I will not comply… Gun Nutz or Patriots?

| February 25, 2020


Colin Noir has been a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment for some time now.

Most of us followed the events as they unfolded in Virginia.   I was wondering how long it would take for someone of sound character to draw a line in the sand.

My fingerprints are on file so many times its ridiculous.   Try purchasing a suppressor for a 300 Blackout,  it takes only a few minutes standing in front of a kiosk to do your prints…again… and fill out the form for electronic transmission to the ATF.  It will then take 4-6 months and $200 to get the tax stamp for your purchase.

How many more Concealed Carry Permits do I need?  In Virginia, a registered Private Investigator has to have a “Special” permit to carry a firearm over and above the normal permit.  As if that were not bad enough, I have to go through the process and pay for each and every caliber of weapon I plan to carry.  In West Virginia, its a wild and wonderful concealed carry land.  Tudors Biscuit Worlds may be among the safest places to eat on earth. I have to be in Coronado, CA for the next week or so…I will be somewhat defenseless.

I am at that place in life when some things are not so important anymore…and other things worth fighting for more than ever.

I have never been a big fan of playing in the sand, but lines are meant to be drawn. I am so sick and tired of seeing this nonsense I could scream.

A person like me, that has 6 expert qualifications in my military record, whos background checks have background checks,  has been to NRA courses for decades, filed fingerprints and photos with just about every known agency on earth, has to qualify every year to keep his right to carry in some states…can not go workout at Crunch Fitness because those clowns think that hiding behind a sign makes them safe.

Why are we so bad at educating the unknowing?

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Comments (143)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Fyrfighter says:

    “Why are we so bad at educating the unknowing?”… that’s part of the equation, the other part is that the left is so GOOD at INDOCTRINATING the unknowing…

  2. AW1Ed says:

    My carry license is recognized in 30 states. But not the one I live in, of course.

  3. 26Limabeans says:

    Don’t need no stinkin permit in Maine.
    But you can have one if you like.

    • NHSparky says:

      Same in NH. The only reason I have one is because of the other states I may visit that have reciprocity.

      I looked it up the other day–NH has more CCW permit holders than CA, a state 30x larger. Ain’t that some shit?

      • The Other Whitey says:

        That’s California’s “may-issue” bullshit for ya. With San Diego County sheriff Bill Gore, featured in a TAH article the other day, being one of the worst offenders. I know some SDSO deputies, and if they’re to be believed, he is not popular amongst his rank & file.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        I used to have a non-resident permit for
        Massachusetts back in the 70’s. No such
        thing anymore.
        I was legal in Maine and legal in Massachusetts but had to put the weapon in a locked case when
        passing thru the ten miles of NH.
        Things are much better in NH now.
        Massachusetts keeps getting worse.

        • NHSparky says:

          So flippin weird. ME/NH/VT have some of the easiest gun laws in the country, (and lowest crime/violent crime rates), yet we’re completely surrounded by states with some of the strictest laws and highest crime rates.

  4. Ret_25X says:

    it is a mistake to believe that the left in general and those who vote for them in particular favor “gun control”. That is false.

    What they support is “gun monopoly”. They all know what Lenin said is true; the revolution must be forced on the proletariat.

    For that to happen, the government (or “revolution” in their feeble minds)must have a monopoly on the initiation and continuation of deadly force. They support this because no number of dead people is too many for their “free” healthcare, iPhone, etc, etc.

    this is another issue that may well require collapse to fix.

  5. Hondo says:

    “Gun control” is a misnomer, DH.

    For the Left, it’s not about the “gun”.

    It’s about “control”. Full, complete, and total control – over everything you do.

    “For your own good”, of course.

    Screw that.

    • Commissar says:

      The conservative right has a much longer history trying to legislate behavior and more persistently tries to control the behavior of individuals.

      It is not true the left is trying to “control” gun owners, it is trying to limit the impact and risk of gun ownership on other citizens,

      For the right gun ownership is about protecting themselves,

      For the left gun control is about protecting others,

      There is a middle ground, but the issue has become propagandize beyond rational discussion,

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:


        Do you have even a single thought or opinion NOT given to you by your harebrained hippie profs at UC Berzerkely?

        • Commissar says:

          I had these most of these beliefs long before I went to Berkeley,

          And the reading assignments had as many conservative authors as liberal.

          So unlike you I have read damn near all the major works of modern and traditional conservative political thought.

          Particularly with respect to the roll of government, ethics, and economic theory.

          I actually understand conservative political theory better than you.

          • 26Limabeans says:

            “better than you.”

            I rarely respond to your comments
            but you just described yourself and
            I now realize why I don’t bother.

            • Commissar says:

              It would be nice to actually discuss coherent political theory here.

              But it does not appear many of you care to actually develop a coherent theory of governance.

              All I ever seem to see here is propaganda, memes, virtue signally, and superficial pro GOP rhetoric.

              Until Trump the GoP did not have a coherent political theory. Neither did the DNC. DNC still doesn’t.

              I hope most of you don’t realize what Trump’s theory of governance is, Because if you do and you still support him you are authoritarian sycophants and traitors to everything you pretend to believe this nation stands for.

              • Mason says:

                Yes, the guy who’s cutting regulations left and right is an authoritarian. Take your CNN/MSNBC talking points and shove them into your fourth point of contact.

                You claim to want to discuss coherent political theory, but like every lefty, it’s a lie. You come in, sprinkle your shit like you’re fertilizing a field, and when confronted with facts or counter arguments you disappear. You’re an NPC at best.

                I think if you were paying attention, the people here aren’t solidly behind the GOP. People here vote for candidates. We don’t vote for party. The left is the side that says shit like “I’ll vote blue no matter what.” Repeatedly. It’s no wonder with voters like that that you end up with brain dead twits in Congress, statehouses, and governorships.

              • Sparks says:

                Problem is, you haven’t posed a ‘coherent political theory’ as yet. Especially not on this subject.

          • David says:

            If the gun control folks are so intent on protecting us common folks from guns, why do they never address criminals who misuse guns? They only want to restrict guns in the hands of the law-abiding.

            • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

              Very true, when was the last time either we heard a liberal pol call for better enforcement of existing Gun Laws and when was the last time anyone ever heard of criminals lining up to turn THEIR guns in as soon as a new law was passed?

      • Hondo says:

        Your ideological idol Иосиф Сталин would be so proud of you. That comment is a wonderful example of дезинформация (dezinformatsiya) – as well as a good example of both appeal to emotion and non sequitur (e.g., intentionally introducted irrelevancies to deflect attention from the issue at hand).

        • Commissar says:

          It was not a non sequitur.
          I responded directly to your bullshit propaganda rhetoric. And calling it “propaganda rhetoric” is being charitable,

          It was an internet meme masquerading as your personal belief.

          “Yo dawg, gun control is about control!”

          • Hondo says:

            There was a reason why Marxist-Leninist Doctrine referred to it as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, Commisar.

            The key term there was “dictatorship” – not “proletariat”. And it describes the universal outcome of all Communist governments everywhere since 1917.

            The fact that some conservative governments have also been authoritarian may be true – but it is also irrelevant. Your citing it in your argument here is yet another example of a non sequitur – as well as yet another attempt to divert attention from a weak argument.

          • Forest Bondurant says:

            “The conservative right has a much longer history trying to legislate behavior and more persistently tries to control the behavior of individuals.”

            Give me three examples that are historically accurate.

            I’ll wait.

            • Mason says:

              He’ll go on about the war on drugs, illegalizing “victimless” quality of life issues (public intoxication, prostitution, etc.), and sodomy laws. Though these issues were all bipartisan and not seen as particularly scandalous when enacted.

              • UpNorth says:

                Public intox worked pretty well back in the day. We’d arrest the drunks in late November, December and January. They would plead guilty when they saw the judge, the judge would give them 90 days in jail, and they wouldn’t freeze to death in the winter months. Then the do-gooders decriminalized it.

            • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

              Gonna be waiting for a long time… he’s “massaging his empiric data”, IYKWIM.

      • USMC Steve says:

        Wrong once again commiesar. For the left it is ABOUT CONTROL. And no, there is NO middle ground. I have an absolute constitutional right to own any firearm I want to, guaranteed by the Constitution. And you motherfuckers on the left have no right to any opinion on it at all. Period.

      • ArmyATC says:

        Interesting. What’s this great “middle ground” between the left and right on guns? I would love to see what it entails.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        There you go again, proving the rest of us right when we say that you’re an idiot with delusions of genius and a self-righteous assbag.

        Tell me, which of the following is more authoritarian:

        A) You don’t have to like guns or own guns, but you don’t get to deprive me of my rights just because you don’t like them.


        B) You should be disarmed, because I don’t like you/don’t agree with you/am afraid of you for no reason besides my own prejudices!

        How about this one:

        A) I/we will not violate the tenets of my/our religious faith. There is another service provider across the street who can take care of you.


        B) You will do this in violation of your religious beliefs because we say so and we say that you’re a bigot!

        Easy answers. “Jeopardy” music is playing and I can do this all day, dickhead.

      • SFC D says:

        Negative, what you call the middle ground is actually crossfire. The left is utterly clueless when it comes to gun ownership. Explain to me exactly how surrendering my weapons to your masters will make me safer. Use small words, I don’t have your level of education. And by education, I mean indoctrination.

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        And if Bernie is elected, and tells you to turn your guns in, you’ll do it like the good little communist you are “for the party”.

  6. Commissar says:

    I have a less popular view on gun ownership. Neither side of the political spectrum agrees with it.

    I think the bill of rights was to limit the power of government over individual citizens. Though originally just limit the power of the federal government it has since been expanded to limit the power of all levels of government.

    The second amendment was intended to preserve the last check and balance against government overreach; the public’s right to revoke consent to be governed and the capacity to resist.

    As such, i support sensible gun laws,, but will never support nor ever comply with a full ban on firearms,


    That being said, I don’t think the bill of rights was intended to preserve my power to shoot a threatening neighbor in the face, or a trespasser, or criminal.

    I think you have the right to defend yourself. With deadly force if necessary. I pulled a gun on my neighbor, In California, in the Bay Area. But the cops determined it was a lawful act under the circumstances.

    So I understand that guns have uses beyond the scope of the bill of rights.

    But I do not think the second amendment was designed to preserve THAT right.

    The second amendment was entirely about limiting federal power and overreach. Not dealing with an angry neighbor carrying a bat.

    So what does that mean? It means that the government has the right to pass laws to “ manage” the ownership and use of firearms. Limit where and how they can be carried. Even limit types, within reason.

    However, the right of the citizen to pick up arms and defend themselves against the government cannot be infringed,

    So the government can pass gun control laws. And I will comply, Mostly. But I will never surrender my capacity to pick up weapons against an unrestrained and unaccountable government. So I will never comply with a gun ban.

    • Hondo says:

      The SCOTUS would disagree with you. Heller v. DC (2008) specifically declares the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes to be an individual right. Further, it specifically names self-defense within the home as such a lawful purpose. And McDonald v. Chicago (2010) has extended the Heller decsion to be binding on all 50 states.

      What this means is that now individual firearms ownership is now considered a fundamental right under the US Constitution. That in turn means that the strict scrutiny test is now applicable to any state or Federal attempt to limit this right. That’s a rather high hurdle to clear.

      • Commissar says:

        The Supreme Court has been all over the map on gun rights and can be expected to shift in perpetuity.

        The Supreme Court did not always regard the 2nd amendment as an individual right to bear arms.

        And it cannot be expected to always do so in the future,

        So, on this issue I don’t give a shit what the Supreme Court says.

        I consider the public’s capacity and right to resist fundamental to the social contract.

        Everything else is political winds.

        • Hondo says:

          You really are showing your ignorance here, Commissar. Whether that ignorance is real of affected, I won’t speculate.

          Heller v. DC was the first time the SCOTUS had explicity ruled on the issue of whether the 2nd Amendment included an individual Constitutional right to own firearms. The ruling was yes, and the ruling also went on to state that that right was not in any way conneted with military or milita membership.

          Further: as Heller v. DC (with which you are obviously unfamiliar) explicitly notes, the individual right to firearms ownership under the Constitution was unquestioned for decades after adoption of the Bill of Rights. Heller gives a good bit of history on the issue. It also explicitly states that no previous SCOTUS decision is conrary to the position that an individual right to firearms ownership is included in the 2nd Amendmennt.

          Up to at least the Civil war, private ownership of cannon as well as rifles/muskets/pistols was not only legal but was fairly common. And many state Constitutions had explicit guarantees regarding the right to firearms ownership similar to, or more expansve than, the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.

          In fact, it wasn’t until the 1930s that private ownership of machine guns and selected other firearms was Federally regulated. And until the 1960s, one could order firearms by mail and have them mailed to your house. Literally.

          So spare me the “there has always been severe regulation of firearms ownership”. It’s BS, and a modicum of due dilligence on your part would have shown you that.

          • Commissar says:

            I never said “there has always been severe regulation of gun ownership”

            I said that SCOTUS has not always regarded the second amendment as protecting individual gun rights, and can’t necessarily be always expected to do so.

            I am making a meta argument about our original social contract.

            • ArmyATC says:

              When specifically did the SCOTUS not regard the 2nd Amendment as an individual right? Which specific case or cases?

            • Hondo says:

              Look, obtuse one: read what I wrote above. Heller v. DC was the first time the SCOTUS had ruled on that particular point of Constitutional Law. Prior to that case, the point had not been directly considered by the SCOTUS.

              However, in US v. Miller (1939), the Court strongly implied such a right exists (though the FDR-packed SCOTUS upheld the principle that the Federal government could regulate firearms ownership).

              Heller overturned part of Miller, in that the grounds used by the FDR-cowed SCOTUS of 1939 to authorize Federal firearms regulation (“militia utility”) were held not to apply to the right of firearms ownership in general. But prior to Heller, the question of whether or not the individual right to firearms ownership is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment simply had never been answered by the SCOTUS. Heller answered that question definitively with respect to the Federal government.

              Similary, before McDonald v. Chicago the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applied to the states had not been definitively answered by the SCOTUS (the Slaughterhouse cases only indirectly addressed that issue). McDonald v. Chicago settled that issue; that case incorporated the 2nd Amendment, and in particular the individual right of firearms ownership affirmed in Heller, as being a restriction on states and localities also. Heller is thus now binding law in all states and localities.

              • ArmyATC says:

                Not to mention, in the worst decision ever handed down by a Supreme Court, The Taney Court denied Dred Scott citizenship in part because,”It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” It’s kinda hard to deny citizens the right to “to keep and carry arms wherever they went” if it wasn’t an individual right.

                • Hondo says:

                  Although the Dred Scott case was excrably bad, I’m not sure it was the worst SCOTUS decision in US history. You might want to check out Buck v. Bell.

                  • Mason says:

                    Only one justice dissented. That is pretty terrible.

                    I do think that’s a worse decision than Dred Scott, but Scott’s case had far more impact on the country.

                    • Hondo says:

                      No argument that Dred Scott had a larger impact on the US. And it was indeed abhorrent.

                      But Buck v. Bell . . . was an abomination.

              • rgr769 says:

                I should point out that in Miller v. US, Miller was a convicted felon caught possessing a sawed-off shotgun. He claimed he had a 2A right that superseded the federal law prohibiting gun possession by felons. The court’s decision was borderline dictum as to the scope of the 2A.

                • Hondo says:

                  Miller’s background as a violent felon was precisely why the case was chosen for appeal to the SCOTUS. But it gets even better.

                  The original judge in Miller’s case, Heartsill Ragon, was one of FDRs early appointments to the Federal bench (May 1933). Ragon was in favor of the Firearms Control Act of 1934. However, Ragon nonetheless intentionally dismissed Miller’s indictment on charges of violating the FCA.

                  Why? Miller was also a government informant and had just testified against his gang in court. Ragon knew Miller would go into hiding immediately on release, and would not show up in court for any appeal proceedings (and likely would not hire a lawyer to pursue the appeal). That in turn would make the outcome of any appeal a virtual certainty, and result in superior courts upholding the FCA.

                  Ragon’s assessment proved accurate. Miller in fact was a no-show at his SCOTUS hearing, having been shot to death the previous month. His lawyer was likewise absent due to financial constraints and “procedural irregularities”.


                  In short, the case was effectively rigged from day one.

                  • rgr769 says:

                    Well, thanks for the link. I completely had the underlying facts wrong in Miller. In my Con Law casebook, I think there was all of about two sentences devoted to the Miller case. The rationale of the decision is essentially that a sawed off shotgun doesn’t have any utility as a militia weapon and is something only used by gangsters and criminals. Therefore, the federal government has every right to tax them and punish anyone who doesn’t pay the tax and register them. The bottom line is that Miller does not deal with whether the 2A is an individual right that the state and federal governments may violate by barring private ownership of firearms. To the extent Miller implies that the 2A is a collective right of “militias” and there is no individual right, it has been overruled.

    • Poetrooper says:

      “But I will never surrender my capacity to pick up weapons against an unrestrained and unaccountable government.”

      But you’ll damned sure vote one into power, hmm?

      • Commissar says:

        Already happened. And I voted against it.

        Trump is behaving openly unaccountable and the restraints have failed.

        But he won’t be re-elected.

        • David says:

          If the government was exercising unlimited totalitarian power as you describe, you would not be allowed your dissent.

          • Hondo says:

            Exactly. But he’s so blinded by both ideology and TDS that he can’t see the obvious.

            • Poetrooper says:

              Hondo, Commissar likes to blame his frequent typos on his dyslexia rather than what I suspect is just mental sloppiness and lack of discipline.

              However, I think we actually can attribute his political reasoning problems to dyslexia–intellectual dyslexia: his view of the world tends to be the mirror reverse of reality. And even when events prove him clearly and definitely wrong, he still can’t (or will not) see the error of his ass-backward thinking (or lack thereof).

              • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

                Commissar has Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder (TARD) to the point where he lets it run his life thus making him a Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder Operative, a TARDO!

          • Mason says:

            Not only that, but he’s stated, right here today, his willingness to take up arms against an unrestrained and unaccountable government.

            Let the Boogaloo commence! You heard it here folks. Trump is an unaccountable tyrant. The checks have failed. Soy Boys, forward, march!

          • Commissar says:

            There is difference between what an authoritarian personality want to do and what it has been able to do,

            It took several years for Putin to consolidate absolute power.

            Hitler as well.

            Most despots have to overcome oppositional and institutional resistance, and even after they do it can take a while for the consolidation to occur.

            US institutions are much stronger than the institutions that resisted historical authoritarians. However, Trump has nearly purged any remaining pockets of resistances and oppositions.

            Fortunately, for us, he is running out of time. I don’t think he will beat the clock. But if he is given four more years our republic is lost.

            Of course, we also have a lucky break in that Trump is much older than the ages historical tyrants rose to power, so we may be saved by one too many cheeseburgers.

            • David says:

              So he is an authoritarian fascist but an unsuccessful one? He is so dangerous that he has done almost nothing authoritarian but to change top advisors? I’m scared…

              • Commissar says:

                He has been more successful than I ever imagine he would be.

                Despite his incompetence.

                But that is because the GOP has been weaker, more feckless, more cowardly, more pathetic, and more sycophantic than I ever could possibly imagined.

                It is truly astonishing how many vile worthless spineless pieces of shit we have in Congress.

                • Fyrfighter says:

                  “It is truly astonishing how many vile worthless spineless pieces of shit we have in Congress.” And there you describe damn near ever Democrat in the House and Senate

                • Mason says:

                  “He has been more successful than I ever imagine he would be.”

                  I, and many others, will agree with you there. Most successful president we’ve had in a generation. Can’t wait to vote for four more years of good economy, Constitutionalist judges, record unemployment, and America first trade agreements. Not to mention there’s that wall that needs finishing.

                  “It is truly astonishing how many vile worthless spineless pieces of shit we have in Congress.”

                  Also going to agree here.

                  Though I think you’re meaning both of these quotes in wildly different ways that we do.

                • ArmyATC says:

                  If Trump has been successful “despite his incompetence,” what does that say about the DNC who has tried every trick in the book to stop him?

                  Either Trump isn’t as incompetent as you proclaim, or the DNC is filled with a clown car of utter morons. Which is it?

          • Commissar says:

            I didn’t describe that at all.

        • The Other Whitey says:

          And if that were true, you wouldn’t be able to say or do a damn thing about it. That’s how fascism (the real thing, which your side is pushing with ever-increasing fervor these days) works. So are you a liar, a moron, or both?

          As for you “picking up a weapon,” skin that smokewagon and see what happens next!

          • Commissar says:

            You don’t know what fascism is.

            The left is not pushing fascism.

            It is ridiculous that you are openly supporting a president that explicitly advocates the textbook tenets of fascism and you can’t even recognize it.

            Can you just admit you don’t know what fascism is so we can stop having this stupid conversational? At this point I think you are being lazy or obstinately and willfully ignorant.

            • Fyrfighter says:

              “Can you just admit you don’t know what fascism is so we can stop having this stupid conversational? At this point I think you are being lazy or obstinately and willfully ignorant.”… That’s what they call projection..

            • The Other Whitey says:

              You support Antifa, who go around threatening and assaulting people in an effort to silence their political opposition. That’s exactly what Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Sturmabteilung did. Silencing dissent via intimidation and violence is central to fascism, and you’re balls-deep for groups doing that here today! Some other tenets of fascism: civil disarmament (sometimes universal, sometimes exempting party members), suppression of religious freedom, heavy propaganda and suppression of dissenting voices, and use of the power of the state to coerce compliance and punish dissent.

              Trump calling CNN fake news isn’t fascist. It would be fascist if he sent the FBI or National Guard to shut them down, but he’s not doing that. He’s exercising his right to free speech the same as anyone else. Securing the border isn’t fascist, either. Shooting/imprisoning people trying to leave the country would be fascist, but he’s not doing that either. Setting up the state as a central authority in the daily personal life of the citizenry, in the role normally filled by religion and/or personal ethics, is fascist, but he’s not doing that either. Some of your heroes (like Comrade Burnout Sanders) want to, but Trump isn’t.

              Trump is a lot of things. Hes a filthy-rich bastard (so is Bernie Sanders). He’s a womanizer (which leftists were perfectly okay with when Bill Clinton was doing it, to the point of looking the other way on multiple rapes). He’s arrogant (not unlike yourself). He’s a boorish loudmouth asshole. But nothing he has done evinces any kind of fascism on his part.

              Once again, you are wrong. You declare yourself the smartest person in the room and, as is usually the case with people who do that, you’re actually one of the dumbest. This is like that time a while back when you tried to claim that you know more about wildland fire behavior, suppression, and prevention than I do, re: the Camp Incident up in NorCal. Never mind that I’ve been a firefighter for two decades and the taxpayers of California have spent half a million dollars training me in both the operational and scientific aspects of that field of endeavor, you still tried to claim that you know more about it than I do. Do you really want to go through that again?

              Admit that you’re wrong for a change. Especially when presented with mountains of evidence proving that you’re full of shit. The positive effect it will have on your life will be profound.

              • Mason says:

                Naw, Trump’s a fascist because he puts America first and holds the military in high regard. 🙄

              • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                Fascism is that which opposes Communism or its precursors or its minions.

                They redefine things and claim that they are thus specially educated.

                Note the stated views on guns. Ok to oppose the government redefined as “fascist” , but not ok to bear arms usefully in defense against the blackshirts.

                Hmmm. Maybe he thought no one would notice?

            • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

              You don’t know what fascism is.

              This , from the person that openly supports OWS, Antifa and the rest of the Free Shit Army.

              You are so intellectually ignorant that you would make that statement as you were headed off to be executed by the people you support.

        • Thunderstixx says:

          You wish !!!
          Just like the wicked witch of Benghazi would win in a landslide !!!!!!
          BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!
          Go piss up a rope Commissar!!!

          • 5th/77th FA says:

            We have simply got to quit asking seagull, “how stupid can you be?” He’s starting to take it as a challenge.

    • BruteLarson407 says:

      Interesting. I’ve never seen someone take a position on it in that particular way. Usually, the ‘vs. Government’ part is the first one sent to the trash-bin.

    • ArmyATC says:

      ” It means that the government has the right to pass laws to “ manage” the ownership and use of firearms. Limit where and how they can be carried. Even limit types, within reason.”

      What does this “management” look like? What “types” of guns can be limited?

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        You may oppose the government when instructed to do so by Blackshirt mobs, but no you may not oppose those mobs.

    • Wireman611 says:

      So by the reasoning you stated in this post, we the people should have unrestricted rights to ALL of the terrible weapons of war, to keep the ultimate check on the government.

      • Mason says:

        That’s what he’s saying, but since he’s a lefty he follows that up immediately with the thought that there should be massive “reasonable” restrictions. He opens his mouth (or keyboard here) and proves he’s an idiot.

        • Commissar says:

          That is not what I am saying nor can it be concluded from what I am saying,

          The means to resist does not mean the means to commit mass destruction.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:


          • Mason says:

            “That is not what I am saying nor can it be concluded from what I am saying,”

            That’s exactly what you’re saying. As someone who claims to have been trained as a soldier, the means to resist literally means the means to commit mass destruction.

          • ArmyATC says:

            What “mass destruction?” You aren’t trying the “AR-15s are WMDs” argument, are you? I don’t believe that means what you think it does. Hiroshima was mass destruction. Nagasaki was mass destruction. Dresden was mass destruction. As horrible as they are, mass shootings don’t rise to the level of mass destruction except in the fevered imaginations of leftist gun controllers.

          • Poetrooper says:

            And here we go with another example of Commissar’s intellectual dyslexia. He says, “The means to resist does not mean the means to commit mass destruction.”

            Except for the reality that as history has repeatedly demonstrated, the means to resist a despotic government almost always requires the means to commit mass destruction.

            There you go showing your inconsistent thinking again, Commissar. I will, however, credit you with one consistency: In your comments here, you constantly exhibit a cardinal characteristic of Democrat liberalism: the ability to be smugly superior while simultaneously being laughably wrong.

            Keep it up–it’s rather entertaining. It seems that TAH has its very own Shakespearean fool, Commissar, playing Dogberry for our amusement.


            TAH readers:Tell me that the description of Dogberry doesn’t fit to a “T”.

    • Mason says:

      If the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the government from being able to infringe your right to revoke, by force, your (The Citizen) consent to be governed, then why would you allow the government to erode that right in any way? 🤔

      You say the 2A protects us against the government, but you then say it’s cool if the government limits what I can own, how much of it I can own, and in what ways I can use it.

      You want it both ways. Either the government can regulate the shit out of firearms (for tyrannical or altruistic purposes) or they cannot and we remain truly free, because we possess the means with which to revoke our consent. Your “reasonable” gun control would be OK with only allowing bolt action rifles and pump shotguns ala the UK. As “Nuke-‘Em” Swalwell points out, the citizenry is already vastly outgunned by the government. You want to disarm them even more. Which is what a tyrant does.

    • MIKE GUENTER says:

      All I can say about the guy threatening me with a ball bat is stupid sob brought a bat to a gun fight. That’s why liberal gun laws states have “Stand Your Ground” laws. I have as much right to be on public property as the sob with the bat and I’ll be damned if I’ll let him make me retreat.

    • ArmyATC says:

      “I have a less popular view on gun ownership. Neither side of the political spectrum agrees with it.”

      “As such, i support sensible gun laws,, but will never support nor ever comply with a full ban on firearms,”

      In other words, you support the idiotic, unconstitutional gun control laws the left is trying to pass.

  7. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    They simply want CONTROL to the point where everyplace that they control is a wonderful gun-free utopia like Chicago and NOBODY gets shot there, right?… Bueller?

  8. IDC SARC says:

    I dunno about anybody else, but I am a very law abiding person and fully comply with all posted signs and regulations.

    No one is above the law, not even gun huggers.

  9. Comm Center Rat says:

    And that’s a major reason I’d consider moving to Maine from the PDRofMA. The Spousal Unit loves York County particularly because its just 90 minutes from Boston where our Non-Combatant Daughter & SIL live. Housing costs though are outrageous even by MA standards. Mobile homes go for $250K+ in Ogunquit!!

    I want to live in The County (Aroostook) but away from wind turbines and the opioid scourge. Had an uncle who was a AF officer stationed at Loring AFB in Limestone back in the days of SAC. If I could afford it, Down East coastal is my top choice. I love the beautiful harbor town of Camden.

    I enjoy Maine so much I’m considering burial in one the four state veterans cemeteries up there. Currently, you don’t have to be a Maine resident to qualify. Not sure I can be buried with my firearms though.

    • Comm Center Rat says:

      I meant for this to be a reply to 26L’s post above. Need more coffee!

    • 26Limabeans says:

      You mentioned all the right places.
      Keep in mind the southern part is mostly
      liberal and the further north you go the less
      liberal it becomes.
      Great place to raise kids as well as retirement.

      • AW1Ed says:

        Maine is fine if you like all four seasons- June, July, August, and Winter.

        • Hondo says:

          Any place that gets cold enough you find dogs frozen to trees after taking a whizz is simply too cold for human habitation. (smile)

  10. charles w says:

    Never owned any firearms till Obama became president. I have two now. If you tell me you want to take them away, I might have to buy another one.

    • Commissar says:

      Buy more if you want, but ammunition will be scarcer than guns if things actually jump the shark.

      Though hoarding ammo is no where near as fun as owning more guns,

    • ArmyATC says:

      You know the old saying; “How many guns does one person need? Just one more.”

      • Mason says:

        I at least need enough to leave everyone of my children what could be described by the media as an “arsenal.”

      • Guns are like coat hangers. Put two hangers in the closet and months later when the closet door is opened, hangers are all over the place like peanut butter. Same thing happened when I put my first two guns away in my safe and months later, their were guns all over inside the safe like peanut butter.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          “New? No honey. This was in the safe.”

          (I snuck it in there yesterday while you were shopping.)

  11. 5th/77th FA says:

    They wouldn’t be trying to control the weapons we have if they weren’t planning on doing things that would cause us to need to shoot them.

  12. I see Fox contributor/Lawyer Colin on Fox once in a while and he really knows how to articulate about the anti 2A crowd and gun rights.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Kinda hard to refute when a Black man points out which party wants to take away rights to keep and carry,

      is the same party that sent out the Fugitive Slave patrols, and the sheet-heads after emancipation.

      He needs to hammer that point. I have seen this done by others, and it is devastating.

      Ain’t no one ever lynched Winchester.

  13. Duane says:

    I saw a certain phrase and wording being used that I’d like to throw out some thoughts on – “reasonable gun control”. My first question is, who sets the limits on what is reasonable? The owners of said items, or people who have never had one in their lives? How do you determine what is reasonable, and what are the rules for establishing the guidelines? How far does that wonderful word delve into day to day life? Who decides when to change it, and who gets any say on the changes?

    Let’s change the scene – take the American Automobile and put that word to the test – you’ve got a beautiful mid 60’s muscle car – makes no diff what model, but everyone loves to see it being driven down the road, and it’s your pride and joy, restored and looking like it just rolled off the showroom floor. By the wording being used, wouldn’t it be “reasonable” to ban those vehicles because they lack all of the modern safety features in today’s car? By the same “reasonable” thought process, shouldn’t any vehicle over 5 years old be removed from the roadway because it doesn’t have all the newest, latest and greatest safety features?

    And while we are on the topic, your ability to speak out and say what you want – shouldn’t that be put to the “reasonable” test as well? Even if it means that your rights are trampled – after all, it’s “reasonable” isn’t it? I’m sure that quite a few rulers in history have felt that their proclamations were “reasonable” – and history shows how those worked out..

    • ArmyATC says:

      Using phrases such as “reasonable” and “common sense” in connection with gun control is simply a way to silence dissent. It’s one reason gun control advocates have taken to calling their agenda “gun safety.” Who can be against gun safety? It’s the same old shit in a different wrapper. But they count on the general ignorance the average person to not notice.

      • Hondo says:

        Using phrases such as “reasonable” and “common sense” in connection with gun control. . . .

        In the Soviet Union, they called such language dezinformatsiya. The term (and the practice) was invented by Stalin, and dates to 1923.

      • rgr769 says:

        Progs always try to use their lingo to win every political issue. They constantly change their terminology to favor their unsupportable positions. That is why “global warming” became “climate change.” And gun control is now “reasonable gun safety.”

        • Poetrooper says:

          When I first became aware of the political correctness movement in the 80’s, I told Miz Poe, “They want to control our language so they can eventually take control of everything else. They’re totalitarians.”

          I had too much misplaced faith that America would not permit it to happen.

    • Dave Hardin says:

      God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
      – Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to William Stephens Smith (13 November 1787), quoted in Padover’s Jefferson On Democracy

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      “Reasonable” is the same when used to discuss gun rights prohibition or union demands. It means


  14. ninja says:

    Speaking of Gun Control:

    A CLASSIC 1 Minute Video that NEVER GETS OLD.

    Denny Crane (William Shatner on Boston Legal)

    “Denny Crane Teaches Colleague About Gun Control”

  15. Skyjumper says:

    Notable quotes:

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

    Adolf Hitler
    “If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

    Joseph Stalin

    “Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.”

    Chairman Mao

    “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

    President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s
    “If I could have gotten…an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

    Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

    “We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    Hillary Clinton

    Tell me again Commissar, how “It is not true the left is trying to “control” gun owners, it is trying to limit the impact and risk of gun ownership on other citizens”

    • rgr769 says:

      Your quotes are all accurate; they were made by those named after each quote. As for control, it is only a stepping stone to the same objective of those you quoted, which is the disarmament of those governed so the speakers’ tyrannies can’t be resisted.

      • Poetrooper says:

        Here’s another one:

        “Herding an armed population onto cattle cars is a very risky business.”

        Poetrooper, 2020

    • SFC D says:

      “God made man, Sam Colt made men equal, but John Browning keeps men free.”

      I don’t know who that quote is from, but it’s spot on.

  16. ArmyATC says:

    I firmly believe that many are in the gun control camp because they’re too stupid or too lazy to search for real solutions. Gun control is the easy answer, the low hanging fruit, to question of “gun violence.” Gun control advocate and alleged comedian Pete Dominick unknowingly let that cat out of the bag in an interview with Joe Rogan. When Rogan said, “the real question is why would someone do that? That’s the number one question.” Dominick’s reply was, “That’s a harder question to answer. The easy question is to make them less accessible.” In his view guns should be less accessible and the types of guns restricted because he’s too stupid or too lazy to search for answers to the hard questions. “I want to strip your rights, or at least severely limit them because I don’t want to find answers to the real questions, the hard questions confronting our nation.” Sorry, Pete ol’ boy, your ignorance and/or laziness does not give you the right to trample my rights.

    Here’s a question I’d love to ask idiots like Dominick. At least two studies have shown that the media plays a big role in mass shootings. It’s called the “media contagion effect.” If the media were to stop using the shooter’s name and quit telling his story over and over again, it’s estimated that mass shootings would drop by as much as 50%. So the question is, would you favor a law infringing in the 1st Amendment right of the media? I’m sure the answer would be a resounding “no!”

    • Hondo says:

      So the question is, would you favor a law infringing in the 1st Amendment right of the media? I’m sure the answer would be a resounding “no!”

      If the Left didn’t control the overwhelming majority of the media, they’d be clamoring for controls on what the media could and could not say. Specifically, they’d be looking to have contrary opinions legally declared to be “hate speech” and ban their publication.

      Don’t believe me? Just look at how many college campuses today outright or de facto ban the appearance of outspoken conservative speakers.

      • ArmyATC says:

        I believe you. I remember when “right wing radio” hosts such as Rush Limbaugh were huge. The left tried to silence him and others with their “fairness doctrine.” It didn’t extend to leftist outlets though.

    • Poetrooper says:

      “If the media were to stop using the shooter’s name and quit telling his story over and over again…”

      That’s already the case if the shooter is black…

      • UpNorth says:

        “If the media were to stop using the shooter’s name and quit telling his story over and over again…”

        “That’s already the case if the shooter is black…”
        Or, if the shooter is here illegally. Though some places will use the name, and not identify the shooter as an illegal.

    • Cameron Kingsley says:

      Our old friend Peter Macdonald from Qoura (I swear you can find some of the dumbest, most arrogant people on that so called discussion website who couldn’t take hint if it smacked them) is one such stooge who thinks just like that while forgetting the many other potential weapons such as knives, fists, blunt objects, vehicles (there was a recent attack in Germany), chemicals, or homemade explosives such as what happened in Oklahoma City. And he apparently thinks that you can just shoot anyone in the US apparently not realizing that you will go to prison if you do that (I saw two other morons who both thought the same thing. I suspected they were both British. I honestly find the Brits to be some of the most smug people on earth). Unfortunately there’s a lot of people who think the US is like the Wild West (most of them are Europeans who think their crap doesn’t stink and ignore how many wars have broken out in Europe throughout history). I wish we would just ditch them and let them figure it out by themselves. I wonder what would happen if the US did leave Europe. Would it remain peaceful, or will old wounds eventually be reopened? Heck, there are times that I wish we had left Europe to the Soviets after WWII (we’ll leave behind the equipment, but it’s up to you to use it). I wonder how they would have faired.

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    By refusing to recognize or address the real issue, which is VIOLENCE, the Left ignores its own violence and antipathy toward its perceived enemies. Guns are NOT the issue. Violence is. The Left promotes it but denies their long, long association with it.

    Denial of the reality of violence is a mental disorder.

    Some day, they will regret it when no one comes to rescue them from oblivion.

    Just my view of it all.

    • OWB says:

      Well, of course you would see it that way. Sane people do. Intellectually honest people do. It’s just common sense.

      The rest of that story is the insistence among entirely too many that we should strive for “the middle ground.” Well, duh – that is where we are. We each have the Constitutionally mandated right to own gunz. Your right to choose to own or not own them is yours alone to make. We are individually protected from the gubmint demanding that we own or not own them. It is not possible to be more squarely on the middle ground.