Thursday, December 29, 2011


With Wisconsin's CCW law passing, Illinois is looking mighty lonely, and rumors abound of other states that might be sidling up to what we used to call "Vermont-style" carry, but now call "Constitutional Carry" because it's easier to say than "Vermont-Alaska-Arizona-Wyoming-style" carry.

More cases are wending their way through the courts, attempting to widen the breach created by Heller and McDonald. Restrictions on NFA weapons at the state level are dropping in a state-by-state advance reminiscent of the march of shall-issue CCW. People not normally given to flights of pollyanna-ism are speculating on the likelihood of moving suppressors to Title I.

The other side is down to Keystone Kops shenanigans in the desert and petulant signing statements. They've been playing defense since 1994 and taking a beating. We're winning, but it's hard to overcome the bunker mentality, and that makes it hard to act like winners. It's almost reflexive to cringe "Oh, my 30-round magazine has a legitimate sporting purpose," instead of "It's my right to own an AR-15 because screw you."

We're winning. We have the ball. They haven't scored in this half. Hell, they haven't even had a first down.

We're winning.

It's time to start running up the score.

If you want to see a winning attitude, (and can stand profuse and gratuitous dropping of "F-bombs",) this is it.


Living in Babylon said...

Squee! Linkage!

Another valid point I'd like to add is that there are an awful lot of scary rifles floating around already. The war for gun control is already lost-guns are everywhere and many of them bear no resemblance to duck guns. America has made a choice no matter what a bunch of nutless cowards think.

Tango Juliet said...

Oh NO! What will the FUDDS think?

Ken said...

Thanks for the heads-up. As I said over there, it comes down to:

Q. "Why do you NEED (fillintheblank)?"

A. "Who the hell wants to know?"

In addition, now that a body can print an AR lower, gun control is a dead shark about to stop swimming. High time too.

Boat Guy said...

Ken, Spot-on, though my usual response is "What's it to ya?"
It does make it easy to identify those folks who "know better" than the rest of us - the unwashed and "inappropriate" who apparently need more schooling at the hands of our enlightened betters...
Agree that "Living" would be easier for me to read with some self-editing - though I certainly have spoken those words profusely and gratuitously at times...

Anonymous said...

Tx for linkage, Tam, and for all you do.

Happy new year!


IllTemperedCur said...

Gack. The "need" question, one of my biggest pet peeves. One that I frankly, refuse to answer because it's a dishonest rhetorical trap.

The questioner isn't asking a question at all, they're making a statement that you're a paranoid, violent psychopath.....but they don't have the guts to come right out and say it in plain language.

The sneaky part is that if you answer the question seriously, you're essentially agreeing that "need" is a valid criteria for limiting the number and types of guns a person can own & use. Then it becomes a question of deciding the proper number/type, and more importantly WHO GETS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. The questioner has no intention of letting mere citizens make that decision for themselves.

Bubblehead Les. said...

More fuel for the Fire: Turns out, according to the FBI's NICS System that more Firearms were sold in December of this year than any other month in its history. The previous record was in November. And I'm sure that a lot of those Evil Gun Show Loophole weapons went out the door also. So, in spite of a bad economy, rising prices and falling purchasing power available to stagnated income levels for those who have jobs, more Boomsticks are now in the hands of the Peeple than when the Anointed One took office. Guess there is a lot of "Need" that had to be taken care of, huh?

Wonder if anyone at 1600 Pennsie Ave. has figured it out yet? Probably not, since it's full of Sycophants telling the Naked Emperor how cool his new suit is.

mikee said...

Do people actually get into conversations with other people who bring up stuff like this? Are they able to discuss things with the Joan Petersons of the the world, in person? I mean, without laughing so hard as to break ribs?

Once my "idiot radar" gives me a contact ping, I usually remember that I have to be somewhere else doing something, sorry, talk to you later.

In my family visits, I usually have to put up with discussions of wildly inaccurate medical information, their varied religious fanaticism, their quite interesting child rearing strategies, and tales of conspiracies regarding future genocides. Fortunately I visit rarely, and am good at biting my tongue.

Wrestling with swine only tires one out, and leaves one filthy, while the swine enjoy the activity.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Tam and other commenters: what I own, so long as I use it in a responsible manner that doesn't harm somebody else, is nobody's business but mine.

"My thirty-round magazine serves exactly one purpose: I want it, and that's enough."

Panamared said...

Keep in mind that until we repeal the 1968, and 1934 gun laws we are still limited to what they allow us to buy.

Tam said...


It took them sixty years to get from NFA to AWB. It's not going to go away overnight or all at once. And it's going to take time, money, and hard work.

zeeke42 said...

Mikee, it's worth engaging at least a little. It only takes a minute of back and forth to separate a true anti from someone speaking out of ignorance. I agree that the former are a waste of time, but converting the latter is why we're winning.

Goober said...

Ken is more polite than I am.

Antigunweenie: Why do you need (fillintheblank)??

Me: None of your f*cking business.

It usually shuts them up. Sometimes, however, i get a more persistent fellow who tells me that it is his right to know since my having (fillintheblank) puts him in danger or some such.

I typically don't go down the path of listing off all of the possessions that he owns that could potentially put ME in danger, although it always seems like a valid argument. I also don't typically ask him why he thinks that I'd need 30 rounds to put him in danger when I'd only need one, since that seems like a thinly veiled threat. No, I typically ask him why he feels like i am a threat to him.

usually the response is that maybe he isn't threatened by ME, personally, but that other men who own (fillintheblank) may threaten him.

This response is as predicatble as it is easy to counter.

"Well, if you don't feel threatened by MY (fillintheblank) then why are you actively trying to lobby to have MY (fillintheblank) taken away from me?"

Stuttering typical follows.

Anonymous said...

The libertarian in me suggests that the rolling back of odious gun control laws might be the start of something rather larger, the idea that people have rights to own things and generally live their lives as THEY see fit, not how somebody else sees fit.

This will require a lot of people, not just hoplophobes, to change their attitudes. "I don't think that's good, so you can't" must give way to "I don't think that's good, but I won't try to tell you that you can't."

A tough - perhaps impossible - adjustment for many people to make.

Kristophr said...

Goober: too complicated for em.

"Why do you NEED an AR-15?"

"To shoot fascists. Are you a fascist?"

RL said...

Q: "Why do I need armor piercing bullets?"

A: "To pierce armor, silly."

Justthisguy said...

As a former Ga. Tech bandsman, I approve of this post. To Hell with Georgia!

"Down on the farm, there will be no sound, till our bow-wows rip through the air!"

Dock said...

I want Constitutional Carry. And even open carry. All the carries!

Texas, I'm looking at you. Err, us. Yes, I'm looking at us.



At least we can obtain (and use!) suppressors...