We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, December 19. 2012
The cacophany from the gun nuts is getting intense these days, and very little of it makes logical sense to me. I spoke with a colleague gun nut this week who told me that she'd be afraid even to touch a gun. I promised to take her to the range to get over this phobia. Hoplophobia. Probably a mental illness. A firearm is just a pipe and a hammer.
People talk about "dangerous semi-automatic" firearms. What? A cowboy six-shooter is semi-automatic, and so are most duck-hunting shotguns. Automatic firearms are illegal for civilians in the US. I don't think they know what they are talking about. (My error - were illegal but are not now. Missed that change. Machine guns are illegal.)
Guns are dangerous? Gee wiz. Who knew? I thought large bottles of Coke and table salt and globalistical warmening were dangerous.
Now, I will not get hysterical about this topic because I know that nobody is going to take away my guns or my (heavily-vetted) concealed-carry permit. It's politically impossible. Just one point: How come the gun nuts hate ordinary people having guns - any guns - while it seems fine for "important Liberal people" - like Sen Feinstein, who carries or used to, or Harry Reid, who has carried most of his life, or Mayor Bloomberg, surrounded by armed bodyguards despite his horror of guns, or a President surrounded by a small army of weaponry, or Oprah with her armed bodyguards, etc etc.?
This is America. We're all equal. I'm important too. All of my kids can handle firearms. Basic life skill, same as swimming and tennis and trigonometry and land navigation.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The idea that they themselves are afraid what they might do if they had the power of a gun in their hands actually comes up a fair bit. They are projecting that those scarey thought are going through the minds of people who own guns. They haven't figured out that the newness is part of the fear.
Or, they really are psycho-killers just beneath the surface. Both explanations fit the facts.
I enjoyed teaching my nieces and nephews to shoot guns. The young ones (12 and under) would shoot the .22rifle and the 9mm handgun. The older ones would get to shoot the .40 sw and the HK 93 and the lever action .30. None are afraid of guns...but they can sure bust your budget with the, "please, just one more time" routine.
I would appreciate some feedback on this.
from Canuckistan, I presume.
you want feedback? let me oblige you.
this won't work in the USA.
g) Is able to provide a legitimate reason for owning a firearm.
under our system of constitutional law, I don't need any reason to own a gun. you grabbers need damn good reasons to take mine or deny me the right to purchase anything from a pea shooter to a machine gun.
h) Gun dealers would be required to sight and record the purchasers permit to own a firearm. This permit would show that 1) The purchasers date of birth; 2) Medical clearance; 3) Criminal background clearance; 4) Safety course certification; 5) Peace officer interview clearance.
this is how our demoncraptic party denied black voters the right to vote at one time. by making exercise of the right so onerous and and even dependent on the individual discretion -- which is what a "peace officer interview clearance" is -- that the right itself is buried. the USSC trashed those restrictive practices long ago.
but you're very clever. and while that might work in canada, it won't here.
Automatic weapons aren't illegal for civilians in the US. Not at all. You locate one for sale, pay a transfer tax, undergo an upgraded background check, find a Class III dealer to do the transfer, and you can own one.
It's not easy, it's not cheap, but it's not illegal.
I know where to go to get the forms and pay the tax, but where do I go to order the new automatic weapon? All the gunshops tell me that there aren't any new ones since they were made illegal in 1986... /sarc
The poster said automatic weapons were illegal. They're not. They have not been manufactured for civilian sale since 1986, but they are not illegal. Look on Gunbroker's Class III section and you'll see plenty.
Yes. Be more careful Bird Dog, or you demonstrate in living Colorado the point you're trying to make about the ignorant mainstream media.
That should read "living color" Damn you Kindle Fire!
Most of the talking heads on TV don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic guns, or they are being deliberately disingenuous. They use the term "clip" and "magazine" interchangeably as if they are the same thing. The ignorance is appalling. Why don't they advocate banning cars to prevent drunk driving?
Or ban large-capacity spoons to prevent obesity...We're thinking of you, Rosie O'Donnell!
Corrected my error.
I don't shoot autos, so I am indeed out of touch. I'd enjoy trying them out though, just for fun on the range.
Shouldn't the young lass in the pic be leaning into the gun?
its common in my trap league and in ATA shoots to hear semi-automatics referred to as "autos", which is shorthand for "autoloader". most trap guns are singles, unsingles or over/unders (there is now a semi-auto break action on the market). I don't know what skeeters use, I think mostly dresses and heels.
I prefer a SxS in the field although the Browning A5 (as in "Auto 5") has a classic look.
second amendment advocates aren't always particularly PR savvy, fortunately, the grabbers don't take advantage of postings in the childish home-defense/tricked out shotgun toy forums to make a case in congress for further restrictions. those gobmint fear mongers make gun owners look like a gang of wannabe rambeaux.
Clarification: Since 1986, it has been illegal to manufacture in the US or to import automatic weapons. Since 1934, ownership of same has required intrusive background check along with payment of what was then a confiscatory tax.
What that leaves us with is a limited number of automatic weapons, owned by civilians before 1986, that can still be owned by civilians if those civilians jump through the hoops and pay the tax and if it is allowed by their state and local laws. Inflation has made the tax much less of a burden than it was originally, but the fact that the supply is so limited keeps the purchase price very high.
So none of these have ever been used in crime, they are merely toys for rich people.
In 1934 the thinking was that a federal weapons ban was obviously unconstitutional, but they could be taxed as the output of interstate commerce. The level of the tax was set so high to make a de-facto ban, and that accomplished the goal intended.
It is kind of like light bulbs now. The federal government insists there is no ban on 100w incandescent A-type bulbs. Anyone who wants can make and sell them, as long as they meet a minimum efficacy target that is higher than what can be achieved in practice.
the 1934 law (National Firearms Act) wasn't a ban on firearms, it was intended to be, and effectively was, a ban on the easy availability of automatic rifles, machine guns, machine rifles, short barreled shotguns. the basis of authority for the act was the power to tax, the purpose (stated, I believe, in the legislative intent) was to restrict their use by criminal gangs; e.g., the BAR was a favored weapon of Clyde Barrow. so there's a policy decision here, weighing the individual right to bear arms against public purposes (revenue and public safety).
by analogy to the first amendment, it is very difficult for the government to regulate speech content, but not impossible. it is easier to regulate the time, place and manner of speech, but (and this applies to the second amendment as well) in neither case can the government do so in a way that eradicates the constitutional right.
I'm with wirraway a 100%.
g) Is able to provide a legitimate reason for owning a firearm.
I also thought that was one of the many stupid items in this persons list of gun control ideas.
When it comes to limits on large magazines I like the lines from the new Django Movie:
It's all over, Django. I counted six shots.
Yeah, six shots..... two guns.
g) ... provide a legitimate reason for owning a firearm.
One might respond to this idiocy with:
- provide a legitimate reason for exercising religious freedom, speaking freely, publishing, peacefully assembling in groups as large or small as we please, associating with whom we please, petitioning the government, refusing to house soldiers upon government demand, being safe from search and seizure without due process, trial by impartial jury, legal defense if charged with a crime, being retried for a crime we've been found not-guilty of, posting bail if arrested...
The sole reason any of us need for any of that, and for owning firearms, is that we are free to exercise our enumerated rights. And those not enumerated. But we're not talking about any of those here.
What we are witnessing here are a number of things at play among the gun nuts. First and foremost are the authoritarians who want to control everyone and disallow any behavior they disapprove of. These are the people who deliberately refuse to carefully identify the problem, refuse to use precise and careful language when discussing the problems, and run strawmen factories to issue demands and obfuscate as much as possible.
These people don't care about saving children from slaughter. They'd sacrifice them by the millions if it suited their purposes. Thet are control freaks rather than gun freaks but control would be much easier if they could grab all the guns. Their behavior is identical for everything they want to control, for example, "healthcare", right to work, "women's rights/issues", "climate change", immigration, and on and on.
Then we are dealing with ignorant people who know less than nothing about guns. They have no exposure let alone experience, with things that go boom and bang. They are terrified of guns because "guns kill people". Look at a gun cross-eyed, or don't look at it at all and it will kill you or someone else. Useful idiots (for the control freaks anyway).
And last, but not least, and overlapping the others, are the people addicted to tokenism. They bring us gun-free zones, drug-free zones, and all manor of save the whales and tribbles and other furry critters legislation. When all is said and done they are, of course, just another variant of useful idiot for the control freaks.
Oh, and then there are some who are just plain racist. They don't want dark skinned people to have guns but to hide their racism they must demand that nobody have guns.