Gun magazine editor forced to resign after running pro-reform column


No discourse! Kill the heretics!

Things are going to change one day in this country for these people as a result of a some heinous event in the future. The fact that this event will need to happen before any kind of change can even be discussed rationally makes me sad. The fact that previous events have made no difference in either policy or discourse makes me sad. Handguns are designed to shoot people. That’s their job. They are good at their job. They don’t get used for hunting.

Keep all the non-automatic long guns you want, I’m fine with those, but the number of handguns has got to go down.


So if you don’t hew exactly to the party line, you’re not only wrong, but stupid, ugly, and evil besides?

Sounds more like Scientology than a reason based advocacy group.

Full disclosure: I consider myself to be a supporter of 2nd amendment rights.


Until the antis are offering up repealing the NFA and Hughes amendment, they have nothing to offer and any claim about not killing the second amendment by small cut after small cut is a load of horseshit.

If they want to fucking talk, they need to be willing to actually understand what the hell they are talking about. They also need to have something to offer.

You want to see what ignorance of the antis and a willingness to talk leads to? It leads to states like CA and NY where it is far from a right and increasingly a joke.

And on a related note, how do you tell if some one just hates voter IDs because they believe it helps Republicans and would favor them if it helped Democrats? Ask how they feel about the FOID. If they say yes to the FOID, they would be pro-voter ID if it helped Democrats.

EDIT: minor clarification


Reminds me of about ten years ago when Smith & Wesson decided to include safety locks with every sale. They were beating proposed laws to the punch, but they were savaged for it by the psychotic-industrial-shitbird complex of their competitors combined with professional gadflies and lobbyists.

You’d think there’s be a point when these people catch a glimpse of themselves in a mirror some cold morning and think “my god, what have I become?”


Jim Bequette issues apology, saying: ‘I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights … I was wrong’

I guess to some people, there’s no such thing a “healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights”.


“The People of the Gun”?!

Jesus Christ on a cracker.


Nah. This is more along the lines of a LGBT publication firing a editor for publishing something anti-gay marriage and saying some gay bashing is okay.

Negotiations require a two way street and honesty. The antis have consistently shown a lack of willingness to give any thing and you can find more than a few comments where on one hand they are saying the right needs done away with and on the other saying it is okay within limits.


Shun the nonbeliever, Shunnnnnnnn-nh


Conversation and exchange is a give-and-take. When “gun control” is on the agenda, it only moves one way, towards citizen disarmament. Please show me ONE initiative where those of us who support RTKBA have gotten something. It’s ALWAYS taking away part of our rights.

Back before the NFA in 1934, you could order a Thompson Machine Gun, and have it sent to you Parcel Post. You could buy any full-auto weapon in most hardware stores. I don’t seem to recall any news of massacres or school shootings.

This is a CULTURAL problem. not a legal one. As an additional data point, you might want to ask why crime goes down as legal ownership goes up, and especially where Concealed Carry is legal. . .


Yeah. That is not happening. Milling machines are getting cheaper and home barrel rifling is slowly becoming a reality. Also crappy zip guns are already easy to make.

Within the next decade or so, the concept of limiting access to small arms will be a complete joke.

On top of that, you are talking about limiting access to defensive weaponry with out any plans to actually make people safer.

Want to make people safer, you can do it via improving education, increased job opportunities, and increased minimum wage among others.


That would be the United States prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934. . .

1 Like

Maybe that’s just the title of the next Jean Auel book, about tribe of neanderthals secretly living in 21st century Washington D.C., in a sacred sheltered valley called “K Street”.


Oh PLEASE get off that slippery slope, before you hurt yourself and your credibility any further.

The vast conspiracy you so feverishly imagine really only consists of people who wish America’s murder rate wasn’t so goddamn high. And of people who fear that they or someone they know might be next.


Part cultural problem, but largely crime is very notably a economic one.

1 Like

Given that after every previous heinous event the anti-gun safety fanatics just hardened their resolve to loosen gun laws further, I have my doubts. When you are married an ideology, you get divorced from reality.


Oy, with the idiot gun nuts. I never thought they could become more unhinged, but I was wrong.
Australia got it right, but unfortunately, it will never happen here…


Just a technicality, I guess, but there are plenty of people who hunt with handguns.

I do understand your point though.

In response to the article:
I think it was silly of Guns & Ammo to force the fellow to resign. If they found his column so offensive, they could have easily printed a retraction or something. It makes me wonder whether this was part of a string of issues that they had with the editor.


Slippery slope? Tell that to CA and NY.

So basically your saying you would feel better if people were killed via knifes?

Regardless if you want to reduce the number of violent crimes, you need to begin looking at economic issues that actually lead to it.

Gun control is just crap to yell about and make it appear one is doing something because it is easy to where as solving the economic issues behind crime is hard.


False Trail Alert!

No, I’d be happy if murderous people had less guns available; then if they did use knives, they’d kill less people.

Sure, but they’re not mutually exclusive. In the meantime, if those driven to crime and murder have less access to guns, they’ll kill less people. Simple logic that would be easy to understand if one weren’t wearing ideological blinders.