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
Thursday, December 20. 2012
Judge Bork on Martinis
Urban Renewal, Corporate-Style - Zappos.com founder tries to resurrect downtown Las Vegas.
Today's history lesson: The Children of Hannibal
This Is Not a Profile of Nassim Taleb
Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?
It’s Time for Lawyers to Loosen Their Grip on the American Economy
What America's trial lawyers want from Santa
The truth about the AR-15 (h/t Insty)
10 myths about the Connecticut shootings - The horrific Sandy Hook massacre has prompted a wave of ill-informed comment about backward Americans.
Our reader Richard's thoughts about gun regulation
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
from the article ...
g) Is able to provide a legitimate reason for owning a firearm.
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; ... 5) Peace officer interview clearance.
I'm going to repeat myself from the other thread, because this is worth repeating. these concepts are perniciously gun grabbistic at their core because their purpose is to extinguish a constitutional right by over-regulation and allowing unfettered government discretion --"peace officer interview", "legitimate reason for owning" and the amorphous "clearance" verbiage -- as to who and why one can exercise a constitutional right. anyone can see how this works in the world of concealed carry permits, a debatable issue of second amendment law. there are cops who are glad to issue them and there are cops who will never issue them. apply this kind of practice to the 2A itself and you have a grabbers k00kgasm of confiscation or denial.
this is how our demoncraptic party denied black voters the right to vote at one time, with residency, property, literacy, income requirements which were intended to be impediments to voting. the USSC trashed those restrictive practices long ago and I think would disapprove a grabbing scheme as proposed.
I left out the article reference ...
Our reader Richard's thoughts about gun regulation
Richard is a typically confused American, ignorant of his and fellow American's rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand?
The whole damn list is riddled with foolishness, but for now, just consider this:
[B]"To license a right is a restriction of said right."[B]
See: Murdock -v- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (City of Jeannette, 319 US 105 (1942)
"an act of congress repugnant to the constitution can not become law."
Marbury -v- Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
and my all time favorite:
"...it is not the function of government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
American Communications Association -v- Douds
339 US 382 -453 @443 (1949)
I can assure you that this new push for an onerous infringement of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms, will be a serious error. Such an error may likely result in a civil war. Some of us are done backing up....not another inch!
So, Richard and all of you who believe you can legislate a right out of existence, had better ask; How many of us do intend to kill to accomplish this?
Best you rethink this silly idea before it is too damn late.
One more thing. To cure yourself of your ridiculous ignorance, perhaps you might consider this historical fact:
GUN REGISTRATION PRECEDES GUN CONFISCATION
GUN CONFISCATION PRECEDES MASS MURDER.
It is the legacy of the 20th Century. Governments have a nasty habit of killing their own citizens.
Don't let it happen here.
Some of us suspect from content and context that Richard might be from north of the border -- you know that place where you can still buy brand new open-bolt firearms like the Sten even though they are easily converted to full-auto?
Anyway, there is some new information. Canada HAD a "long gun" registry, but it is now defunct, and over the howls of anti-gun activists and historians it has been wiped from memory.
So registration does not inevitably lead to confiscation.
Non-compliance was what did that idiocy in.
It should also be the response of American gun owners when they push through the next wave of gun restrictions.
My wife, on the other hand, disagrees. She thinks it's silly to believe in the concept of the slippery slope when lives are in question.
I ask her "how many lives are you concerned about, and in what generation?"
She then tells me I'm being a moron.
Of course, she's probably right. But not about this.
Re: Scary Ass Chart
This chart best demonstrates one of the things I find to be most important when considering where/why we are in the situation we are in today.
1. The rise of acceptability of corruption
2. The rise of the mafia and it's freedom to take down any innocent Main Street company owner without protection from the federal legal system. Deed is done--no one trusts the federal system of justice anymore.
When I hear Obama urge middle class Americans to "innovate", "create", etc. I know what he is saying--you white folks out there you were the ones who came up with the great products/services of the past. Those things that made America great. C'mon do it again--we need you to "pull us out" . Nope Mr. President--not gonna happen this time. Not because of the color of your skin, but rather the actions of your Chicago and Vegas and Wall St friends during the past 40 years. We the middle class Americans have lost faith in being safe, lost faith in being rewarded for our entrepreneurship, etc. The housing boom began when middle class America began to realize how out of control the Wall Street people were becoming in rewarding themselves before thinking of treating their investors with integrity--they themselves turned the small American investor away from WS. Those people decided to try to take control of their future by buying/renovating second homes, by buying "income" property. The thought then was that they only thing they could invest in and maintain control of was real estate! And, WS found a way to steal that too! SO yes, your chart does help to explain these concerns that I have.
Wait a minute! You mean when someone says that the 2nd amendment was about hunting weapons (which is of course not true) that they in fact are endorsing the AR15??? One of the best hunting rifles and best sporting rifles that can easily be converted to shoot a wide range of ammo for different sporting purposes!
Second question: Would ANY military unit go into battle with a "semi-automatic" civilian AR15 that we civilians like to call an assault rifle??? Seriously, would Seal Team 6 have choosen the AR15 or would they have choosen "real" assault weapons and not the faux assault rifle we know as the AR15???
remember, bayonet lugs and heat shields are scary.
(although the .223 is too light for deer-sized varmints)
You guys are missing a critical point here:
It's not people that kill people.
It's not guns that kill people.
It's the bullets that kill people.
So, you outlaw lead bullets because the EPA has determined lead to be a public health hazard, like mercury. Heavy metals, and all that.
Soft plastic, rubber and nerf ball material would still be acceptable, of course, so it isn't like you couldn't still have fun at the shooting range or plinking cans off a fence.
My son shared a line he's been using, and I think it's rather apt.
"Silverware made my dad fat, we need to outlaw silverware before he becomes Mr. Creosote and explodes, taking us all with him."
The obvious Monty Python reference and clear overstatement of my size (please, I'm 205 and 6 feet tall) aside, it's the proper way of viewing this.
The guns used were only capable of killing due to a finger pulling the trigger. The silverware feeding my fat face are only capable of making me larger if I choose to utilize them.
Left to their own devices, both guns and silverware are simply tools. One to feed ourselves with, the other to protect ourselves from the power of government with. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Both can be dangerous tools in misguided hands.
If we allow emotion to win the day, then "protecting the children" will be a banner moment for totalitarianism. But the state-run education system has created a populace that fails to understand the nature of our right to own guns. Should we be all that surprised that this same government will now seek to regulate them?
At a basic level, I'm fine with treating guns like autos.
1. Let the states set the level of regulation, or age of ownership/use.
2. Let licenses and permits be the means of "regulation"
3. Maybe gun owners should also have insurance, like a car owner.
4. You should take a gun safety and management course. I took one in 1975....it was excellent, and before my sons can get guns (they have shown interest) I will ask them to take one.
Beyond that, I can't see making anything else mandatory. I don't see how Richard's rules will make things better.
My son who made the comment has said if AR-15s are outlawed, he will purchase one before they are. I told him that's probably a good idea, because he may need it.
Re: Scary Ass Chart
Is this a surprise to anyone?
I own a small business and I know how damn hard it is.
Regulation after regulation - most of which are at odds so that no matter what you do it's wrong in some way.
Tax after tax.
Mandate after mandate.
DEP, DOT, OSHA, IRS, building codes, and on, and on, and on.
I really isn't worth it. I should have gone to work for the government and gotten full retirement, lots of paid holidays, paid vacations, and pretty darn good pay with no risk whatsoever (although it is against every fiber of my being).
Another thing. It seems it used to be if someone lost their job - they might try opening a business to suplement their income. Today with 99+ weeks of unemployment and all the other bennys - there really doesn't seem to be any great need to find a job or make a job.
A final point. The Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes, Target contingency makes it very hard to do business in many different fields. They use tax breaks, regulations, and political favoratisim to drive out competition. They have armies of lawyers and accountants to find nuances and loopholes in, say, workers comp or taxes. I can't afford this specialized knowledge - so I am at a disadvantage. I don't get tax abatement and government grants to build a new store or new warehouses.
If they can't find a loophole, they hire a lobbyist to have one put into the tax code. It's an abomination that I pay more taxes than General Electric does. Then that ASS Jeffrey Immel tells me I should be paying more taxes.
Less government would lead to a lot more small businesses