The gun-grabbers are unmasking themselves

After the Parkland school shooting a couple of weeks ago, many left-wing and progressive politicians and others have been calling for a ban on civilian ownership of the AR-15 rifle and its derivatives.  They’ve been loud in their denunciations of such weapons, but have generally tried to reassure gun owners that they don’t want to ban all firearms – just the “evil” ones.  They’ve also been blatant in their efforts to hijack the student survivors to their cause – not that most of the mainstream media has reported that, because they’re part of the problem.

Such protestations are, to put it mildly, misdirection.  Many (including myself) would call them a blatant lie.  That’s perfectly demonstrated by legislation recently introduced in Minnesota.  AccuTac Arms sums it up nicely.

For everyone in MN.

Here it comes

HF 3022 is now in the Legislature

– Permit required to own a gun
– Permit required to buy a gun
– Permit required to sell a gun
– Local law enforcement gets to deny all types of gun permits
– Local law enforcement gets to deny permits to carry
– Personal medical information must be shared with law enforcement
– All firearm transfers must be reported
– All guns must be registered (fees set by local law enforcement)
– Registration must be renewed annually
– Local law enforcement may conduct warantless “safety inspections” of gun owner’s homes
– Local law enforcement sets “safe storage” policies
– Five day waiting period for all transfers
– Transfers must be done through an FFL (even between private parties)
– Fees may be charged for transfers
– Local law enforcement may conduct background investigation on transfers
– Total ban on any gun which meets broad “assault weapon” definition – banned guns must be destroyed or surrendered
– Ban thumbhole stocks
– Ban adjustable stocks
– Ban pistol grip stocks
– Limit fixed magazine capacity to 7 rounds
– Ban any magazine capable of holding more than 7 rounds
– Suspension of gun rights based on complaints from anonymous parties
– Recriminalization of suppressors
– Bump stock ban
– All ammunition sales will be registered
– Permit required to purchase ammunition

Almost forgot an important thing –

HF 3022 would also make gun owner private data public. This would include:

Number and type of guns you own
Your address

Anyone think that’s okay?

Gun-grabbers in Minnesota aren’t alone in their demands.  We’re hearing similar wish lists from liberals and progressives all over the country – and they’re getting more and more angry when we face up to them and demand that they acknowledge the truth.  For example, after a brilliant denunciation of their falsehoods by Virginia delegate Nick Freitas, Democrat politicians were vitriolic.

After Democrats settled down, Del. Joseph Lindsey (D-Norfolk) told the House that “today, I have been offended as I can never recall since being a part of this body. And I have seen many of my colleagues emotionally shaken and bothered by either a lack of concern for facts or just simply playing to the cameras, I don’t know which.”

Offended by the truth?  So much for Mr. Lindsey’s honesty.  Here’s what offended him.

Never, ever believe a gun-grabber when they ask for “just this one thing”.  They’ll always – always – be back for more.  What’s more, they ignore the reality that blaming an object – the gun – is doomed to failure.  It’s not the gun that causes shootings.  You can leave a gun lying around, fully loaded, cocked and ready to fire, for years without anything happening.  The only time it’ll go off is when someone picks it up and pulls the trigger.  It’s the shooter that’s the problem, not the gun;  but they’ll never admit or acknowledge that, because the truth is not in them.



  1. Like negotiating with a shark-"Just one more bite, then I'm done, OK? I promise, you have my word on that as a shark."

  2. Honestly, SOME of these points are not so bad.

    – Permit required to own a gun
    That should be simply there. The permit should include the permit to buy the gun in the
    first place and the denial of the permit HAS to be limited to a very few possible reasons (like failed mental evaluation, being a minor, criminal record).

    – Personal medical information must be shared with law enforcement
    The law enforcement has to have the capability to evaluate the mental stability of the prospective gun owner. So in case of mental health problems they have to be known. The rest not so much.

    – All firearm transfers must be reported
    That is IMO common sense. You are responsible for your gun, and if it leaves your control you have to report that it is no longer your responsibility. But nobody can make you responsible to verify the new owners identity. But he has to provide the permit to own the gun to you.

    – All guns must be registered (fees set by local law enforcement)
    As I wrote previously, the gun is your responsibility. And the law enforcement has to know who the gun that was used in a crime belongs to. But absolutely no fees for that. I also understand that with the political climate and the "honesty" of the gun control lobby that point is sadly an impossibility.

    – Local law enforcement sets "safe storage" policies
    There should be a federal minimum level and a federal maximum level of safe storage, but it should only be controlled when the gun is used in a crime. On the other hand I have heard and read quite a few stories about a gun owner who stored his gun(s) in a drawer or under the mattress or such and the gun was stolen and used in a crime. I think in such cases the gun owner should shoulder some of the responsibility for the crime and face the music.

    – Bump stock ban
    I would formulate it different. A ban on any mechanical or electrical device capable to simulate automatic fire with a semiautomatic gun unless in a specially licensed facility. Honestly, these things may be fun to shoot at a range but there is otherwise absolutely no use for them that I can see. The shooter in Vegas could have killed several times the people he did kill if he had simply used aimed single shots.

    The rest of the points I think should be scrapped immediately. But what I would include would be a provision that getting found with an illegal gun (namely a gun that is neither legally owned by the one carrying or keeping it nor loaned to him/her by the rightful owner) is a crime equal to attempted murder. The only reason for having an illegal gun is to commit a crime with it. And the only result of a crime with a gun is attempted murder.

  3. Apply all of these rules to Abortion, Voting or any other real or perceived right, and see if it holds water. None of these do. A gun is a tool. I don't register my hammer or drill. Not going to register a gun either. No.

  4. "I'm a gun owner and hunter and firmly support the Second amendment BUT…"
    there I fixed it for you MadMcal
    Dennis the librarian shusher

  5. @Dennis the librarian shusher

    Actually I am neither gun owner nor hunter. I am one of the people who definitely should not be allowed to own guns, as I have a chronic severe depression. Sure, most of the time I am stable and not much different from most other people. But sometimes I get a… phase and then everything can happen.

    Also I understand that there is not a gun violence problem, there is a violence problem, but the relative easy availability of guns acerbates the problem. A knife or a stone may be nearly as deadly, but the defenses against them are much more readily available. A simple chair used as a club trumps the biggest knife, but against a gun it does nothing.

    If you think about it, the points that I support are in the final consequence designed to keep the guns out of the criminals hands. If you as gun owner are responsible that you either immediately inform police that your gun has been stolen AND for the secure storage of said gun, or get an accessory to any crime committed with your gun then you will be (hopefully) much more careful with it.
    If any gang member that is caught with a gun he shouldn't have gets an automatic sentence of 10 years or so for attempted murder (in this case the police has to prove he had the gun and that the gun was illegal but when that has happened then good by) regardless what else may happen then gang members will be much more circumspect with running around with illegal guns. That in turn should reduce gun violence tremendously. And if the gun they run around with is legal then it can be linked to them in case of a crime.

    The rest is more or less enabling the discerning between legal and illegal guns.
    And again, I understand that it is a utopian dream as the gun control freaks have completely destroyed any possible trust that would make such steps possible.
    I would certainly prefer that there was no need for hand guns other than recreation, but… well dream on.

  6. "shale not be infringed." Simple concept but they have forgotten that in MN.

    Morons. It is not the guns that are a problem it has been liberals on psychotropic drugs.

  7. Peter
    Thanks for posting the video link. That was -awesome-. I also emailed Mr Freitas and my own delegate to tell Mr Freitas thank you and please keep up the good work. As for MN, those of you who live there, if you value your rights, call, write, email, telegraph, semaphore…. communicate with your representatives. If you don't Bloomberg's is the only view that will get heard.

  8. @MadMcAl: – Permit required to own a gun
    That should be simply there.

    It is. You'll find it in the Constitution under the heading "Amendment II." Let us know when you've familiarized yourself with same.

    The rest of your drivel should be scrapped immediately.

  9. "It's the shooter that causes the problem not the gun". True, but if the potential shooter has no access to a gun there i that problem solved. True he might use something else, but that is a different and usually much less serious – I don't ever recall a knife attack with fifty victims – problem.

  10. @Dave

    So you simply refuse to even discuss anything that approaches sane (and honestly limited) measurements? If so, I salute your shortsightedness and stubbornness. But not your apparently limited common sense.

    I sincerely hope you agree that some people should not have access to guns. And that the ownership of a gun should require a certain amount of care and feeding of said gun.
    That means that people who either demonstrated that they are unfit for the ownership of a gun (either for mental health problems or criminal conviction) or have not demonstrated that they understand the needed security that comes with owning a gun (a simple test like for the driving license would be enough) should be prohibited from getting a gun. And the easiest way for that is to issue licenses (aka permits) to those who a) demonstrated that they qualify for gun ownership and b) apply for one. The only contested point here is that yes I understand that the leftist would use this process to take the guns away. But that does not change the fact that it would be the sane thing to do. I personally think that certain behaviors and/or illnesses negate certain individual rights that would enable a person to pose a risk to others.

    And about your sacred second Amendment…
    When you begin to protest the ongoing violation of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th and of course 10th Amendment, then you can wax on the inviolate status of the 2nd.
    Especially as IMO regulating the access to firearms to those who own them responsible does not violate it.

  11. @MadMcAl: What you ignore – at your peril – is that once you establish "standards" for the issuing of a gun purchase or ownership permit, you are at the mercy of those who can – and probably will – arbitrarily change those standards to suit their political objectives.

    Consider, for example, mental health. As soon as you require any form of evidence that someone is of sound mind (or is not of unsound mind) in order to purchase a firearm, you call into question the definition of what is a sound, or unsound, mind. At first, that may be entirely logical, rational and reasonable. However, if gun-grabbers want to use it against gun-owners, they can redefine it such that the desire to own more than a "reasonable number" of firearms (that number to be determined by them, rather than by gun-owners) may be classified as being mentally unsound, thereby depriving the gun-owner of his/her right to own firearms. See how it goes?

    You're ignoring the fact that once you give up individual freedom and liberty to government regulation, that regulation can be (and, historically, almost always has been) used to diminish, restrict and control our freedoms. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.

  12. I'm kinda looking at this as – potentially – a good thing.

    First, it completely, totally and irrevocably erases any fantasy about anti-gunners wanting anything but complete prohibition of firearms ownership and imposing absolute defenselessness upon citizens.

    There is no longer any doubt – nor can there be – about what the enemy wants. And, make no mistake, they are the enemy.

    Should a state enact such legislation, there's no question lawsuits galore would be filed, and injunctions against enforcement filed by the zillions.

    There would be, however, a degree of encouragement to other states: if Minnesota passes such legislation, California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, et al would be next in line to try their hand at it. Whatever happens in blue states would be repeated, to a much lesser degree, in purple states and to some degree in red ones.

    At that point the idea of lawsuits to correct the problem would be worthless, and the issue would move to the streets; by that I mean Violent Civil Insurrection, which is where this issue will eventually wind up. I'd much prefer a more decorous solution, because violent insurrection easily becomes civil war and thence to revolution, and the odds on that turning out for the better are so infinitesimally small as to be non-existent.

    There may be other paths to successful resurrection of our country, but given the extreme irrationality on the Left, I think they won't be satisfied until the fan blades churn the excrement into a froth. We've tried to dissuade them from the belief that it will end up with them getting their way, but like a tantrum-throwing four-year-old, application of a paddle to the backside with sufficient force to get their attention and produce sufficient behavioral change is, I fear, unavoidable. In the meantime, we no longer have to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules regarding political activism.

  13. I grew up in Missouri and recognize these laws; They're called Jim Crow laws. One memory that sticks in my mind was a neighboring sheriff running for reelection by stating that he, "never gave no pistol permits to any Jews, niggers or uppity females".

  14. Something like 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws currently on the books.
    The assault weapon ban ran from 1994-2004 was studied to death, and allowed to sunset without renewal because both sides of the issue determined it had absolutely no affect on safety or a reduction in gun crimes.
    In Illinois you must register as a gun owner, receive a FOID card, and present it before even being allowed to touch let alone purchase a firearm or ammunition. Look how well that's worked for Chicago. And the canard that they can just go to Indiana where the laws are more lax is pure BS. No legal gun dealer would sell to an Illinois resident, it would be a felony to do so for both buyer and seller.
    The left's solution to the problem, like most of their social solutions, is to wave a magic wand and make the problem just go away. Poof and over 300 million firearms currently in private hands simply disappear. And suddenly we secure the borders to prevent military grade guns from coming into the country. After all it's worked so well with the drug trade. And don't forget restrictions on thousands of machine shops, because with a few simple metal working tools and the raw materials it is ridiculously easy to turn out full automatic weapons by the yard.
    And as we've seen in Europe, somehow manage to accomplish all that and you still have common household chemicals that easily become fire bombs, and large trucks that can mow down hundreds.
    All of this just so the Democrats can say "but we did something." Because that's what they do, take credit for the intent no matter how much actual damage their ill conceived notions actually do.

  15. Anon at 10:03, look at China's mass knife killings. The attackers target school children and others. Granted, thus far the worst has been 21 (officially) deaths at one go, but people will find a way to commit acts of evil.

    Peter hit the other point I was going to mention: mental health. That was the catch-all the Soviets used to deny people lots of things, including freedom and life itself. Who decides who is sane? There are psychology articles in academic journals claiming that anyone who is "conservative" or "alt-right" is clinically diagnoseable as paranoid, psychotic, or otherwise mentally ill. I have been treated for mild anxiety attacks. Should I be forbidden from self-defense firearm ownership because 5 years ago I had an anxiety attack?


  16. lee n. field said…

    "Nobody wants to take your guns."

    (This should put the lie to that.)

    March 5, 2018 at 7:49 AM

    In addition, do you know why they set the "fixed" magazine size at seven rounds? So that they could _confiscate_ your dad's (or grandfather's) M1 Garand Rifle – it has a fixed capacity of eight rounds. Paid $600 for one from the Department of Civilian Marksmanship? Too bad, MN wants to take it from you. And they want to tell all the burglars, what you have and how to find you.

  17. LT Columbo would say: "Just one thing: You are learning wisdom from a group of foolish kids who eat Tide detergent pods. Is this going to end well for you?"

  18. I can't remember who said it but one "ban all guns" advocate said "We do not necessarily want half the loaf, nor do we want a slice of the loaf. Right now,we will be content with just half a slice because we have established the principle that gun rights are not fixed or cannot be changed" (or words to that effect).

    As to MadMcAl – registration leads to confiscation EVERY SINGLE TIME. To quote from a film (the first great train robbery starring Sean Connery and Donald Sutherland), the judge asked "Why do you rob banks?" "Because that's where the money is".

    Similarly if the Government has a list of everyone that owns guns with a register of the numbers, types and serial numbers, when they want to ban guns, where do you think they are going to go for the guns? You could look at Britain where exactly what you propose was introduced and the numbers f legally held firearms in circulation and the year on year increases in gun crime AFTER confiscation by the Government of all legally held pistols, semi automatic rifles. You could look at Australia where the gun ban had zero effect, you could look at places like Germany where the laws that were used to disarm the Jews are still in force – ask 6 million German Jews their opinion of sensible gun control. Looking at countries that have banned guns, the compliance rates from citizens is abysmally low and even in Germany, probably one of the most law abiding and compliant countries, the best estimate is that only 25% of guns were registered or handed in following the introduction of new laws.

    As pointed out thrre are over 20,000 laws on the books already modifying the right to keep and bear arms. One more is BOUND to work this time, eh? Do it again, only harder.

    If you trust your Government NOT to abuse power, I have three words for you – Fast and Furious. Look it up and find out what your Government did to Mexico. Arming a population in a foreign country to oppose the Government of that country is a declaration of war. These are the people you want to place yourself in their hands and trust to protect you when needed? May I point out that four deputies and an armed school guard sat outside the school while the shooting was ongoing and did NOTHING. And you want to trust these people?

    Phil B

  19. Hey Peter,

    What a load of nonsense, this proposed law will not solve the problem, they will come back and demand more until all people are disarmed, and once you depend on the government for security as bad as it is, they own you at that point, we will no longer be citizens, but chattel or serfs. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine, having freedom is the ability to say "yes" or "no". And any rights that the government approves, can be changed at the whims of whoever is in charge.

Leave a comment

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