News

Finally — Gun Confiscation Is Out in the Open

Last week, the New York Times newspaper did something remarkable—the paper ran an editorial on its front page for the first time in nearly 100 years. This has the potential to be very good for gun owners, because the editorial called for an outright ban and implied confiscation of certain types of guns, namely AR-pattern rifles. Admittedly, the Times editorial board doesn’t have the firearms sophistication necessary to describe a certain class of semiauto rifles accurately.

hillaryclinton Despite its financial troubles, the Times is relevant because it sets a political agenda for the New York City/Washington, D.C., corridor, so gun owners should hope that already-anti-gun-rights candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, endorse the Times’s far-out position on firearms, which includes the concepts of  “banning” the possession of certain types of firearms it does not like.

The Times editorial, which ran in the Dec. 4 print edition on page 1, was entitled “End the Gun Epidemic in America.” Though it’s counterintuitive at first, this editorial may actually be helpful to firearm owners who want expanded gun rights—because the editorial clearly, and publicly, contradicts the anti-gunner mantra that “nobody wants to take your guns.” Several prominent politicians from the left and hangers-on, very much want gun confiscation and have recently publicly expressed that desire on numerous occasions. The difference is that we can now point to the NYT editorial as a public display of the private desire of anti-gun-rights politicians and organizations, who have wanted gun bans all along, but who knew that outlawing guns and taking them away were toxic political positions, except in a handful of mostly coastal states.

The Times wrote, “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” The Times left out the notions of self-defense, hunting, and target shooting as just a few of the legal pursuits AR-15s can be put to. It also failed to mention that it is not the gun community, but rather the Federal government’s own admission and definition that separates the AR-15 from “weapons of war.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15
Senator Dianne Feinstein said these weapons are not for hunting deer – they’re for hunting people.

And this: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” Hmm. We thought “shall not be infringed” actually meant something. They must use a different dictionary than us, wherein “infringed” means “unless it looks scary.” And this: “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” Instead, the Times prefers to use fear mongering through rhetoric and isolated incidents. There have been over 80 million new firearm sales since President Obama took office. The Times’ argument points to one incident where bombs were used and illegal straw purchases—an illegal action that the gun industry and BATFE have teamed up to combat.

Now, voters who care about gun rights can simply, and easily, ask politicians if they support the Times‘s position on banning and confiscating guns. Rarely are voters handed such an easily wielded tool to sort out the bad politicians from the good. Thank you, NYT.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (103)

  1. Like I always say what part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand? The government can make all the gun confiscation laws it wants. The fact is tyranny will lose in this country.

  2. Out In the Open Since WHEN? Since 2012, I can Believe! Since, 2015!! NOT. MAP-21 or HR. 4348, part of the “Patriot Act II”, was singed into Law by BOTH House and Senate in 29 September 2012…

    1. @Secundius, have you read HR4348? I just did, didn’t see any Patriot Act riders in it. Loads of transportation stuff and a boost for NFIP and some odds and ends, nothing Patriot Act related that I could find.
      It is a long document, so perhaps I missed something, but it’d have to be tiny.

    2. @Secundius, it took me a bit over an hour to skim it, didn’t see anything Patriot Actish in it. I then did keyword searches and came up empty.
      Want to give a hint as to even a phrase?

  3. Doesn’t really matter. I don’t think the Democrats are going to have much representation after 2016 and even less after 2018. I also foresee the balance in the Supreme Court swinging toward the conservative viewpoint.

    1. Really, Politifact gave Maro Rubio. A “Pants On Fire” rating, I’m exactly sure what that means?

  4. Erm, one of us has a problem with reading English, as that editorial said anything all about confiscation, it said to “outlaw them”, which is something different.
    To outlaw any property, the confiscate it makes the law an ex post facto law, something Feinstein never did quite gasp.
    Add that NY – D.C. corridor you spoke of has the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania smack dab in the middle of it and anti-N.J. east of it. PA isn’t changing any laws and you damned right well should know it.

    But no, one liberal paper has one editorial and you get your knickers in a bunch, after all, newspapers are government and space aliens are government too or something.
    But, I’m sure a lot of people will now panic buy that which you proclaim is open for confiscation, which is also unconstitutional, as it is property and property may not be taken without compensation, save if the property was involved in the commission of a felony.

    1. Wzrd1:
      Your snarky comments appear to designed for self-aggrandising.
      The “points” you attempted to sell are full of assumptions and suppositions so ignorant they merit no response.

    2. Ah, *one paper*, per this article, had an editorial, at that, front page.
      That’s an assumption?! No, it’s called reading.
      Making that which you possess and are forced to give up is an ex post facto law, go read the Constitution about that kind of law. It’s prohibited. Again, not an assumption, reading.
      I’m from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I know my home state very well, thank you. An open carry state isn’t about to outlaw firearms. Experience and intimate knowledge of my state.

      I was being snarky at the end, there is far too much alarmist nonsense going on on blogs here, with the “Obama gun grab” that never happened being touted since he took office.
      But, one thing does follow such panic prodding, increased gun sales.
      Which is about the stupidest thing imaginable. Let’s say that somehow, the Constitution is amended so that your property can be taken without compensation. You just bought it, then lose that investment?
      That’s as dumber than Private searching for a box of grid squares!

    3. @ Schmaib Dandlefatch.

      The “So Called” Gun Confiscation Act, is actually called: “To Suppress Insurrection, to Punish Treason and Rebellion, to Seize and Confiscate the Property of Rebels and for Other Purposes” Act of 1862. By Executive Oder of the XVI President of the United States of America, President Abraham Lincoln. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in 13 November 1862. ISN’T that a “Swift Kick” to the Brainpan…

    1. Um, the folks in California were terrorists, new on the job, but still terrorists.
      Meanwhile, the NYT didn’t say crap about stealing property, which is what confiscation is.

    2. Erm, I suspect that you have a problem with English, and that liberals have a problem using plain language.

      They chose the term “give them up for the good” rather than using the single word that describes the action they advocate: confiscate. LOL, Epic fail!

      “and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

    3. Again, the word confiscation was not used, at all, save by you and the author and that also ignores the unconstitutionality of confiscating property without any form of compensation.
      That is stealing under our Constitution, as it is your property.

      And what the f%^& is this liberal s#$%? Seriously? “Oh, you’re a liberal and can’t understand English”, without any evidence to support that bull?
      Let’s see now, I cleaned my 30-30 two days ago, I cleaned my M4gery yesterday. My wife is overdue to clean her .38 and I’ll remind her *again* about it. My .22’s will be cleaned this weekend and my .308 is at the gunsmith for some enhancement.
      If I’m a liberal, I’m pretty well armed and I didn’t even name all of my firearms.
      Making assumptions can easily make an ass of one.

    4. @ Wzrd1,

      Unfortunately your misunderstanding of the Constitution will cause you great disappointment once you realize the government may lawfully take your guns without giving you a dime.

      It is apparent you are unaware of the two means by which the government is allowed to take private property under the Constitution; these are “Condemnation” versus “Confiscation”.

      Condemnation is private property deemed for government use and of which MUST be compensated when taken. Confiscation is private property deemed unlawful to possess and therefore WILL NOT be confiscated when taken.

      Once they outlaw your guns, they will “Confiscate” them under the Constitution; not only will you not get a penny, but you will be going to jail for possessing them unlawfully.

    5. @ Wzrd1,

      TYPO CORRECTION-

      CHANGE: “…therefore WILL NOT be confiscated when taken.”
      TO: “…therefore WILL NOT be compensated when taken

  5. Amen brother that all it takes you give them an inch on any thing they will take mile then some . It is those people that say ” they ought make law for every thing that are running the U.S . into the ground!

  6. I have already stated the people who talk about taking away our rights as U.S. citizens. They don’t care about the fact that people where shoot or what kind of gun it was.These so call servants of the public just want cheap notoriety. They as bad in my mind as any terrorist in spread cizil unrest.

  7. My local bleeding heart liberal newspaper ran a column on responsible gun ownership. The writer said all gun owners and buyers should have to go through a pyschological evaluation to determine if they were responsible enough to own a gun. In a letter to the editor I asked if they thought Major Nidal Hasan, who was an Army psychologist who carried a business card saying he was a “soldier of Allah” and was shouting Allahu Akbar as he shot and killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded over 30 others should have had a psych eval, or maybe all those who kept saying it was workplace violence. That would include the POTUS. So, this has filtered down even into the local level. By the way, the writer question why someone would need so many guns and said he and his father who are hunters could stand a few less guns in their gun “cabinets”. I wrote that neither he nor his father would be considered responsible if they kept their guns in an old fashioned wood gun cabinet and not secured in a quality gun safe protected from children and theft. Gotta wonder what he thought of that. Molon Labe

    1. “The writer said all gun owners and buyers should have to go through a pyschological (sic) evaluation to determine if they were responsible enough to own a gun.”

      What part of “shall not be infringed” confuses him?

    2. And yet any clown with enough money to get started can call himself a newspaper editor without any one questioning his or her mental state, go figure.. Wonder how much protest you would hear if you suggested certain mental qualifications in order to exercise those 1st amendment rights….

  8. Something that’s overlooked now days is the fact that the second amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING, the second amendment is our God given right to protect ourselves from a government (like the one we have now). Forget HUNTING, SPORTING, COLLECTING, and pull yer head out and remember what OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS are. The second amendment isn’t granted by men, it’s just for record, ITS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

  9. Ted Cruz made a strong statement. He stated that a rifle that has added plastic parts does not make a hunting rifle any different than a AR-15.The round will still have the impact of the round it shoots. Wether its shot from an AR-15 or shot from a hunting rifle. Plus C.A. already has strict laws on firearms and they still failed. They need to monitor suspects rather than saying its happens because the assault weapons.

    1. Put bluntly, given our overly generous FEDERAL immigration laws, there was no way to stop that massacre.

      Put simply, the responsibility for the San Bernardino terrorist atrocity rests at Obama’s feet … and his alone.

  10. With all due respect…A bunch of solialist, marxist, politically elite elected officials with a personal agenda who work toward the goal of self-service under the cloak of community service. When in reality, poised as a group of Hanoi Jane type commie rats. Nothing more…nothing less.

  11. Our Government is full of ignorant miss informed archaic fossils that should have been kicked out, retired, run out of town a long time ago. Obama, Clinton ,Feinstein, Bloomberg, Sanders and the lot.
    I stand with TyrannyOfEvilMen..

    1. These anti gunners are ignorant in any arguments they have. You hear nothing but blaming the guns, the guns are bad and need banned. What about banning ignorance? Ignorance is worse than any epidemic known to man. Ignorance can be fixed with knowledgable information and not political mouth garbage. Guns aren’t the problem, it’s the nut bags that go into places with intent to do harm to others. So now you want to ban guns for the law abiding citizens in the GREATEST DAMN COUNTRY in the world. Not mine you won’t. MOLON LABE!!!!!!

    2. They are neither ignorant or misinformed. They are seeking absolute power and know that the Second Amendment stands in their way. They do, however, count on the ignorance and misinformation infecting their sychophantic followers

  12. What part of “shall not be infringed” do the left not get. Also why does Dianne NotsoFeinestien think the 2nd amendment has anything to do with hunting? The 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect against an over zealous government. Kinda like the one we have now.

  13. Obama is making plans to confiscate guns via the “No Fly List” or “Watch List”.

    People are placed on these list without rhyme, reason or “Due Process.” No guns will be allowed in the homes where a person on the “watch list/no fly list” dwells! You; your wife or your two year old daughter can be placed on the list and you will not know till the “Gestapo” breaks down your door and take the weapons. By the time you have the name removed, the the weapons will have been destroyed.

    He will do this by “Executive Order” or the “Stipid Ones” in congress.

    Watch and See!!

  14. Since ‘talk is cheap’ on both sides.(except for bundy ranch)…Lets have this GOP lead congress make a law that ..simply states..Those that want to Confiscate guns and ammo..have to do it THEMSELVES….and that NO police, military or private contractors are to be employed by the confiscators…..Molon Labe…. if you really are serious about your convictions….I know ‘we the people’ who are law abiding and want to be left alone…ARE………….imho……. Semper Fi

  15. “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”

    The point of view for tyrants and closet jihadist globally.

    “A well regulated militia being necessary…” – Translation; A well armed society IS mandatory…

    1. @ got243kids

      Just how do you go about doing that “Parlor Magic Trick”: A well armed society IS mandatory… RAM it down somebody’s Throat, at GUN POINT. You TALK about Tyranny in the Government, What about the TYRANNY you’re Proposing…

    2. The well-armed society IS mandatory. Even at the time of its adoption, there were exceptions made for those who did not, for whatever reason, wish to carry a firearm. While SOCIETY needs to be well-armed, not all of the citizens must be armed for SOCIETY as a whole to be well-armed.

  16. This crap boils up every major election year…liberals pandering to their sheeple followers. It has to be taken serious or they might actually get away with enough to stomp on our 2nd Amendment rights. All the more reason to pay attention and vote wisely.

    1. Assault rifle: noun: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

      The weapons they want to ban are semi-auto, and therefore not assault weapons.

  17. These people don’t care about people being killed buy guns or whatever all they care about is getting recognized so they get people to vote for them. By these people talking about taking our constituional rights away from us. This in my mind causes unrest , fear anger in our country as any terrorist. But if you ask them why,they will say it their constitutional right.

  18. Regarding the Second Amendment, I really don’t have any fear of liberal confiscation schemes. I’m quite sure they don’t have the stones for it. But if i’m wrong and they actually do, I stand with Patrick Henry and Charlton Heston: “Give me liberty or…” and ” …From my cold, dead hands!”

    In other words, If they are really serious about it, I hope they have their life insurance paid up.

    1. > TyrannyOfEvilMen

      Not unless Charlton Heston made a “Planet of the Apes” Movie in Bellevue, Washington in 1976. The phase: “I’ll give you my gun when your pry (or take) it from my cold dead hands”. Was a Bumper-Sticker Slogan for a Gun Right Group based there, Not the NRA. The were called: The Citizens Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

  19. A few years ago three thugs broke into a home about a block from me and beat seven young men and women to death with baseball bats over an xbox.. That must have some real terror before the last kid died, although thankfully for them most of them were sleeping when it happened.. I never once heard an outcry for the banning of baseball bats by any politician.. The good side, all three were caught in days, convicted, sentenced to death and on has already been given the lethal dose…

  20. It’s a basic human right to protect/defend one’s self so Barry and his ilk can stick all his anti-gun (read anti-Constitution) rhetoric where the sun doesn’t shine.

  21. Presidential oath:
    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States:
    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Contrary to what most libs think, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t a change to the constitution, it was part of the original “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution. Any President or Congressman that tries to re-interpret it, dismantle it, or change it is guilty of violating their oath of office and should be impeached for being anti-American.

    1. @ Aardvark

      The Original Bill of Rights had 10 Amendments, NOW there are 27. The 2nd, is Just One of Them. So the Presidential Oath is to ALL 27, NOT just the Original 10.

  22. The NY Times editors wrote, “There is no need to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Ammendment.” Peculiar? What part of it is peculiar? Inconvenient for advocates of confiscation, yes; but peculiar? Not to an honest reader.

    They go on to write that, “no right is absolute and immune from reasonable regulation”. O.K. Let’s apply that to the First Amendment. How about a regulation requiring newspapers to have their editorials reviewed by a government agency with the power to censor opinions not considered “reasonable” by the feds? Or a regulation requiring newspaper reporters to undergo mandatory background checks before their articles could be published?

    After all, “no right is absolute”, so why not kick freedom of the press into the ditch too?

  23. This kind of crap should be a wake up call to every “reasonable thinking” American, I don’t care if you are somebody who has never voted for anybody but a Demo, or if you’re a strong union member who votes the way the paid whores leading your union tell you to vote, even if you are a left wing liberal or even one of the poor misguided souls nursing on the saggy tits of HRC, IF you own a gun, IF you want to remain free in the last free country on the planet you best figure out who is tearing our country apart.

    I’ve known people who were NRA members, owned a lot of guns but because their daddy and his daddy etc etc voted Demo they would to, there is something really wrong with that approach, if that shoe fits your foot maybe you need to take a look at maybe getting a new pair.

  24. Does anyone here suggest ANY type of gun restriction ..?? What does anyone here believe we should do..? Being a Liberal myself, and a gun owner i’d like to know how you lot would go about setting forth any type of restrictions to the general public … By the way please don’t judge me just because i’m a Liberal , I still believe in the 2nd amendment , so lets at least be civil and stay on topic.. Thanks..!

    1. There are already enough restrictions, it is nearly impossible to go from one state to another with a gun without breaking some local, state or federal law. A lot of Americans are Vets and were taught how to safely store, carry, operate and care for the very weapons that the feds and some states want to or are already heavily regulating. The fact that so many Americans own firearms weighed heavily on Japans leadership in WWII and prevented them from attempting an all out invasion of the U.S. while most of our military was somewhere else. That idea kept Hitler from doing the same thing. It is what has kept the Dogs of War from our shores since the last time we kicked the British out, were it not for the stain of the Civil War which, although it was basically a squabble among ourselves and served as a lesson well learned, we have been kept safe not because of our military but due to the sheer number of weapons in private hands. Start putting unnecessary regulations on privately owned guns would be an open invitation to anything from armed insurrection from within to anyone wanting to see the last standing empire brought down. The last line of defense in this country is it’s people and would you allow a foreign army (or an out of control government) take away everything you’ve worked for because the last line of defense has been neutered and simply out gunned. No matter what restrictions or regulations you put in place, without total disarmament there will always be someone who will find a way to kill and comparing the U.S. with 325 million people to murder rates in countries with populations of less than ten percent of that makes no sense. What would I do? Remove the restrictions, require every state to license every individual lawfully eligible to carry a concealed weapon and I can assure you violent crime will go down. It doesn’t matter what you restrict a criminal doesn’t care, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and the murder rate is insane, the gangs don’t care, they don’t care in L.A., NY City, Washington D.C. (which was the murder capital at one time), and any other big city where there is money being made from the sale of drugs and prostitution and drug users whom turn to crime to support their habits. Some crazy starts shooting up the place around me I want to be able to at least put up a fight and maybe if there are enough like minded individuals around me we can quell the situation with minimal loss of life. a couple of armed individuals at the Christmas party could have saved some lives against two poorly trained wanna-bes, they did not have body armor, they had on tactical vests with some magazines and most likely would have run away when the first round was returned at them, they did not want to die, it just turned out that way. There will be more attempts by Terrorists to try to ruin our lives and try to change our way of living, they have infiltrated our schools and Universities, local, state and federal government and now our President is illegally making treaties and promises that will move a great deal of our wealth to third world countries through the Global Warming crazies in NATO {did you see Al Gores smirk when Obama made his little speech) there will be a lot of sorry people when the money runs out and the feds start raiding savings and investment accounts (yeah, I got a little off track, but it’s all relative, just hang on, it’s going to be one hell of a ride) Remember one thing when something happens to you, you are the only one whom can do something about it because the cops are not there and flight or fight is your only option. I’d rather get shot in the chest defending myself than in the back running away, it’s a personal choice, either way you could end up dead, or not… “MOLON LABE”

    2. @ Milkshooter,

      I’m going to have to ask that you take a step back and try really hard to not be you for a moment so you can maybe understand what I am about to convey.

      First – The entire “Don’t judge me” line, as coined by the Millennial Generation, is so old and was always obnoxious to those that know better. Don’t use it anymore because judgements will never stop happening – it is impossible not to judge someone given it is a basic survival mechanism built into our very DNA which provides humans the only means by which we can establish friend from foe.

      Second – That you felt the need to write that you, “still believe in the 2nd amendment” exposes a severe lack in your understanding of even the most basic of human rights as an American. Such words never need to be uttered because it is simply a known fact understood by those that truly comprehend the foundational principles required to keep our Country free.

      Third – The Second Amendment is the Law of the Land which is an unwavering mandatory right required to be protected by ALL citizens, regardless of political persuasion, and that MUST be maintained without ANY restrictions in order to continue to keep this Country free.

      Fourth – The Second Amendment was never intended to be subjected as an option for you to believe in or not – thus you making such a statement is very offensive to those of us that have dedicated our lives to service, with honor and sacrifice in order to protect true freedom.

      And finally – Based on my above comments, hopefully by now you realize the answer to your original question which was, “Does anyone here suggest ANY type of gun restriction ..??”, is an obvious and resounding NO!

    3. As I read the Constitution, it would be acceptable to limit the citizens to the types of weapons issued to the standing army (to include all four branches, the National Guard, the Coast Guard and any other government agency regularly issued arms in the context of their duties.)

      Any level of restrictions beyond that represent, to me, an intolerable infringement.

  25. #1, the AR-15, .223 Rem & the AK-47, 7.62×39, are both “medium power” weapons – both develop about 1300 ftlbs of muzzle energy with “std” loads
    #2, no where, in the text of the Second Amendment, will you find the words, “until”, “unless”, or “except”
    #3, According to Tench Coxe, and other Founders, the “militia” is “the whole of the people”.
    #4, there is not supposed to be a standing army during times of peace – thus, “the militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
    #5, no firearm, of any make, of any style, has ever, with malice and of its own volition, done any harm to any human being though out the history of the firearm
    #6, the definition of “arms” in 1775, “any military style weapon that may be fielded by a crew of three men, or fewer” …. again, the MILITIA – the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, are necessary to the security of a free State.
    #7, the militia, the whole of the people, are ALWAYS the “first responders” and will always be the “last line of defense”.

    1. Oh, by the way, the .308 Win & 30-06 develop about twice that muzzle energy with “std” loads

    2. Yeah my Magnum Research BFR 45-70 with ten inch barrel with a 430 grain bear load only produces about 3025 ft/lbs at the muzzle and 2400 more or less down range.

    3. @ LameBear.

      Isn’t that a “Contradiction of Terms”. “FIRST REPONDERS” and “LAST LINE OF DEFENSE”!

    4. It is not a contradiction of terms because both are true and I will give examples to validate this fact. Quite often armed citizens all across this nation have been the first responders thwarting many criminal acts in the process. Additionally, both Germany and Japan knew that our last line of defense was America’s well armed population which is why they immediately scrapped any ideas of invasion upon conception.

    5. As first responders, those with adequate testicular fortitude will always run toward the sounds of thunder in an attempt to hold the storm at bay and protect those of lesser intestinal stature, which also makes them the last line of defense because the only thing left behind them is either to weak, to young, to ill or just too chicken to pick up a weapon or go hand to hand with an unfriendly aggressor…. Hopefully this will help clarify any confusion you might have had and it is my pleasure to be of assistance….

  26. Thank you NYT for doing away with the double talk. We have all known for a long time that this is what anti-gunners have been trying to do, now they can’t lie about it.
    It’s just a stepping stone for them.
    Take away the right to defend yourself and there’s nothing to stop them from taking the rest of them.

  27. If they want to outlaw something, why not outlaw MURDER! Oh wait, there already is a law for that and it doesn’t stop people…

  28. That’s rich…. anti-gun rhetoric coming from Diane Feinstein.

    Feinstein and her husband are probably two of the biggest corporate whores in history ….feeding at the Iraq War weapons bonanza.

    1. Yeah, just look in her purse, and what do you think you will see ? That’s right, a gun ! She thinks she’s above the rest of the population and the law. She carries, but no one else should be able to. Lying hypocrite !!!

  29. I’d love to see the first thing, or object, tha either one of these little wimpy politicians grab for when a riot happens outside their fancy house in the suburbs, or what would they run to their safe and grab when some random jihad rushes their house kicking in the door… Cmon’ let’s be honest… They are the ones who are truly “scared” just sayin.

  30. It is not the point that our government official want take our rights to bear arms, it is that once they start there where will it end. We the people our already give a lot every time someone decide there should be a law without every body else’s says so. Also when has anybody not seen that when the government is given an inch they take a mile? God help us!

  31. The only way our country is going to improve is if we completely clean house in congress and the senate!A lot of these politicians have been in office for over twenty years,and you may have noticed that for the past twenty years things have progressively gotten worse!Well these people are responsible and we need to hold them to account,wake up america and quit voting these morons in office!vote for a canidate that’s not a democrat or republican,then we might do better!

  32. It is a good point, there is now a significant media point made, that same point should be leveraged to bring politicians to task. Honesty is contrary to policial face changing.

    When will We the People finally end this failing charade?????

    Both sides in their end goal want extremes realized, ironically Americans on the whole are centrist, not extremists. Sadly our politicians are the worst of us..and on the whole the American media is even worse.

    Ban politicians and require truth and remove blatant bias in the media

  33. I can go along with banning certain guns. There are some guns out there that the average Joe doesn’t need and they are of no real use.

    I find it ironic that the people that want to take our guns away are the people that are surrounded with bodyguards, with guns. They don’t and will never live in the real world with the rest of us. Unless they are dense, they know if they take the law abiding citizens gun, the only people with guns will be the true criminals. Why do they want to leave us out in the cold with no jacket? I can see armed home invasions and robberies sky rocketing. And the crazies will still find a way to kill the innocents. If they want scary, for us out in the cold, that’s scary.

    1. BE CAREFUL! That is exactly what the progressive socialists want. Ban one gun here, a certain type of ammo there, high capacity magazines after that, and pretty soon it will be semi-autos all together, then revolvers, then bolt actions, then single shot muzzle loaders and gun powder. The second amendment doesn’t state “…shall not be infringed except…”

    2. I don’t need Dodge Challenger Hellcat, and it serves no real need. Does that mean that I should not be able to own one ?

    3. “I can go along with banning certain guns. There are some guns out there that the average Joe doesn’t need and they are of no real use.”

      that statement right there gives me chills and is exactly the type of “meh” and/or “I give up” stance that will ultimately allow the gun grabbers to sink their fangs into the majority gun owner fence sitters – and once the antis have convinced enough gun owners (like you and your father) to start agreeing with them that a few types of guns or Ammo should be banned, they’ll take your willing hand and start you on your treacherous walk down the slippery slope that is removing your gun rights in total

      and your indifference will bring them power, support, and influence – allowing them to then force those of us who are firm in our beliefs in our rights to our guns down the same total disarmament slope you walked down alongside the antis

      Your indifference and blasé attitude that is in collusion with the people in this country whose desire to disarm me is a direct attack on mine and my family’s safety and every single freedom that we enjoy as Americans

      Therefore, you are no better than those antis who I consider to be one of mine (and this great nation’s) worst enemies

      I strongly implore you to reconsider the far-reaching, freedom destroying ideals that you are so willing to express to the general public, as I don’t want you, as an enemy and danger to my safety and freedom, to spread your weakness to enough people to also turn them into enemies of the state

  34. Senator Feinstein is so stupid she should sew her mouth shut!The AR-15 is not used to hunt deer but people?First off nobody hunts people,we get attacked by people(big difference).Secondly you want to ban the AR but still allow people access to mortars,rocket launchers and other stuff way more deadly.When are these political morons going to quit using fear from a few idiots attacks to try to further their agenda of taking away as many of our rights as they can!A quote from Feinstein(where do the bullets go duhhh)?but she is qualified to create laws about guns when she doesn’t even know what the definition of an actual assault rifle is!

  35. Don’t you actually have to be Physically Holding a Firearm in you Possession in order for it to be “Confiscated”. Keep you from Acquiring a Firearm is Not A Confiscation.

    1. According to Hillary Clinton and others, the latest proposal has been to go back and take otherwise legal firearms from you. i.e. ban a gun you already own and force you to turn it in or be a criminal.

    2. @ Dave Dolbee.

      You JUST GOT TO LOVE IT? DAVE! 52 Republicans in the US. House and 24 Republicans in the US. Senate voted in Favor of the Gun Confiscation Act. Including that Weaselly Little SNOT US. Rep. Paul Ryan. YOU JUST HAVE TO LOVE OUR “GOP” Controlled Congress in Action, DAVE…

    3. @ Secundius

      It is impossible to expect Dave to “LOVE” something that never happened. As usual I am compelled to follow behind you with a pooper scooper and clean up your little droppings of untruth.

    4. @ G-Man.

      HR.4348 or MAP-21 was vote on and PASSED both the House and Senate, in 29 September 2012. The House Vote was 373 Yeh’s and 52 Ney’s (of which 186 were Republican’s in the Yeh Vote). The Senate’s Vote was 74 Yeh’s and 13 Ney’s, of which 24 Republican’s in the Yeh Vote)…

    5. @ Secundius,

      My statement challenging your untruths still stands. Your reply referencing the passage of HR 4348 has nothing whatsoever to do with some supposed “Gun Confiscation Act” that Republicans voted for as you originally stated to Dave Dolbee.

      Matter-of-fact this bill you’ve referenced comes nowhere near the topic of “Gun Confiscation” and instead covers Federal Aid for Highways, Highway Construction Safety Programs, Transportation Infrastructure Safety and Finances, Flood Insurance Reform, and Student Loan Interest Rate Extensions. Nowhere is a gun ever mentioned in its contents

      I truly cringe for you at your perpetual insistence on things that continue to embarrass you so publicly.

    6. @ Secundius,

      Time and again I’ve easily proven you wrong with simple facts.

      Not only have I read the act, I was assigned to participate as an LEA advisor to oversee its drafting. So many hands were involved in writing this bill’s many parts (known as Divisions) that Federal law enforcement was concerned someone might inadvertently add something that would affect our ability to lawfully deploy the License Plate Reader (LPR) scanning technology we had been testing along US and State highways at the time.

      I reveal this not for your edification, but to ensure others reading your nonsense have an opportunity to know the truth, and to ensure you remain discredited despite your wanton deception or senility (take your pick) to appear to others as a know-it-all. The problem is you do people a disservice when your desire to feel important overrides the truth at any cost just so you come off as knowledgeable. It is a disgrace and it needs to stop.

    7. @ THIS OLD MAN,

      I fail to see anywhere in Woody’s article that he wrote something that would merit your comment on the definition of “Confiscation. Nevertheless, I will attempt to clarify it for you:

      You asked, “Don’t you actually have to be Physically Holding a Firearm in you Possession in order for it to be ‘Confiscated’.” The answer is a resounding NO.

      Your physical possession of the firearm has no bearing on confiscation. Regardless of the reason, whenever a gun you own is seized by the government from any place, at any time, and even without your knowledge or presence, it is still a “CONFISCATION”.

      You also wrote, “Keep you from Acquiring a Firearm is Not A Confiscation.” On this you are absolutely correct. Creating laws that keep an otherwise lawful citizen from acquiring a firearm is instead known as a “BAN”.

      Now that we have a better understanding of the differences between these terms (BAN vs. CONFISCATION), we can move on to the real core of the problem:

      In either a Ban or CONFISCATION, both actions are required to be carried out by an officially recognized government entity that has been bestowed with the proper authority before enforcing bans or confiscations could ever be considered lawful acts.

      However, the problem lies in the fact that the “LAW of the LAND” states through the Constitution that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, and thus there is no possible way then for ANY government entity to ever possess the lawful authority to impose bans or confiscation on any gun we lawfully own.

    8. To prevent a Law abiding Citizen with no mental issues from purchasing a Firearm is no different than confiscation of the same Firearm resulting in the same loss of freedom and creating circumstances that increase the possibility of persecution. On the other hand that same citizen should be required to undergo periodic training to ensure that the Firearm, if used, is used safely and in a prudent manner.

    9. It would be an abrogation of one’s God-given, Constitutionally GUARANTEED, Rights .. as such, it would be unlawful, a breach of the Constitution, an attempt to overthrow the Constitution – thus, an attempt to overthrow this nation – by definition, Treason, and punishable by death.

  36. My short comment is simply:BRING IT ON. Am just so tired of hearing the same old crap flapping from these Liberal Lunatics. We the People are armed and ready. If they are ready, so am I. Molon Labe.

  37. First, it was simply funny to see how these two psychotic, mentally traumatized female individuals (see the photos) were barking at the 2nd A tree.
    Now, it’s not funny anymore. With Hussein Obama’s approval rating of more than 40%, we may expect some rather unpredictable, anti-Constitutional and anti-American action to fulfill his dream he’s been having since long time ago — a full gun ban and confiscation of most of the semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Those who will resist, will be sent to the camps that FEMA has been keeping ready and operational for almost a decade.

    1. FEMA had better have some serious bad individuals, as dedicated, ready and willing to die for the federal government as I am to maintain the liberties god given liberties whose protection is endorsed and guaranteed by the founding fathers in the Constitution… I will not bow to any illegal acts this government attempts to force upon the people and I damn sure do not recognize any authority of any foreign government or outside governing body. Send FEMA and back them up with the blue helmets (they make a pretty target and I love the head shot}. I can’t hold out forever but they will have to decide if the body count is worth it and maybe reassess the next determined American citizen they come upon.

    2. First of all they don’t have the room for a hundred and fifty million people, little alone defeating a hundred and fifty +million patriotic Americans….

    3. We also need to stop thinking of the Federal government as some monolithic entity inhabited by mindless and unquestioning droids. No agency engaged in the systematic overthrow of our Constitution can expect full support (or anything LIKE full support) from its employees.

      For that reason, foreign troops will be engaged.

  38. Just like Prohibition put an end to people drinking alcohol; making drugs illegal has completely wiped out drug abuse; illegal abortions never happened; and speed limits have completely stopped speeding… so too will this liberal quest be triumphant in stopping ALL criminals and psychopaths from killing with guns. I feel so much safer now that the NYT truth is out.

    1. @ G-Man

      Even during the Height of Prohibition, There was STILL DRINKING OF ALCOHOL. It was ONLY how much you were Willing to Spend that Prohibited It.

    2. @ TwoDrinkMinimum,

      I should be disappointed that you didn’t catch on that my entire comment was nothing but obvious sarcasm. However, with you it is something I’ve come to expect.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.