It's even worse that most people I know are only now, with the supply tightening and prices rising, placing hard orders for the blasters and expendables. "Know where I could get an M4?" Me: "I used to. Probably gone now, for twice the price you could have had two weeks ago."
All I can say is "I've got mine." Now I have to put up with primers going for $.04 apiece.
Meanwhile, the NRA EVP holds a press conference, and some wank interrupts/heckles it. Nice attempt at a "national conversation." Instead, as Larry Correia explained so succinctly, it isn't a conversation, it's a lecture. Many think LaPierre rocked the presser---after looking over the release I'm not so enthusiastic. What about Fast and Furious? What about government attempts to increase violence, and cement its association with private firearms ownership and commerce, on our Southern border?
Meanwhile, and in a spirit of sincere national dialog rather than dismissing anti-gun writers out of hand, have a look at Cahan's post:
Repealing drug laws would do more -- much, much, much more -- than banning assault rifles (a measure I would agree is quite appropriate); barring carrying of concealed handguns in public (I'd vote for that in my state, if after hearing from people who felt differently from me, I could give an account of my position that fairly meets their points and doesn't trade on tacit hostility toward or mere incomprehension of whatever contribution owning a gun makes to their experience of a meaningful free life); closing the "gun show" loophole; extending waiting periods etc. . . . we are entitled to make policy on the best understanding we can form of how the world works so long as we are open to new evidence and aren't otherwise interfering with liberties that we ought, in a liberal society, to respect.The "if after hearing from people who felt differently from me" part is what thoughtful people call dialog. Or a conversation.