Ammo For Sale

« « Dumb reactions to the shooting | Home | The market speaks » »

The national conversation on guns

Some openers. This conversation and compromise is basically saying you guys will give up something, we’re just going debate how much.


We had that conversation and you lost.

A better opener would be to repeal all gun laws then start over. Any takers?

6 Responses to “The national conversation on guns”

  1. Huck Says:

    “A better opener would be to repeal all gun laws then start over. Any takers?”

    I’m in.

  2. Joe Huffman Says:

    You guys are too timid for my tastes.

    My conversation openers will go live at 5:10 PST.

  3. The Freeholder Says:

    I’m being a really cranky old guy on this subject. We don’t give up a freaking inch and we use this opportunity to mount an offensive to get schools, malls, theaters and all the rest opened to concealed carry holders. This has gotten beyond stupid. People are dying because idiots absolutely won’t believe facts. Time to move the idiots out of the way and put the adults in charge.

  4. Kristophr Says:

    The militia act of 1792 needs to be enforced. itís still on the books. It has not been repealed.

    People that cannot make it to militia training on a monthly basis with a proper load out should be fined. The fine back then was 5 silver dollars. About $150 today. A monthly fine of $150 for failing to show up with your M-16 and load out sounds about right.

    Not having your gear contributes to unarmed zones, where nutters kill schoolchildren.

  5. mikee Says:

    I advocate the Israeli method of arming teachers. It stopped the PLO.

    Mentioning both those things seems to make the other side either very quiet or frothingly upset. Either result works for me.

  6. Geodkyt Says:


    That’s far too narrow a reading of the Militia Act of 1792.

    In terms of firearms, it only required that militia men muster with a weapon suitable for military service, capable of chambering and firing teh standard US service cartridge.

    So, anything that is militaryily suitable and is chambered and rifled to accurately use the 5.56x45mm M855 ball round should be a GO. No requirement that it be an M4 or M16.

    Of course, given teh nature and logistic realities of modern magazine fed rifles, you could make a case that they could require that it reliably accept the STANAG 4179 magazine. But that means you could still use a variety of non-AR15 arms, including the SCAR-L, FNC, HK G41 & G36, etc.

    Likewise, we could revert to the rules many (if not most) states had, even predating the Revolution, whereby an indigent militiaman could often buy a suitable weapon from the government at cost, on credit. It would probably be a milsurp M4 or M16 in that case. . . but only because Uncle Same can sell those cheaper than buying new guns for poor militiamen.