wrap from cradle to grave by your government, which is something many people seem to think is a right, or should be.

I'd also like to point out that our "elites" who cry about gun control seem to have no problem surrounding themselves with armed men. Sidwell School for Friends, where the Obamas' children go, has eleven armed guards. Actually, from their picture they look more like a SRT. Again: for me, but not for thee. Armed guards are for our elites, but not for the filthy rabble, according to many on the Left.


Not just more guns.

More guns, more training, more citizen-soldier ethos among the populace.

Less complancency, less serfdom, less never ending childhood.

You should also stop talking as if you speak for everyone, particularly your last paragraph. It makes you sound like you're coming down from your ivory tower to educate us savages.

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