Now that The New York Times has broken cover and called for gun owners to “give up” so-called assault weapons “for the good of the country,” the rest of the assault media is coming out of the confiscation closet. The LA Times Capitol Journal features an article entitled Lax gun policies are hitting America where it hurts. Reporter George Skelton [above] has penned a post that’s boilerplate pro-gun control. Until he drops this . . .

National Rifle Assn. scare propaganda to the contrary, no one is advocating the confiscation of all weapons. But that’s where we’re headed eventually unless the gunners wake up and compromise on some realistic solutions to the daily slaughter.

Is that a threat or a promise? Either way, Skelton’s willingness to put “that which shall not be named” on the proverbial table proves that gun control advocates are growing desperate.

You could say that’s a good thing; the anti-gun rights crowd realizes they’re losing. Or you could say that’s a bad thing; they realize they’re losing – and they’re willing to do anything to disarm their fellow Americans. Or were they always that way, just less honest about it?

Another solution: A well-funded government buyout program that offers financial incentives for people to dump guns they really don’t care about but are sitting ducks for thieves or accidents.

I’m confused. Are the guns sitting ducks for thieves or the gun owners? Probably not the owners; they’ve got guns. “Spare” ones even. Anyway, we can expect more calls for confiscation. Which are sending gun sales through the roof (one reader reports his local Walmart has been cleaned of all guns and ammo). And a good thing that is too.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

130 COMMENTS

  1. Sure, come pick them up at my house. Just knock loudly, at 2AM, I will give you the bullets first! Please contact me so I can give you my address.

    • And don’t forget to yell, “Open up!”

      That’s the secret password, that’s how I’ll know it’s you.

    • Yep. I’ll leave a light on for them. It’s a Surefire Scout light, but it’s a light just the same.

        • Do you guys believe the Aussies , British , French , Japanese , etc. were bigger woosies than we are ? Well , maybe , but don’t expect some government men in black knocking on your door or climbing into your window , or any of these , ‘ shoot me scenarios ‘ you’re describing here . They will either come with overwhelming force or get em when you aren’t home , like when you’re behind bars . Even if it is how you dream it to be , you will lose .
          Play it smart this time , support , volunteer for , definitely vote for , Ted Cruz .
          Do not , under ‘any’ circumstances , vote for Trump . A vote for Trump , will get Clinton elected and she will take our guns , PEROID .

    • “But that’s where we’re headed eventually unless the gunners wake up and compromise . . .”

      Actually, the reverse is happening. The Gun Control Movement is in sharp decline as more and more Americans embrace the inherent logic and moral certainty of the 2nd amendment.
      Every time the gun controllers make a concerted effort to impose new “sensible” restrictions the ranks of gun-rights supporters grows exponentially. They’re losing and we’re winning.

        • Gun grabber: “I demand that you bend over and let me sodomize you.”

          Gun owner: “But, I don’t want to be sodomized.”

          Gun grabber: “OK, just the tip, this time.”

          Gun owner: “Dude, you’re not getting it. I don’t want to be sodomized.”

          Gun grabber: “You fanatics just won’t compromise! OK, help me hold this extremist down…”

      • I wouldn’t celebrate just yet. Are there more and more gun owners today than in the past? Yes, but let’s not forget that there are still a large number of antis who will stop at nothing to enact stricter laws. They aren’t going away, and with Bloomberg’s money, they are actually winning more fights than we realize.

        Don’t believe me? Read this:

        “How Bloomberg is Winning in the Political Arena”

        https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/how-bloomberg-is-winning-in-the-political-arena/

        • “Yes, but let’s not forget that there are still a large number of antis who will stop at nothing to enact stricter laws.”

          And they are importing more of them by the millions.

      • I don’t know where I posted this yesterday because email notifications are down, but it is more relevent here; they want to stop gun violence…they haven’t seen gun violence.

    • Utah would be a bad place to start a mandatory “buy-back” program. The cost would be way to high even for the leftists pockets because some things are worth more than money. Also some things cannot be purchased with money…

      • I don’t know about that. Bloomberg can sure buy all MY guns! And I’d guess he’d have enough money left to buy all the guns of several other people, too. As soon as my new Bentley pickup truck is delivered, I would head for the store to buy 20 times as many guns to move into my new mansion.

    • Let’s see if George is gonna gear up and be the first through the door. Something I highly doubt will happen.

  2. It really sounds like they want a second Civil War. I hope they get one. I will be happy to give it to them.

      • At this point, I think it’s going to take a lot of force to remove the scum from this country. I would be quite happy to let a civil war settle things. If we win, we win and these scumbags get their teeth kicked in for at least a century. If we lose, I’ll be dead and no worse off than not standing up to these clowns.

        • Problem is that the only sure survivors are the roaches, maggots, etc. See also libtard progressives and statists. They 1st into the shelter. Will have to trick them into coming out early to “take charge”.

        • The culling of a weak and gutless society is a natural part of history moving forward. If we don’t do it ourselves someone else will be glad to do it for us. If they tried, the resistant would doubtless win. So if they do push us to war, it will cost them their slaves and their control of the system. I don’t think it will happen though. All I hear from people like the NYT and LAT and the president is the desperate screams of the already defunct, still attempting to assert authority for which the legitimacy has been long absent.

        • If one starts, they won’t be around to blame anyone. Scumbags like this will be the first up against a wall.

      • War is hell. We’re not at that point yet and I never wish to be.

        If you’re advocated that, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

        • Communism is worse. I’ve seen communism and I’ve seen war. Given those options, I’ll take war. Thanks.

        • Nothing was advocated and war was not wished… But when push comes to shove…. when your pushed far enough, are you going to be willing to shove back? Or are you going to bow and accept it?

        • The problem is that most Americans will always say that we’re “not at the point, yet”. We could have GPS trackers implanted into our arms and executions in the street (whoops, we already have that second one) and most people would still bow their heads and insist that it’s not that bad.

        • War is hell, but selling your children into slavery because of your inaction is far more despicable.

        • Alright let us know when we get to “that point”. Insert caddy shack “well… we’re waiting” meme.

      • Just a reminder that pwrserge is probably a 4chan /pol/ster and likely watches anime and sleeps with a body pillow. The only thing he’s going to declare war on is another bag of Doritos.

        • That’s cute… You think your derision is worth something. I’ve fought two wars already. What’s a third?

        • DMZ, pwrserge has been here for awhile. If he isn’t a vet, he’s one of the best wannabes I’ve seen posting in years. Without knowing the man personally, I’d take a bet that he’s quite real. Even if he weren’t, somebody who is able to sell it effortlessly is someone you want on your team.

          YMMV.

        • The difference between me and a wannabe is that I don’t claim to be something I never was. Hell, I wan’t even “a man in khaki kit who could handle men a bit”. I was a simple 1371 E4 and saw some very nasty things.

          But hey, I fail to see how your story and mine are mutually exclusive. Everybody needs a hobby. Mine is deconstructing character archetypes in modern media. Why? Because there’s a lot to be learned from how we build our stories and our heroes, villains even more so. If you had actually seen the show from which I stole my icon, you would understand why I use him as my avatar. For a machiavellian monster, Gendo Ikari was probably the most tragic character in the show. It just wasn’t obvious unless you paid attention to the subtle details.

          Unlike most people on this board, I actually grew up under communism. I know exactly what the progressive end game is and I know that any price is worth paying to prevent it.

    • Careful what you wish for. A civil war would be ugly beyond belief. I think we’ll see a huge win for conservatives in 2016. If we can get there. Though I would deem it somewhat unlikely, one of my biggest fears is that the leftists see it too, and will pick a fight while they still control the administrative branch of the Gov. and declare martial law (or some kind of “emergency power,” which will amount to the same thing). Yes, as Ted Cruz said, we’re in for some Lord of the Flies until 2016. But if we can get there, that will be so, so much better. If the leftists are determined to have a civil war, they’ll find a way. But steady on if at all possible.

  3. At least he didn’t call it a “buyback.”

    This is frightening. I can’t decide if progressive gun grabbers are the cornered animal or the thrashing, dying replicant.

    • They’re neither. The actions of a cornered animal are at least grounded in reason. The antis are more like children throwing a tantrum, shrieking and struggling against reality, motivated only by fear and the fantasies they build in their weak little minds.

      • These are the Lemming progressives , for sure the majority , but you also have the G. Soros , Al Gore progressives , the NWO ( UN ) progressives , they have a deeper darker agenda .

        • Hillary is the NWO type , Trump is just a wantabe NWO type and Obama is a Saul Alinsky boy , I mean him no disrespect , but that is what he is . An anarchist that wants a reboot and a redistribution of wealth based on his anti colonial hatred and biased opinions and twisted view of history .
          Just my oponins obviously .

  4. The LA Times wants to confiscate my guns, you say?

    Well, how many divisions does the LA Times have?

  5. “National Rifle Assn. scare propaganda to the contrary, no one is advocating the confiscation of all weapons. But that’s where we’re headed eventually unless the gunners wake up and compromise on some realistic solutions…”

    Give up your guns, or we will take your guns…

    How about… Go f*ck yourself, or, if you prefer, go f*ck your mother.

  6. They can have my AR when they take my bullets first at 2,500+ fps first. And then only when they take them from my cold dead hands.

  8. Of course this is where its heading….their is no other end game. They won’t leave us alone, and we won’t give in. Let’s rock George… Let’s see what ya got…

    • I just love how all these gun grabbers assume that every LEO, every soldier from private to senior generals, and every politician will just automatically side with them and enforce their idea of gun confiscation by force of arms, if necessary, and it WILL be necessary.

      • I talked to an ex-LEO about gun confiscation. Let’s just say that LEO’s are not unaware of the dangers involved and don’t really want to go down that road.

        • Well, there’s not only that, but also the fact that many LEO’s, honcho-type LEO’s (in the form of elected Sheriff’s) that have outright stated they will not enforce confiscation oriented laws.

          See for example: Most of the State of Colorado, Most of the State of New York, and, apparently, Connecticut, even though the latter has not openly stated it explicitly (to my knowledge).

          These grabbers are fools. Many Sheriff’s are telling them openly and in no uncertain terms they are on OUR side, and still these feces-for-brains anti’s can only think in terms of Statism.

          It’s that bad when even members of “The State” oppose them.

      • Well, they’re right. Cops, soldiers, federal agents, etc will side with it. Even if they don’t agree with it, once they’re facing life in prison or execution for disobeying, they’ll obey like a good little dog. You might get a VERY small minority who would bite the hand that feeds them, but the overwhelming majority will do as they’re told.

        • Ever hear of Oath Keepers? I know I’m not the only military officer (or police officer, etc.) who would hold my oath to the Constitution above unlawful orders to confiscate citizens’ weapons.

        • I’m an x Federal LEO and I can tell you without a doubt, all of my co-workers understand that once the order to confiscate is given, our nation and lifestyle as we know it is over. We always said at that point, we just go home to protect our families friends, and hometowns. There will be very few that are that dumb. This isn’t England or Australia. Our country is unique. Most Americans on our side are willing to fight to keep what we hold dear. I’m not from a big city, so I can’t speak for those folks, but rural America, aint happening.

        • Within days of such an order, LEOs of all stripes will accept their orders, leave the station, and converge on the donut shop for the day, reporting back at end of shift that there were no guns in their assigned area. If ‘the boss”, whoever that is, *really* wants the raids executed, he will have to lead the charge, and won’t survive the day, shot to death from the front or the back, who can tell?

          The cowards of the left are certainly not coming for your guns themselves, they will instead be sending YOU to get them! All we have to do is agree, collect the checks, and do nothing. I’d bet good money that no more than 100 LEOs would be killed nationwide (with no resulting arrests), before the fruitcakes declare victory. Only problem is that they will attempt to tack on prohibitively vicious penalties for use of a firearm doing anything, we’ll have to be ready to refuse to convict anyone, as jurors, if any such thing is attempted, and possibly declare open season on a few judges.

        • @Master Chief

          I’m well aware of the so called “Oath Keepers”. I’m also aware that not one of them has upheld the part of their oath that requires them to defend against domestic enemies as evidenced by the fact that none of them have arrested or even called for the arrest of politicians who violate the Constitution. A year or two ago, Egypt’s president violated the Constitution – so what did their military do? Their job, they told him that since he violated the Constitution he had X number of days to willingly step down from power and face a trial or he would be forcefully removed from office, then a new election would be held. Our troops could learn something about protecting the Constitution from the Egyptians.

          @CZ Guy

          I know plenty of cops and soldiers. The cops that won’t enforce a gun confiscation don’t say that they’d refuse because it’s illegal / immoral, only because they don’t want to die. As for the soldiers? They routinely say things like “Only people who work for the government should be allowed to vote / have rights” and two years ago (almost to the day), I sat in a room full of military personnel on Scott Air Force Base and listened to them laugh about how they hoped there would be a civil war because they wanted to kill anyone who disagrees with our corrupt politicians. Sorry, but my personal experience is going to trump your promises that “No, really, you can trust the guys who blindly take orders from evil politicians!”. The most ardent anti-Constitution and anti-rights / anti-freedom people I’ve met in my life have always been soldiers / police.

  9. I find it very odd that the Bolsheviks are pushing very strong for their vision on the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Guess they didn’t learn the history lesson of waking up sleeping giants.

    They also seem to have forgotten what happened in 1775 in a couple of small towns in Massachusetts, when the government came to disarm private citizens.

    • A rifle behind every blade of grass. Probably several what with the way gun and ammo sales have been the last decade or so. They really don’t have a clue what they’re stirring up. Silly progressives.

      • If they believe that criminals will not commit crimes just because they have passed a law against it and that there NEVER be a gun found in a Gun Free Zone and that a gun-free country will automatically result in a violence free society then they will of course believe that just because they pass a law saying you must turn in all your guns everybody will line up at the local PD and hand them over, no problem.

        What, did I just hear someone mumble something about unicorns?

  10. Anyways, just because a couple of newspaper publishers with Aspergers suggest it doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen. Your fear mongering trumps theirs?

    Puh-leeeese.

    • Mongering? You mean stirring up something petty or in a contemptible or discreditible way? What exactly is petty, contemptible or discreditible about speaking out in favor of the Second Amendment? Or do you mean the prospect of confiscation or other infringing measures being unrealistic and hence unworthy of discussing in serious terms? Well.

      The president has been waging war for years against the 2A. He laments that he hasn’t accomplished more, but intends to keep trying in his remaining months.

      We had the US Supreme Court as recently as TODAY refuse to hear a case that should’ve been a unanimous 9-0 bitchslap of the lower courts for flagrantly defying the Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. Instead, the conservatives on the court knew to reject it, despite eviscerating the Court’s own credibility, because the liberals were champing at the bit to reverse those precedents or hollow them out. Better to walk the batter than risk a grand slam late in the game.

      Then there’s Hillary, the overwhelming Democrat front runner, whose party has won two in a row. She’s running around squealing with joy to copy Australia’s confiscation scheme.

      So again, what exactly is petty or unrealistic or all the rest about standing strong on 2A and foretelling what would be the blood-drenched tragedy of a wholesale gun grab here? It’s a grave and gathering threat, not idle speculation.

      • I mean the headline suggesting the LA times, or the NYT can actually confiscate guns. Just because they “demand” it doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen, by any stretch of the imagination.

        • I think we’re coming at this from different premises. Speaking for myself, though many here may well agree, various liberal institutions out there, whether academia, Hollywood, the unions, much of the judiciary, the myriad NGOs and so-called nonprofit agitator groups, and the media including house organs like the LA Times, are essentially wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrat party.

          If that’s too much, then at least consider them all lockstep members of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Whenever one source speaks, they’re all basically on board and their power is all collective power. A journalist talks, but expects Hillary’s DOJ to carry out the plan.

  11. Do they realize how “well funded” an account to buy all guns in America would have to be? Take a conservative average of $600 per gun, multiply by 350 million firearms in the country. $210,000,000,000 is not an insignificant amount of money.

    • Except that the government would decide what is “fair” and if you don’t like it, you can spend life in prison. It would be something like $200 – $500 per household, no more.

    • Yeah. They’ll pay for it with a new tax on (former) gun owners. You’ll be paying for your own buyback.

  12. The LA Slime has already gone through many changes of ownership, a bankruptcy and a loss of about 50% of its circulation. What you are reading is not an anti-gun column. It’s the newspaper’s self-written obituary.

  14. As an unofficial, unpaid, heck they don’t even know who I am, spokesman for the insidious firearms industry, I would like to thank, most sincerely, the various anti-gun groups. You and President Obama have driven sales of our fine product through the roof with your fear mongering and bloody shirt waving. With each .22 sold and trip to the range taken ensures another lifetime commitment to the engrossing, interesting, and useful firearms life. Thank you!

        • I discovered a few days ago that I am already at the top of the NRA ladder, Benefactor Life Member, nowhere left to go, so yesterday I just donated a few hundred to several orgs, NRA, SAF, GOA, etc. I don’t think they’ll mind.

  15. It’s amazing how like the Mafia the anti-gun movement is. “That’s a mighty fine Right to Bear Arms you have there… Be a shame if something happened to it. Why don’t you hand over the semi-autos and we’ll can see about giving you some… ‘protection’… for the Second Amendment.”

  16. They’re really living in an isolated world of their own, or they really want Hillary to bear the full brunt of all the anti-anti-gun backlash real Americans can bring to bear on next year’s elections?

  17. “Compromise is a word found only in the vocabulary of those who have no will to fight.”
    ― Josemaría Escrivá

  18. Every one of these clowns is the same. Their threat is always: “Conform gun nuts, or we’ll come get ’em.” I would like to see the flabby old Mr. Skelton himself make the effort to personally come try to take my guns from me. But I know that’s fantasy. Statists like him rely on the bloated federal government they love so much to do the dirty work for them. So I’ll say, again, what I say to anyone who spouts this same poison, “Come get ’em, bitch.”

    • Liberal media types like this guy spent W’s administration derisively referring to anyone in favor of either the Afghanistan or Iraq invasions, but who wasn’t himself in the military or had a son/daughter who was, as a chickenhawk. The play on words is that you’re a hawk for wanting war, but a chicken for not personally serving in it. Well.

      What term would describe a statist media hack who eagerly espouses rights denial and firearm confiscation, but who has no concept whatsoever of ever personally kicking down a door to come and take them?

  19. I think it should be pointed out that this guy really believes that not all guns will be confiscated. Australia still has what are technically firearms. Canada still has lots of the same firearms Americans take for granted. Most countries in Europe, Africa, and latin America technically allow blot action rifles that are judged as not having military use. So in his mind gun confiscation doesn’t mean no guns, it just means no military guns. Not that any of really care because he’s a whelp that none of us need to give a damn about at all.

    “National Rifle Assn. scare propaganda to the contrary, no one is advocating the confiscation of all weapons. But that’s where we’re headed eventually unless the gunners wake up and compromise on some realistic solutions to the daily slaughter.”

    He thinks that he’s going to survive what results from the order to commence gun confiscation. That’s adorable.

    • “So in his mind gun confiscation doesn’t mean no guns, it just means no military guns.”

      Which shows their underlying stupidity, because right after saying we don’t NEED “military styles rifles,” they say we couldn’t stand up to the might of the Almighty State anyway…AND the Second Amendment is not about opposing tyranny anyway.

      Well, if we could not stand up to the feds and that’s not what the 2A is about, why the focus on “military style weapons?” It’s a smokescreen, covering the fact that it only means MSR’s TODAY, but tomorrow, it’s handguns, and the next day shotguns, and the day after that…single shot C&R rifles. Etc.

  20. They do not think they are losing: They think demographics is destiny and nothing the GOP can do will prevent Hillary from being President.

  21. If they were half as concerned about criminals, terrorists, and their victims as they are about legal gun owners, we would all be better off and safer. Misplaced anger on their part.

  23. Is George Skelton ready to be the number one man in a stack? No? Then stop being so eager to send others to die for your BS cause.

  24. If the incentive for my rifle is enough to pay off my mortgage, come get it and bring the $.

    Then I will go out after next paycheck and buy 3.

  25. I want a $2000 tax credit for my AR. I can run out spend $500 a pop and get a return just like the people who don’t work and have 4 kids……

  26. Why is it these aholes always want to bash NRA members and want out guns while they never have anything to say about the daily killing taking place in many of our major cities by young blacks and gang members who certainly didn’t go through a back ground check to acquire their guns. When will they ask Obama to set the example and has his secret service guards give up their guns. Do you really think that ahole Obama is better then us real Americans. Obama cares more about not hurting the feelings of Muslims who want sharia law in this country, Muslims who don’t want anything to do with our constitution, and won’t ever try to accept our culture, then he does about Americans being killed by Muslim savages.

  29. .. “guns they really don’t care about” is semantically equivalent to “unwanted bourbon” or “unfinished BBQ”

  30. We’ve compromised enough. When will it be their turn?

    Most federal gun laws were enacted through one or more of these acts

    National Firearms Act (NFA) (1934) – Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968) – Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

    Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) (1968) – Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

    Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) (1986) – Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law’s passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

    Undetectable Firearms Act (1988) – Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

    Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) – Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

    Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) – Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

    Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) – Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

    Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) – Prevent firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

    • Two men were arrested last night while prying open the lid of Charlton Heston’s coffin apparently in an attempt to acquire his favorite long gun .

  33. Look at the photo of the smug man, sitting there proud of his opinion which can only be openly expressed because we are a nation of laws and he is protected by armed men and women who stand ready to do violence on behalf of him and every other law-abiding citizen at any time. Nobody has shot him for being an idiot because that is not a capital offense, nor is being condescending, arrogant or prissy. Yet he still thinks that the problem lies with the law abiding citizens rather than criminals. The Times writer is either a poor thinker, unable to comprehend that his right to remain foolish is protected by the very guns he decries. Either that or he is intellectually dishonest, a hypocrite hiding behind what is no more than a wall of guns in different hands with force of law. Why should anyone listen to a hypocrite or a bad thinker?

  35. “Compromise”… they keep using that word, but I haven’t seen a single “compromise” in return for what they’re demanding, unless they truly think “Us not taking them ALL away IS a compromise!”

  36. Im not giving up anything I own. No way no how not willingly. If the Times wants to send some duffuss looking reporter over here to see what Ive got.
    Id be happy to show them the business end.
    Sounds good in my mind anyway……………………………………….but maybe I mean it maybe not.
    Lets not try and find out, OK??

  39. “… they’re willing to do anything to disarm their fellow Americans. Or were they always that way, just less honest about it?”

    I think they are just frustrated that we aren’t as stupid as they thought we were, believing in their own stereotypes about gun owners.

  40. The last time I looked neither the LA (Los Angeles, not Louisiana) times nor the New York Times was a legislative body. So who cares. They serve their core constituency with bird cage liners, and little else 🙂

  41. I am seeing lots of new names in the comments. Welcome! You are getting the message as the ranks of the POTG grow. If you know other gun owners who don’t read TTAG, or are new gun owners, encourage them to visit the site and get acquainted with the issues we face.

    This hack for the LA Times thinks the Federal or State Government ought to TAKE your property, persecute you and possibly kill or maim you in the process because you exercise your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms. Many others like him feel the same and we need to tell all of them to go to Hell because they have no right to dictate what choices we make, vilify us and plot to seize our legally owned and peaceably used property.

    We represent fully one-third of the US population and probably nearly half of the Adult population and we do not need to put up with this garbage any longer. Spread the word. Join the NRA and urge your friends to do so. Join your State Rifle and Pistol Association. Send the NRA and your State Association $5 every so often. If enough of us do that we can raise millions of dollars to fight these people. Cancel your subscriptions to any newspaper or magazine that supports taking your Second Amendment right and property from you. Do not patronize any business or organization that does not support your Second Amendment Rights.

    We have to fight legally and peaceably, and we can fight effectively by withholding our dollars and support from any person (private or Politician), organization and business that seeks to disarm us, deny our right to own firearms and seize our property. All that is necessary is that we unite in the commitment to carry-on the fight by exercising our right to choose because there are enough of us to make an impact on those who oppose us.

    Thanks for reading my comment and please consider the suggestions for action I have offered.

  42. Thank you to the veterans of WW2. Pearl Harbor sent many to far away places some never to return. Thank you to the christian deacons for defense and justice. These combat veterans who fought American racism and the axis powers came home to a tyrannical government in Louisiana and other states.
    They used military surplus weapons to fight this tyranny. And they succeeded.

    Now that intolerance they fought is in new York city and apparently in Los Angeles.
    The deacons never gave up their guns. Those who tried to take their guns away ended up with cold dead hands.
    These Lilly white news paper writers are dangerously ignorant of history.

  44. I’m gonna just drop this in here again- for all those SoCal social media savvy types,

    did same at the LA Times comment section- “awaiting moderation” – not sure its going to make it through there, given all the other complaints about censored comments that dont agree with the authors POV.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAnTa_cxEg

  45. Here are the LA Times editors on Feinsteins proposal to ban guns to those on the No Fly List:
    (which they oppose, thank god for one bit of sanity, with another admission that provides insight to the Leftist LATimes perspective)-

    “Truthfully, no one should be allowed to buy assault rifles or other military-style firearms, and the country would be better off with much stronger gun control laws for other firearms than exist now. What’s more, this page disagrees with the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to own a gun. But that is a recognized right, and we find it dangerous ground to let the government restrict the exercise of a right based on mere suspicion”.

  46. I don’t give a sh– what these idiots in NY and LA write. They only write this garabage in the places with the strictest gun control in the first place. You think they give a rats ass in Montana for instance what these goof balls think?
    Keep dreaming.

  47. Just a thought but any chance that more gun owners know his and other addresses than he or they know all gun owners addresses? The silent majority or quiet ones can be a heck of a thing.

  50. National Rifle Assn. scare propaganda to the contrary…

    It’s not “scare” propaganda if it’s true. For years the left has grown more and more left to the extreme and now advocate for the supposed “NRA scare propaganda” they said was untrue years ago. In this case it is the NYT and LA times that said it – not the NRA.

  51. Irrelevant. These folks don’t realize how little their position is supported outside of their urban hellholes. The real play is a slow boil, and it is happening every day. NY and CT are the first frogs in the pot. There are a few things the NYT/LATimes bluster accomplishes, however.
    1. There is a real impact on the ability of gun related businesses to secure investment and credit.
    2. Increases the resolve of law abiding responsible citizens like myself to preserve my, and most importantly my childrens 2A rights.

    Too help preserve your gun rights in all cases, go out an buy a new lower or five with parts kits. I did.

  52. Confiscate his laptop. Destroy the presses, and shut down the Times. Don’t let a something like the 1st Amendment get in the way. It does’t apply to mega corporations anyway…

  53. “no one is advocating the confiscation of all weapons.”

    Skelton, your senator did. I am sure that she feels the same way now.
    So, are you uninformed or intentionally misleading?

  54. “National Rifle Assn. scare propaganda to the contrary, no one is advocating the confiscation of all weapons. But that’s where we’re headed eventually unless the gunners wake up and compromise on some realistic solutions to the daily slaughter.”

    His attitude is hilarious. No one wants to take your guns away! But we will if we have to! Right. Lying to himself more than anything else I think.

  55. “Nobody wants to take your guns.” He might be telling the truth. I wonder if there is some middle-manager in the bowels of the DOJ somewhere with the last name “Nobody.”

  56. My own discussion with these two papers, which has very extensive this last week, is based on the following thoughts. Almost all current political debate centers entirely on basic constitutional phrases as written for the framers. By limiting itself to the words which early congress could understand, one ends up with the same limitations on thought which those who voted for these rights needed, such as for example their prevalent support of the Scottish school of naive realism, in particular of Thomas Paine, who held that everything could be understood by simple common sense. And that is the most of how most of the framers thought.

    Jefferson and Franklin, on the other hand, had read all of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Aristotle, Augustine, and Plato.While some have argued extensively with me on this topic, I still remain convinced that the Platonic view of there being one absolute Truth knowable through dialectic actually did drive the original founding of this nation.That would explain much of the increasingly irresolvable opposing partisan views, because in the last century, formal logicians (such as Russell, Wittgenstein, and Kripke) have proven many problems with the Platonic idea of form. Most specifically, Modern philosophers tend to believe there is no absolute Truth, or absolute idea of Liberty, or absolute idea of Happiness, etc., as even the most educated framers probably believed when this nation was founded, there being no superior epistemological alternative at the time.

    But Americans remain convinced their concepts of such ideas are unquestionably true, as validated by personal intuition, continuing the Paine tradition of Scottish naive realism, even though of course they do not know it themselves. However, opposing views are easy to establish from common sense, simply on the basis of different experience and limited knowledge.

    So, the national debate merely repeats irresolvable arguments, based on different premises, without any possibility of reconciliation, becoming repetitive and tedious unless spiced with Camusian absurdity.

    To which purpose, Jefferson and Franklin would simply state, privately, how naive realists of Paine’s tradition simply need to be convinced by the standard socratic techniques of persuasion as established 2500 years ago, the first of which is:Inferior propositions are necessary to persuade the inferior mind. then, through power and money, simplistic and often ludicrous fallacies are repeated with such vehemence that the debate over the person saying them drowns any rational consideration of whether such topics should even be considered in the first place.

    So: enter Trump, stage right.

    I have discussed whether it would be possible to elevate popular debate with philosophy professors extensively, but their opinion remains that it is still impossible, by any mechanism, to teach Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, Russell, Wittgenstein, and Kripke (which is just as a starting list,really, and would absolutely need to contain at least Bentham and Mill too, if not at least Hegel, Marx and Lenin for better comprehension of modern political systems) to all Americans. So the current circus is likely to continue indefinitely,and those of adolescent mind will indubitably continue to enjoy Trump more than anyone else who actually wins the election if he does not. As to whether that’s a good or bad thing, I have to remain silent..Meanwhile, the most frequent response to these thoughts is likely to be they are too complicated to be interesting, and therefore false, to which I have no comment.

    So that said as premise then, on the topic of gun control, I mostly am in favor of it, as violence advocates have also already killed several million people in the Middle East recently, spawning lots of very angry children. And so I would rather be protected from their revenge, which is a necessary cost restricting my own freedom, as a pacifist, that is imposed on me by those who demand they be free to have instruments of death and use them. From a utilitarian stance, I am enslaved to the need for protection from those who want to have guns and have more death, whereas they would be free to buy something else,should they so choose. Hence, permitting the propagation of tools for violence actually results in a net loss of liberty, and as from what I stated above, 2nd amendment rights are not usually interpreted as those who wrote such rights would have preferred. Of course, in this forum, one will hear naive repetitions of specific words from constitutional rights to repudiate such an attitude,in response to which debate is clearly insensible.

    • That at least is the basis of my contention, and I could provide additional information if you are interested.

  57. Tahat at least is the basis of my contention, and I could provide more information if you are interested. Please respond to this message, as otherwise I will not be notified of your reply.

Comments are closed.