Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.
For all the gun myths I’ve exposed so far, none have addressed criminality, have you noticed?
There isn’t much attention to actual threats. They have all addressed baseless fears on the part of the anti-gunners making the proposals.
The myths spread from politicians who work that crowd, to frenzied grassroots people living in imagined terror, to tagalongs and the “news” media.
Resistance to arming pilots doesn’t help stop crime, it helps facilitate crime. Impeding the issuance of carry permits, limiting where permitees can go, this is unrelated to addressing criminals, it just forestalls the public. Don’t get me started on needing permits at all, I’m a Constitutional Carry guy—it’s working now in eight states, with 23 more champing at the bit. Plans that go after criminals are not part of the list.
Progressive gun proposals are not just myths, they are irrational psychologically reversed projections of their fears, virtually immune to reason. Look over the myth list so far, linked at the end. The flimsiest of arguments might be made that some of these actually do address criminals in some fashion—but not deeply, and in flawed ways. The ideas and proposals attack the public. This is what liberals and progressives really fear—you.
To the extent liberals control some of the government: “The history of liberty is the history of the limitations placed on the government… Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” –Woodrow Wilson
The Too-Much-Ammo Myth
When I get to the part that deals with criminals you let me know.
Liberals and their kind what to stop people from having enough ammunition (or basically any). We see more ammo as a safety net, they see it as a scourge, danger, a mindset we’re not likely to change, since their reaction is not based on reason, it is hoplophobic, and needs medical attention, not debate.
They attack personal ammo supplies as private arsenals, as if that’s something bad. No one needs an arsenal, they’ll tell you. If you have that much ammo you need an arsenal license, which they have to issue, and it costs a lot, if issued at all. Anything more than 100 shells is an arsenal, and obviously more than any person needs at one time.
The whole concept is such a display of ignorance, the ignorance itself is of mythical proportions. Hold that plan up to the light of liberty and it darkens the room.
Americans who are into firearms, scores of millions of people, typically own more than one gun, everyone knows that. Gunless people are stunned by this simple fact, but go figure—if all you have is one rifle, one shotgun and one sidearm, that’s three right there. A hundred rounds for each and you need to set aside space for your stash. If you keep some cheap practice ammo for each plus some quality stuff for serious sport or home defense, you’re already at 600 rounds and we haven’t started. Leftists want a special tax and regulations for this constitutionally protected private property, seriously?
A carry gun is different from the one in your nightstand, a .22 for target practice and a serious caliber, each spouse might have different choices, if you burn through 100 rounds at practice then owning 200 is not unreasonable—you can easily get this count well into the thousands before you consider stockpiling for emergencies. It’s not an arsenal, it’s a larder. A candidate for office once told me it’s good practice to keep extra in case your neighbors need some.
It is only to uneducated and fearful, blindly gun-hating people that thousands of rounds of ammo sounds terrifyingly dangerous. A simple brick pack of .22s—which used to go on sale for ten bucks before the early Obama scares doubled and tripled prices—is 500 rounds. It was easy to pick up a few bricks on sale and keep them around, use them as gifts, find a place to put them with all the other ammo that admittedly put weight stress on the floor some apartment dwellers had legit worries about.
The ignorant fears shine in the strangest places. I saw Rachel Maddow grimace on her marginal cable station when she heard a city council member had used a shell as a gavel to call for order. She nearly plotzed, fearing the shell might “go off” from tapping on the table, so tiny was her understanding of how these horrible little things work. Her relief was palpable when she learned it was a spent casing the fellow used. You could almost hear her few viewers breathe a sigh of relief with her. A better argument for abandoning gun-education censorship in the unionized government school system could hardly be invented.
We’re still not up to where the real trouble starts—and we haven’t gotten to where criminals are involved, have we? (Criminals can’t have any ammo under all current law.) The people pushing the arsenals-are-dangerous myth—because they’re afraid of you (not arsenals)—they are, and use, “government” to implement their will.
To the degree government wants to consider taking your powder and ball, under any pretext, it is the identical problem that started this nation’s revolution. The government that doesn’t trust you with your guns, and wants to take them, all at once or incrementally, that is what’s ripe for removal.
If a law gets passed that says you can’t have the ammo you have, or as much as you deem necessary, while the government can have all it desires, well friend, the definition of tyranny is then met and all bets are off. This isn’t a myth. This is a bright red line.
###
More articles in this series:
- Gun Myths Just Keep Coming
- America’s Real Gun Problem — The Progressive’s Gun Myths
- The Loophole Australia and Junk-Gun Myths
- The Guns-Are-Dangerous Myth
- The Police-Would-Never-Confiscate-Guns Myth
###
Alan Korwin’s website features plain-English books on state and federal gun laws for the public, and more common sense like you just read. He invites you to write to him or see his work, at GunLaws.com, where you can get his 14 books, like After You Shoot, and DVDs that help keep you safe.
Alan Korwin, Publisher, Bloomfield Press, “We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440, Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone, 602-494-0679 Fax, 1-800-707-4020 Orders
https://www.gunlaws.com, [email protected]
Get our full-color catalog free, right now–
https://www.gunlaws.com/pdf/BPCatalog2013.pdf
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog by mail
“Don’t be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom.”
Actually, Mr Korwin, your premise may be flawed. You operate under the assumption that leftists are telling you the truth. We know the facts support as much unrestricted gun ownership as possible, IF you are sincere in wanting to reduce crime. This is indisputable. So why do leftists oppose gun ownership, despite all the facts to the contrary?
As I see it, there are only two possibilities. The first is that they live in a state of either ignorance or willful stupidity, where they refuse to educate themselves, and when educated by accident, refuse to believe empirical evidence.
The second is that they are being flagrantly deceitful in terms of their intentions. Like their more (temporarily) successful socialist brethren (Nazis and Communists), US leftists want undisputed domination of their opinions, agendas, beliefs and values. We have evidence of this in their propagation of “hate speech” codes, broad-brush (and unsubstantiated) accusations of “racism,” shouting down of those with whom they disagree, calls to criminalize divergent opinions (religion, belief that global warming may not be anthropogenic, etc.), laws opposing religious liberty, and numerous other actions. If you wanted to take socialism all the way left very quickly (as opposed to slowly, like they are doing now) in America, you would need to do what the National Socialists (Nazis) and Global Socialists (Communists) did, and first disarm the public. The average man with an arsenal and several cases of ammunition is not a threat to the local liquor store or gas station or bank. He is, however, a threat to a tyrannical government. That fact that leftist leadership are not actually afraid of guns if proven by the fact that many of them use guns themselves, are protected by guns, and have no problem employing men armed with guns to enforce their will. Leftists are not actually opposed to guns or ammunition. They are only opposed to people with whom they disagree owning guns.
So the question is, are leftists evil, or are they stupid? I would argue that the left-wing leadership in this country is evil in their intent, while the rank-and-file are their “useful idiots.”
Good, solid article, totally agree, one small complaint. “The unionized government school system” is painting with a pretty broad brush. I know several school teachers who are very pro-gun, including my father, who counts his collection by the hundreds. Unions are not somehow inherently anti-gun. MOST union members and government workers I know are gun owners. You shouldn’t have to check every box on the agenda of the right wing of the Republican party to be for gun rights. I’m on the left on a lot of other issues, but 100% with the NRA on guns.
” I’m on the left on a lot of other issues, but 100% with the NRA on guns.”
I follow the progress of anti- and pro-gun legislation around the country. Almost every dim politician at every level votes against the 2nd Amendment. All of the other issues are secondary, because if the dims ever again reach the power that the republicans now have, they will come after YOUR guns.
As a New York State gun owner, my gun rights are already heavily restricted. I don’t want more gun control legislation, and in fact, I wish what we have were removed. However, I realize that we are going to lose some of these battles in the state legislatures, the courts and Congress. So I have a unique take on fighting this stuff…..
Every time this stuff goes up for debate, we hear the mantra that gun owners have to “compromise”. The “compromise” is always how much infringement gun owners will take. And the discussion never detours from that. Gun owners are constantly on their back heels in DEFENSIVE MODE, arguing to preserve their rights. I consider a “compromise” to be where BOTH parties get SOMETHING. We need to get on the OFFENSIVE, and demand our part of the deal. For instance… When people ask for “univeral background checks”, why not demand univerally accepted, nation wide carry in return? Are the gun banners demanding restrictions on the amount of ammo we can buy each month? Maybe we should demand in return, the ammunition that the government destroys or gives to the IRS or Social Security Administration? Are they trying to add more guns to the banned list? Maybe we should be demanding the release of Garands and other military surplus that Obama has blocked? Maybe we should demand the removal of restrictions and taxes on suppressors, so we can save our hearing? How about a reduction of the taxes on guns? How about a streamlining of the paperwork required to transfer or transport guns? How about demanding an iron clad FREEZE on all FURTHER gun legislation? Or a SET IN STONE, CAN’T EVER BE CHANGED definition of what an “assault weapon” is?
Again, I’m not saying I want any more gun control. We already have too much. I’m just saying that instead of fighting with people over how many rights we will give up, we should refocus the discussion on what they are going to give us in return.
Rather than just throw up your opposition, why not
Hasn’t the Government already crossed the line. I mean they can have as many fully automatic rifles as they desire, but have made it virtually impossible for me as an average American to own one. So to suggest that we will do something about it this time is doubtful. It seams that they have license to whatever they want. If we keep moving the line back the resistance will be fighting them with sticks and slingshots.
The Henny-pennies hear that the Aurora shooter had 5 or 6 thousand rounds of ammunition (most of it at home – he may have had fantasies of shooting up a place with all of it until he realized how much it all weighed) and then presumes that’s an indication of evil intent. They are simply ignorant of the fact that there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Americans, some of them their “good neighbors” who have thousands of rounds of ammo in their homes. If they became aware of how much ammunition might be “stockpiled” in their own neighborhoods, their initial reaction would be one of shock and fright. After that wears off, they would eventually stop thinking about it entirely – it would become a non-issue. It is only an issue for many because they have been trained to equate “ammo stockpile” with “murderous intent,” when it just ain’t so.
If that ever managed to be passed- ExPostFacto is unConstitutional so what you own is still legal.
Of course they’d have to prove what anyone had prior or not- tho this nation must be restored prior to such nonsense or it has gone to far with to much silence for to long= don’t be silent waiting for sanity from the commie Far-Left ~!
Regarding the constitutionality of ex post facto, someone should pass that along to California, where they recently outlawed firearms which were previously legal to own. Not to mention implementation of ammunition limits. I’m very glad that I no longer live in the Peoples Republic of California. They are rapidly evolving into a tyranny.
The willingly psychological resistance to firearms can be overcome only when they die of natural causes or an accident. This phobia is central to their world view, and all around them is subject to measure by it. The unreasonableness of their position is merely strengthened by reasonable remarks and logic – the subconscious interprets such as an assailing of the bedrock of their mental status, and will admit none whatsoever. If the day comes they need to save a loved one’s life by a firearms they don’t have, the guilt may well cause a mental breakdown requiring hospitalization. If it doesn’t, then they are nearer sociopathy than reality, and quite capable of a violent reactional activity. Trying to reason with them is like beating your head on a concrete post – interesting to see the blood fly, but to no avail.
Dilbert comics author Scott Adams wrote a blog on gun control at http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa
His key point is democrats come off as telling republicans “put down your gun so I can shoot you.”
Very tongue in cheek but with an element of truth.
Excellent. I only wish the feeble minded gun hating liberals would actually read an article like this and truly TRY to comprehend it. God help us if Killary wins.
And if you reload for friends as well as yourself, you need several 8 lb. jugs of various powders, 1,000s of bullets, cases and primers, And you need to buy in bulk to get a good price and defray the extra government imposed tax on shipping that stuff that no one else has to pay. 4 competition guns, and you’re looking at 20,000 primers of various types as no big deal.
And those other myths…that all those rounds will “cook off” in a fire…kill all the firemen that respond…explode and blow your house up….endanger the entire neighborhood…etc etc etc
Go to Costco and buy 100 lbs of sugar-pops and you’re a “smart shopper”. Take advantage of case-price and free shipping on ammo and you’re a “gun nut with an arsenal”.
Once all the gins are taken the people will lose any power they had and only the government will have power. Your vote will have no power to bring change as only the government will have the power. This is what the liberals want. They would like the government to make all the decisions for you. Only a armed people are truly free and able to bring change.
I think the whole liberal, gun hating ignorance is now taught in schools, and all boils down to: Do you understand the 2nd Amendment and its purpose, or not? The liberals seem to think that 2A’s whole purpose was to allow American frontiersmen the right to shoot a turkey for their dinner, period. They no longer have any sense of its real meaning, or the ramifications thereof. We are headed toward a civil war over this, I assure you.
Speaking of addressing, “criminality,” this from the Executive Director’s Message, of the Illinois State Rifle Association, yesterday:
“…The liberal media relishes in telling everyone how easy it is to buy an AR15. Just to prove the point, Chicago Sun Times reporter Neil Steinberg set off to purchase an AR from a suburban gun store. Everything was going well until his background check showed he had a history of domestic abuse and alcoholism, and he was denied. I suppose the most embarrassing part was that the incident was covered on national news. Not only did the system work, it also gives us a lot of background information should any of us accidentally read one of Steinberg’s columns….” It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad.
Anyone who doesn’t have a gun should be forced to pay a fee for those that do have guns ! That fee could be used to lower the price of guns and ammo for the good armed citizens. Remember the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Anyone who doesn’t have a gun should be forced to pay a fee for those that do have guns ! That fee could be used to lower the price of guns and ammo for the good armed citizens. Remember the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Alan, Great article. I have always turned the ‘Need’ argument back on the other person. Why do they ‘Need’ their BMW instead of a bus? ‘Why do they Need’ their house when an apartment will do? ‘Why do they ‘Need” their Rolex when a Timex watch will do? “Why do they ‘Need” that smart phone when a simple flip phone will do? The ‘Need” argument can always be turned back on the perpetrator. All we really need is food water, clothing and shelter. All else is preference and want.
Hey AL…how about leaving us folks alone who have busted our chops and made a couple of bucks, we support ourselves, our families, and 47% (probably more) of the population. YES, I do NEED my BMW’s, My Rolex watches, my smart phones, my beautiful homes, and MY GUNS, plus the ALL the ammo I own. Please don’t try to justify to me what my needs are. I’ll decide that….and you, YOU can decide what you want for yourself….by yourself. It’s not my business to determine what YOU NEED! Nor, is it your business to even suppose what you think what I NEED!
You clearly missed the point of his comment which was want vs. need. He was referring to the gun control crowd who use the, “need” argument to justify their claims about ownership of certain styles of firearm, quantity of firearms owned, quantity of ammunition, etc.
One more time, perception of need as justification for restricting the liberties of law abiding citizens was his entire point.
Dude! Calm down! He was making a rebuttal to those that say we don’t NEED guns. I have several AND other nice stuff. I use the same analogy to non believers all the time. Why do they NEED power windows (I have them), why do they NEED a big house (me too). Quit being a wuss.
Need vs want:
Need:air…water…food
Want:everything else
Yes…you …and many others…worked for your money. Spend it any way you like.
The point is/was that when the gun-grabbers say you don’t need semi-autos…or magazines..or certain calibers…that the proper response is that there is no need for huge houses…or yachts…or luxury whatever…yet those same people have some or ALL of those items…why??? Because they can…and WANT them…not NEED them.
Jim…you just sound like a rich snob …that just happens to support the 2nd.
RIGHT ON!!
The US needs to pass legislation to prohibit the taxation of firearms and ammunition. That would be my gun control policy.
The point is it\’s not about ammo and it\’s not about guns. It\’s about controlling us peasants.
The point is it’s not about ammo and it’s not about guns. It’s about controlling us peasants.
All citizens who enforce their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms understand Mr. Korwin’s writings. Very few of these people have the literary power to present the items known as firearms for what they really are in our society, namely symbols of liberty. And this is what the anti-gun liberals really fear. Liberals understand that these symbols of liberty can become tools of liberty if a government become tyrannical in nature.
Of course, none of this involves me personally. I don’t have dozens of weapons suitable for resisting government abuse, or enough ammunition to fight the second battle of Normandy. Consequently, I didn’t need to secure such “evil” instruments and spare ammunition in a manner that is both weather proof, and hidden even from metal detectors. Dear readers, you believe me, don’t you?
I hear you. I lost all mine in a tragic boating accident.
Scotty you may not believe this but the same thing happened to me a few years back.
and I have a bunch of friends that have suffered the same misfortune, It’s just crazy.
I guess the moral of the story is we shouldn’t take our gun collection out boating with us. lol
Good Day my friend.
Well said.
Wonderful info thanks so much.
This article had me shaking my head, the things non-gun people don’t know about guns could fill a book.
I don’t consider my gun to complete unless I have at least a thousand rounds for it, it’s cheaper to buy in bulk anyway. Thank goodness for Ammoseek.com!
Way to go Alan!!!! Bravo
Yet another great article from Mr. Korwin. Love reading your stuff, Sir. Wish more people would read it. Please write more!!