Remember these numbers: 120 Million Gun Owners and 600 Million guns.

One of the perennial tropes of the gun grabbers of the national Socialist left is that gun ownership is declining and seemingly after years and years of record gun sales the number of guns remains at 300 Million. Basic scientific logic tells us that positive flow into a control space will result in an accumulation, and yet we’re supposed to believe this isn’t the case. Recent analysis and polling has dispensed with these mythical notions.

Advertisements

120 Million Gun Owners

A recent poll by Wall Street Journal has only confirmed what we’ve known all along, that gun ownership is expanding at an incredible rate. While the folks who avail themselves armed protection have tried to disdain this for the ‘commoners’, the people have instead stocked up on firearms, ammunition and other supplies. Anyone who has compared the crowds at gun shows at present with only a few months ago can attest to this phenomena.

QF10 Do you, or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind?

                                             9/17 6/16+ 10/15 2/13
Yes, gun in household      48     45        41     42
No, no gun in household 50      50       54     54

The question was one of the last in the survey and asked ‘for statistical purposes only’, but it puts the lie to the gun grabber narrative of declining gun ownership. This falsehood made no sense given recent events and trends. People generally want to be able to protect themselves from Islamic Terrorism, and don’t trust the gun grabbers with their next incremental abrogation of everyone’s common sense civil rights. The people know that as is typical of the national Socialist Left, they are never honest about their true intentions and their ultimate goals. The gun grabbers will never openly admit that the obvious end game to their incessant attacks against the people’s common sense civil rights is to extinguish them in their entirety. Thus more and more people are following the advice of ‘getting your guns while you still can’. As well as having a few ‘extra’ for emergencies.
Keep in mind that many people won’t actually divulge their gun ownership to some random person chatting them up on the phone, so it’s most likely that that number is a bit low.

The Washington Free Beacon  ran the numbers from the United States Census Bureau and determined that there are (at least) 120 Million Gun Owners:

The United States Census Bureau estimates there are 249,454,440 adults currently living in America. If the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey is accurate, that equates to 119,738,131 Americans with a gun in their home.

The odds are that those numbers are a bit low given the reticence of people to divulge this information, but it’s a good starting point.

600 Million guns

The gun grabbers also like to play the game of disinformation with regard to the number of firearms in circulation. The number commonly bandied about is 300 Million or expressed in terms of one gun for every man, woman and child in the nation or some variation thereof. The problem is that this factoid has remained unchanged through many years of tribulation. Recently the weaponsman took a hard look at the issue and ran the numbers:

We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. You may wonder how we came to that number, so buckle up (and cringe, if you’re a math-phobe, although it never gets too theoretical): unlike most of the academics and reporters we linked above, we’re going to use publicly available data, and show our work.

What if we told you that one ATF computer system logged, by serial number, 252,000,000 unique firearms, and represented only those firearms manufactured, imported or sold by a relatively small number of the nation’s tens of thousands of Federal Firearms Licensees?

One other way of looking at this would be to compare this to the recent polling data. If 48% or 120 Million people now have a gun in the house, how can it be that the 300 Million factoid remains the same?

As in every other endeavour, the national Socialist Left has to lie about their agenda and intentions. Their attempts at reaching their ultimate goal of confiscation are not different. They want people to believe that people are agreeing with them on the issue of ‘gun safety’. That one’s best means of protection is one not having a means of protection. That the buying back of something they never owned is somehow decreasing the number of guns and gun owners.

These are clearly lies of the part of the national Socialist Left, but that has never stopped them before.

So whenever the subject guns crops up, keep these facts in mind.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Our Emphasis]

How can there be record gun sales without a change in the ‘300 Million guns’ factoid?

The past few years have seen the pithy little factoid ‘300 Million guns’ being bandied about with little regard to its accuracy. One cannot have a record number of anything flowing into the marketplace without a change in it’s quantity. This would be akin to a dozens fire hoses filling up a swimming pool without a change in the water level. The weaponsman ran the numbers and came up with better estimate of 412-660 Million.

There are certain factoids that tend to be tossed out without any thought to their logic or accuracy. When it comes to certain subject matter, many journalists would rather parrot these ‘facts’ instead of taking the time to research their source or even their accuracy. The ‘300 Million guns’ is one such factoid, but then again the gun grabbers have never been sticklers for accuracy, what with Terry McAuliffe (D.) making the claim that that the United States loses “93 million Americans a day to gun violence.”

The weaponsman took a hard look at the issue and ran the numbers:

We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. You may wonder how we came to that number, so buckle up (and cringe, if you’re a math-phobe, although it never gets too theoretical): unlike most of the academics and reporters we linked above, we’re going to use publicly available data, and show our work.

What if we told you that one ATF computer system logged, by serial number, 252,000,000 unique firearms, and represented only those firearms manufactured, imported or sold by a relatively small number of the nation’s tens of thousands of Federal Firearms Licensees?

Bearing arms looked this issue as well and has the best internet meme on the subject:

#Additional Questions Leftists Cannot Answer

Was the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ Socialist?

Was the ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’ Socialist?

Is the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ Socialist?

Is the ‘Partido Comunista de Cuba’ Communist?

 
Why do most shootings take place in “Gun Free” Zones?

Do you have the Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self Defense?

If Socialism is so wonderful, why does it have to be imposed at the point of a Gun?

Where does the Government obtain the authority to control your property with Intergalactic Background Checks?

How are new laws supposed to control people who by definition do not obey the law in the first place?

Should the Government have control over it’s own constraints?

Who actually denies the existence of Climate?

Do you have a ‘right’ to healthcare?

Debunking the myth that the national socialist left actually cares about people.

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” Milton Friedman

Recently the chairman of the DNC belched forth a profanity laced tirade that the Republicans “don’t give a s**t about people”:

This does engender the question with regard to the Left’s underlying motivations. Why is it always assumed that national socialist left really cares about people? A close examination of the results of their agenda in a few examples from recent history will prove it is they who are uncaring.

First of all, we will dispense with the socialist-left’s perennial excuse of having Good intentions for the repeated and abject failure of their agenda. At some point, one has to look at the cold hard reality of results instead of mere intent. Time and time again it can be shown that the Left’s socialist national agenda did nothing to help people, despite their repeated exhortations to the contrary. The fact that they have not changed to that which actually works shows that they are truly uncaring about the plight of the people under their rule.

Let us take a look at the results of the Left’s socialist national agenda this is ostensibly meant to help people and see if the truth of the situation bears this out.

Did LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ function as advertised?

Let’s look at the analysis from the Heritage Foundation: The War on Poverty After 50 Years

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

[Our emphasis]

The lens of history informs us this is not the case, despite the myriad promises put forth in the sale of the ‘War on Poverty’. Despite $22 trillion in wealth redistribution there hasn’t been any change for the nation’s poverty stricken.

Instead of actually caring and helping people, this ‘wealth transfer’ took opportunities for economic growth away that would have actually lifted the people out of poverty. But then again, had the people done this on their own they would no longer have any need for the nation’s socialist left.

More recently, how well did the people fair under Obamacare?

Again from the Heritage Foundation and the Daily signal:The Daily Signal Documents the Real-Life Consequences of Obamacare

Americans are struggling due to the failing health care law, and The Daily Signal’s stories are making their way into the national debate, in some cases because they have gone unreported or outright ignored by other media outlet.

Here is a sample of The Daily Signal’s unique and original reporting on the issue.

Meet 2 Hurting Americans Who Are Ready for Congress to Repeal Obamacare

In 6 Charts, the Rising Costs of Obamacare Rates

In 3 Years, His Insurance Premiums Double as Options Decline Under Obamacare

The 16th Obamacare Co-Op Has Collapsed. Here’s How Much Each Failed Co-Op Got in Taxpayer-Funded Loans.

Does that sampling even sound close to the national socialist left helping people with their much vaunted Obamacare?

Finally, there is the issue of Democratically run cities and People control.

Can anyone seriously argue that people have been helped in cities under decades of leftist rule? Can anyone make the case that depriving people of their civil right of self-defense has kept them safe? The nation’s socialist left can only offer an unending string of excuses for the abject failure of their policies in cities such as Detroit and Chicago.

From the Cato Institute on the causes of the destruction of Detroit: Government, Not Globalization, Destroyed Detroit

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm blames “free trade” for the decline of Detroit’s auto industry and thus the city itself.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggests that “for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.”

Another MSNBC contributor, Michael Eric Dyson, suggests that “racial animus” was the real culprit.

Then there is the issue that should more aptly labelled people control. It’s always one of those amusing exercises to ask one of our esteemed members of the nation’s socialist left where their ideas of people control have actually worked. Most often the response will either be statistical lies or excuses for it’s failure in cities such as Chicago.

The fact is the Left’s theories on how the world should work redound badly on the lowest rung of the economic strata. It is the poor and downtrodden of the inner cities with strict gun control that bear the brunt of the magical thinking of the national socialist left with regard to one’s right of self defense. And once again we can see that if they really cared about those people, they would reverse their disastrous policies. But they refuse to do so even with the evidence staring them in the face.

Again from the Cato Institute: The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

At some point down through the decades, it should have occurred to the leftists that their socialist national agenda does not work. The evidence has been in front of everyone for years, and yet the left ignores or even denies it’s existence at times. Therefore, one can only draw the inescapable conclusion that they are unconcerned about the horrific results of their agenda on the people they profess to care about.

Conversely, if they really were concerned about people they would take responsibility for the effects of what they have done in the past and make changes to avoid these results in the future. Thus far they have not admitted to the culpability of their actions of the past, nor have they taken any steps to alter their socialist national agenda into something that actually works.

Good intentions mean nothing in the face of misery brought on by those who purport to care about people. The facts are clear, the socialist national agenda of the left hurts the people they supposedly want to help. If they truly cared they would change their ideology, the fact that they do not is prime fascia evidence that they.. in the words of Tom Perez: “don’t give a s***t about people”

Why Intergalactic Background Checks* are really Intergalactic Governmental Controls

*AKA “Universal Background Checks” or “Comprehensive Background Checks”

Given recent terrorist attacks, those who wish to destroy liberty are once again using these serious crises as a pretext to impose even more control over our lives. They would like us to trade some more of our freedom for the promise of ‘a little temporary Safety’ as Benjamin Franklin termed it.

This false promise is predicated on the belief that criminals and terrorists will somehow have a change of heart and abide the law in obtaining their tools of terror. Those who cannot deal with the fact that our rights are inalienable would like us to believe that they have a magical solution to keep the scum of the earth from obtaining weapons. That once and for all, criminals and terrorists will become good citizens of the world just because new laws have been implemented that control the possessions of the innocent.

Of course, those of us living in reality know that these new denigration’s of our common sense civil rights will do nothing in this regard. These new constrictions on liberty will only serve to incrementally take away those rights and empower those unencumbered with the law.

The issue is whether the government should have total control over your property. In this we have a profound difference between Right and Left, between those who support individual rights and those who have a collective mentality. There is the insidious presumption by the progressive Left to inexorably impose tighter and tighter controls over our lives simply for the greater good.

So why should the government have control over certain kinds of property for emotionally arbitrary reasons? The nation’s Socialist left simply asserts this should be the case because they’ve decreed certain inanimate objects to be dangerous.

Their insidious presumption is of collective ownership, that certain (if not all) property should be under the purview of the government. Consider that gun confiscation is usually couched as a mandatory “Buy back”. To those imbued with the precepts of individual liberty and freedom this phraseology makes no sense.

How can the government “Buy back” something it never owned?

It’s also doesn’t help that the Left loves to play fast and loose with the language. When polled on the issue, it’s phrased with regard to the innocuous sounding term ‘Background checks’ in connection to gun buyers. Sometimes the words ‘universal’ or ‘comprehensive’ are tossed into the mix, or they will talk of ‘expanded’ background checks, or of the ‘closing loopholes’.

But what would be the results of a poll that asked if the government should have total control over everyone’s property? That is the underlying issue here that is deliberately being concealed.

Often times these expansions of government power will have accompanying penalties for the failure to report a lost firearm. Why should this be a problem if the stated concern is about criminals buying guns?

This would only be a priority if they wanted total property control. If the Gun grabbers [Gun reformers as they like to mischaracterize themselves] primary concerns were as stated, then their control fetish should not exist.

It’s always a fun exercise to ask Leftists questions that they cannot honestly answer.

One of these is where the government obtains the authority to control everyone’s property with Intergalactic Background Checks.

This will flummox them because they won’t be able to cite the Constitutional justification and it sets out in stark relief their collectivist viewpoint. Their mindset is that government control of property is entirely justified without question. But they can’t exactly articulate this rationale without giving up the game on their world view, so they avoid the issue and gloss it over with emotionally laden talking points.

There is no Constitutional justification for Intergalactic Background Checks but that has never stopped those who want to assert complete control over the individual. In the case of a Federal Firearms License the argument is that the long abused ‘Commerce clause’ provides the answer, just as it has for just about every other government overreach.

Can one argue with a straight face that the founding fathers would have wanted the government to have this level of control over the people’s property? How is loaning a 12 gauge to a friend “Commerce.. among the several States”?

The larger philosophical point here is that that liberty depends on property rights, that if they control a person’s property, they control them. Their liberty is forfeit if someone has overarching control such that they can take that property at any time or decree what someone can do with said property. Ownership means that you don’t need someone else’s permission to buy, sell or even possess something.

Control is synonymous with ownership, governmental control means government ownership. It means you are merely the temporary possessor of property under government control. And this doesn’t even begin to touch the issue of taxation or the fact that these controls will lead to the Left’s ultimate goal of confiscation.

Where the left to attain their nirvana of controlling your property, they would move on to control other types of property for the greater good as well as making it more odious to defend yourself. They would not be able to resist their primal urge to tax your possessions and heap on all manner of red tape to make it as difficult and embarrassing to exercise your Constitutional rights.

History teaches us that these measures are never the last word, that there are always additional moves the Left will make based on their latest overreach. If you give the government new unprecedented powers over one aspect of your life, it won’t be long before they will want to take full advantage of the situation and expand that power everywhere else.