dagblog - Comments for "Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as to facilitate the unlawful evasion of lawful confiscation."

How not to protect your loved

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 02:19:37 +0000

In reply to Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as to facilitate the unlawful evasion of lawful confiscation.

How not to protect your loved ones:

Oscar Pistorius used maximum-damage bullets, expert testifies
The pathologist who did the autopsy on Reeva Steenkamp, Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend, details deadly damage from expanding bullets that hit Steenkamp's brain, hip and arm. - LA Times, March 10, 2014

K-Y; Women do it better

jollyroger — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 05:42:53 +0000

In reply to My bold: Playing John Wayne

K-Y; Women do it better

There, fixed it for you...

My bold: Playing John Wayne

artappraiser — Fri, 07 Mar 2014 02:15:41 +0000

In reply to Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as to facilitate the unlawful evasion of lawful confiscation.

My bold:

Playing John Wayne with the G.O.P.
by John Cassidy, newyorker.com, March 6, 2014
Why was Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, brandishing a musket rifle above his head at CPAC?

[....] Just another morning’s work in the life of a modern G.O.P. leader. But before moving on, it might be worth asking what Coburn did to earn his award from the N.R.A. The Web site ontheissues.org has provided some of the answers: He voted no on banning high-capacity magazines holding more than ten bullets, the sort favored by the mass murderers in Aurora, Newtown, and other places where innocent Americans have met an early and gruesome end. He voted yes on prohibiting certain lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of bills allowing gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines, and allowing guns in national parks. He voted to amend the law so that the government couldn’t take a person’s firearms away because he or she had been deemed mentally incapacitated or incompetent; the government also had to persuade a court that the person was dangerous.

McConnell has taken practically identical positions. In 2008, he received a “Defender of the Constitution” award from the N.R.A., which has announced it will support his reëlection effort. But that doesn’t mean he’s home free. Bevin is supported by the Gun Owners of America, an organization that is even more extreme than the N.R.A., and his likely Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s Secretary of State, is also making a play for gun lovers. Shortly after McConnell’s appearance at CPAC, she tweeted, “Someone tell @Team_Mitch that’s not the way to hold a gun. KY women do it better.”

exogenous neurotransmitter

Resistance — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:28:48 +0000

In reply to As the *girls all say to me

exogenous neurotransmitter modification ?

Darn it Jolly cant you just speak English so I don't have to grab a dictionary .

Did you notice I caught your subliminal message though, Truly an art of yours

Thanks again Jolly.

As the *girls all say to me

jollyroger — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:03:57 +0000

In reply to To be fair to me... Not

As the *girls all say to me in a different context...."It's not you...it's me..."

I am famously unclear, sometimes even without the help of exogenous neurotransmitter modification (oftentimes with...just ask Resistance...)

*they are usually lying, as we all know, but that's another story

To be fair to me... Not

Anonymous PS — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 02:02:07 +0000

In reply to The law which gives them the

To be fair to me...

Not entirely, but your argument came into clearer focus.

How's that?

I'm a bit of ponderous ponderer, so I tend to mull things over long after the (gun)smoke has died away.

I would say their "future option to disobey" is, in their terms and ours, too, to disobey laws we strongly believe are immoral.

IOW, any law to confiscate and any confiscation would be immoral in their eyes. Hence their willingness to disobey, though I bet many gun owners would comply.

For example, RM and others would say they reserve the right to disobey any law that attempts to re-segregate lunch counters. They're law-abiding now because they agree with the current law, but that doesn't bind them to consenting to a immoral imposed in the future. Don't you agree?

BTW, I saw this strange NRA video about the gun laws and confiscation that took place in Britain and Australia. Lots of video of guns being sawed in half and huge piles of guns being picked up by giant claws and dumped into the melting pot.

I know nothing about what happened in either place, but the whole thing was a cautionary tale about what happens if you agree to give up your guns...or something. Various and sundry gun owners, dealers, and collectors issued dire warnings to their fellow American gunners not to submit to the siren song of those who would restrict gun ownership.

However, it wasn't clear exactly what laws were passed or what gun owners had had to do as a result. It was almost as if they were ruing the fact the day had complied with the new law...or hadn't fought the new law.

But I couldn't tell what the current state of play is. At points, it sounded like ALL guns had been banned, but then it seemed that all guns hadn't been banned. It was, of course, propaganda and clarity on those points wasn't the point. Stoking fear was.

The law which gives them the

jollyroger — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:02:56 +0000

In reply to Amazing how things rattle

The law which gives them the right to own their guns, they would argue and perhaps you, too, above, rests on deeper ground than laws passed or repealed by legislatures. You would need to address this deeper ground.

Which, as I said somewhere ten miles upthread, brings us to the chasm between "law" and "morality", at which chasm we perilously walk the bridge of civil disobedience and jury nullification (Starting to sound an little like "pilgrim's progress...")

That said, I still maintain that their self described law abiding status is undermined by their implied willingness to hide their guns if a confiscation law is (lawfully) passed, and all their stonewalling on registration (with its manifold benefits) involves explicitly stating that they want to preserve their future option to disobey.

,Edit to add: Wait, you mean you've posted , maybe forty replies and you just now got the point of the original post...I need to take that course in Remedial Forensic Composition.

Amazing how things rattle

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:15:18 +0000

In reply to Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as to facilitate the unlawful evasion of lawful confiscation.

Amazing how things rattle around in the mind's background and suddenly pop out.

So, I've gotten clarity on your thesis and proposal.

Your hypothesis is that "law abiding" gun owners actually don't give a shit about "the law," but are simply using the current law as a log in the barricade against any move to restrict their gun ownership. A log they would quickly burn if the law were changed.

By changing the law, you propose to unmask them as people who don't care about "the law," but only about keeping their guns, come hell or high water.

And then, of course, force them into either giving up their guns or breaking the law.

Okay, that's clearer...

Unfortunately, all the former objections to this proposal stand. Principally...

• When they say "law abiding," they mean they haven't broken any other laws with their guns (or without them, maybe), e.g., killing, stealing, and so on.

• The law which gives them the right to own their guns, they would argue and perhaps you, too, above, rests on deeper ground than laws passed or repealed by legislatures. You would need to address this deeper ground.

• Any attempt to simply remove this deeper ground would meet with the same resistance (I didn't say that, did I?) as did, say, the duly passed segregation laws in the South or other laws that were eventually found to be "wrong" or "immoral."

.

Resistance — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:45:26 +0000

In reply to Raging? Raging Judge

Raging? Raging Judge

jollyroger — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:38:30 +0000

In reply to

Raging?

Raging Judge Magnum says "Don't let me find you in contempt, or you'll never be found again..."