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

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

By jollyroger on Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:30pm |

It is commonplace to respond to the fear of gun confiscation, (virtually universally voiced by anti-registration zealots) with a soothing tut-tut, coupled with strenuous oaths forswearing the passage of any law which might reach into the extant stash of any armed citizen in order once and for all to rid society of a manifest source of misery.

One need look no further than Australia to see that it is by no means outside the bounds of imagination that a people might make a reasoned decision to live unarmed, and in so doing require the surrender of those weapons currently abroad.

We might, after all, amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. Hard cheese, gun nuts, but there you are.

I find it curious that even as they thump their chests and declare themselves "the law-abiding and responsible gun owners", these same individuals (and their associations) assert, implicitely, their right to disobey a democratically enunciated law (should one issue) that eventually declared the private ownership of firearms forbidden, and furthermore, feel perfectly empowered to assert an interest in facilitating their disobedience to such a law by resisting the salutary (for so many reasons in addition to possible confiscation) practice of registration.

Consider, after all, that their strident objection to registration is couched in terms that really say this:

If a law were duly passed that required me to sell my gun to the government, I would consider it my right to disobey, and I further assert that in order to make it easier for me to break that law, I will fight any system of registration, notwithstanding all the benefits it might have vis-a-vis crime prevention/solution, because it might make it harder for me to break the law.

But I am a lawful gun owner, you betcha'.

Add new comment
10609 reads

Comments

They are sure afraid of loosing their guns. Regulations are going to get tighten with so many kids and women loosing their lives to gun shots.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 6:24am

They should lose their guns. That's my point.

And if we abolished the second amendment and started knocking on doors, the only reason that they would want their ownership obscured is so theycould violate the law

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 1:34pm

This issue is as phony as the new NRA. (The old NRA used to be a hunters organization) Nobody in authority has ever, ever, EVER hinted at a blanket taking away of guns. The NRA and the gun manufacturers profit by keeping this lie going. That's the bottom line. Profit.

(Edited to add: Yes, let's get rid of the Second Amendment. A nonsensical, irrelevant, confusing "right". Once it's gone nothing will change, except the need by the gun nuts to hang onto something they think legitimizes their loony love affair with weaponry. They'll just have to find something else. The Second Amendment never did that, anyway.)

by Ramona on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:33am

Yes, it is a phony issue, but even if it were not, even if we had an active (Please, dear god!) movement to emulate Australia and start collecting guns, who the fuck are these people to announce that their intention would be to violate that law, and that therefor, in order to facilitate that violation, they reserve the right to cloak their gun ownership in secrecy.

Edit to add: Resistance, I'm talkin' to you...

At least let them stop talking about "law abiding gun owners" in one breath, and then setting up their illegal continuation of gun ownership in the second, should society make the entirely rational decision that it would rather not have to bury babies.

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 1:37pm

"if one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present -day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights? [97] As Ronald Dworkin has argued,

what it meant to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so.

If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other parts of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly cost less to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs -- criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on -- helps to account for the observed fact that

those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments.

Most often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or doctrinal arguments that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any insistence that times might have changed and made too "expensive" the continued adherence to a given view. "Cost-benefit" analysis, rightly or wrongly, has come to be viewed as a "conservative" weapon to attack liberal rights. [98] Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is "conservatives" who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and "liberals" who argue for a notion of the "living Constitution" and "changed circumstances" that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/embarrassing_2nd.htm#97

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 5:04pm

Once again you cite something you have not thoroughly read or researched. Professor Levinson is actually arguing in that article for all sides to come together and take another look at the 2nd Amendment, clarify it and perhaps revamp it. He describes a situation where legal scholars just ignore it as "inconvenient. "The part you picked out is his description of one side. (If pressed for time, you might at least read the concluding paragraph to get the point of the article before using it, making sure it doesn't argue against you. Or just stick with N.R.A.'s agitprop, where you know you're safe?)

In actuality, Jolly Roger might have great interest in learning more about Levinson's opinions, as he said in this 2012 interview with Harpers that I’m very much in favor of a new constitutional convention.

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 5:41pm

You could do the same for others as I have requested of Peter and your foolish reply proves my point which I will discuss later but first.

Professor Levinson, is entitled to his opinion and when considered along with other scholarly works, that make a case for both sides, I have weighed the pros and cons, and I have chosen a side.

Back to your foolish reply

Here let me show you how easy it would be for you to have written “Levinson at point number 4 stated "I’m very much in favor of a new constitutional convention."

Oh all-knowing sage. AA; it just so happens I did read the article; but evidently it is you that didn't.

Was the Professor suggesting, we get rid of the Bill of rights too?

NO he wasn’t. and (If pressed for time, you might at least read the ~~concluding~~ the bottom few sentences at the bottom of point # 1 to get the point of the article before using it, .. sure it doesn't argue against you. (As usual, AA making another foolish remark)

Here’s the answer to what Professor Levinson was talking about at the bottom of (Point #1)

“most truly dreadful part of the Constitution: Article V, the amendment provision.”

The Bill of Rights is not amendable. It is a guarantee.

1 Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. 2 Right to keep and bear arms.3 No quartering of soldiers.4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. 5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases 8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.9 Other rights of the people.10 Powers reserved to the states. GUARANTEED RIGHTS

What in the Constitution Cannot be Amended?

If change of the law must be accomplished through the drafting of a new constitution, the possibility exists that an insensitive or shortsighted majority may cast aside constitutional protections for states' rights and individual liberties, thereby increasing the risk that dissatisfied minorities will resort to force to achieve their objectives. On the other hand, delegates to a second constitutional convention could prove this concern to be exaggerated or even produce a document better suited than the old to the needs of today's society. But even if it is assumed that on balance it is wiser to retain a document which has benefited from 200 years of evolutionary development, the threat of a constitutional convention is only one-albeit an important one-of the factors to be weighed in deciding whether to enforce a limitation on amendments. The danger of a constitutional convention should be discounted by its improbability (which in the case of the issue of equal suffrage in the Senate is exceedingly great) and balanced against the strong societal interest in having decisions based on traditional judicial considerations, such as the language of the document and the intentions of its framers, rather on than on purely political considerations.

THAT IS WHY THE BILL OF RIGHT IS A GUARANTEE, so that whoever comes to power is restricted from taking away our Rights.

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:40pm

"Rights" are taken away every day.

When people are incarcerated (including those who have not yet been tried in court): No more liberty.

When people are executed: No more life.

Edited to add:

I could go on but you probably get my drift, although no doubt you will not be able to extrapolate from that to comprehend this -- when a diagnosis of *paranoid gun-amoria (a perverse and pathological love of guns stemming from an irrational fear of everything including first graders and texters) results in almost daily killings of innocents -- it's time to take some of that "right to bear arms" stuff away except as intended, for example to be a part of a trained militia.

*made-up diagnosis by me. Thank you!

by CVille Dem on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 12:28pm

be a part of a trained militia

The first part in the Second Amendment, about a well trained militia, is not a qualifier of who can bear arms........ it is a recognition of the value, of individuals having the right to have arms

Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as...

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:07pm

Well, you have done it again, Resistance; Citing stuff that works against your arguments:

Nothing could be more inconsistent with the conception of the living Constitution than an unamendable amendment or an amendment authorizing unamendable amendments and which by its own terms is unamendable. As the framers recognized, the foreclosing of all possibility of constitutional change poses two dangers: it increases the risk of violence and revolutionary change, and it increases the risk that people will grow to disrespect the source of the institutions and arrangements that are forced on them.

Maybe you should just argue for things on the basis that you think is true instead of casting about for forms of authority that keep not supporting you.

by moat on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:46pm

Sandy Levinson is a treasure, and I follow his work avidly on Jack Balkin's blog. I'll be back when I've done with the article, but (o/t) the first thing that jumped out at me, to my embarrassment as an ex professor of history, Lincoln didn't quite make 40% of the popular vote!

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:48pm

Okay, but...and God help me...the counter argument goes like this.

First, a right can't be voted away, if it is truly a right.

Which is to say that the Bill Of Rights didn't establish the rights therein, but simply acknowledged them, or delineated them, in written form.

These rights "came from" You Know Who.

Laws can be changed or repealed, but rights can't be.

Second, the right to own a gun is inextricably entwined with the right to self defense. Why? Because an individual could, quite conceivably, need a gun or a knife to defend himself if his life were threatened in a certain way.

You need a bazooka to defend yourself, you say?

When you think about it...it's not very likely. You're unlikely to encounter a tank or some other machine of war in your daily life. But you could easily encounter someone or someones against whom a gun would be effective as a tool for self defense.

To see this more clearly...

How could we revoke the right to defend oneself? It's impossible. When threatened, all creatures from the smallest to the largest will seek to defend themselves. It's less a right than a reflex, and one essential to life's ongoing existence.

So if the use of a gun falls within this reflexive drive to preserve oneself against depredations, then it follows that guns will be used whether we will or no.

The only way this might change would be if we could eliminate all need to use a gun in the course of defending oneself in predictable situations.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:05pm

Well, in many ways I'm cool with much of that, but then you're talking civil disobedience/jury nullification type analysis.

As an increasingly Chomskyite syndico-anarchist ( I swear before Jesus, there is such a thing) I'm prepared to embrace an ethical system where laws as promulgated are not the final arbiter of right and wrong.

That said, what "sauces me" (pace, Big Boy) is that in the same breath as they reach towards the sort of "outside the simple framework of societal law" argument, the gun nuts frame their resistance to a variety of purely legal restrictions on the grounds that they are "law abiding" which is true, as long as the second amendment shelters them. But let the spectre of Australia style confiscation loom, and they're prepared to violate the law just like any felon in possession of a firearm who could make, in many cases, exactly the argument you set forth.

Indeed, (to hijack my own thread--ed note:not the first time...) an ex con by virtue of his social and economic situation is maybe more likely to need a piece than you or I (assuming, arguendo, that you have also avoided conviction for those felonies of which you might, alas, be guilty....)

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:28pm

Good points...

But they could argue that by "law abiding," they mean people who haven't hurt anyone unethically with their guns.

That is, they haven't murdered or used a gun to steal--wrongs that (probably) go beyond mere statutes in people's thinking.

Think Ten Commandments. They're law-abiding in the sense that they haven't used their gun to break any of the foundational tenets we all, religious or not, hold to.

Still, you make good points about this tension, I agree.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 3:00pm

I'd like to point out that fewer than half of the Ten Commandments are enshrined in secular law:

I'm God. Only me. (not enshrined)
No graven images. (not enshrined)
Don't take my name in vain. (not enshrined)
Keep the Sabbath holy. (not enshrined)
Honor your parents. (not enshrined)
Don't kill. (that's 1)
Don't commit adultery. (not enshrined)
Don't steal. (that's 2)
Don't bear false witness. (that's 3)
Don't covet. (not enshrined)

There are other means of counting the Ten Commandments, but I don't think any of them will come up with more than 3 of them that correspond to anything in our secular law system. There are 3 more of them that are arguably not religious (honor your parents, don't commit adultery, and don't covet), but 4 of them are quite relgious (1-4 here).

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:32pm

Instead of repealing the 2nd Amendment, couldn't we just give it a different number so that no one could find it for awhile?

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:17pm

good idea--the Dewey Decimal System (crossed with Click and Clack )shows us the way...it could be the II.3/4.a.omega Amendment.

Eveyone knows that teabaggers can't do fractions.

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:26pm

As to Australia, very clever, but no dice.

As you know, Australians live on the bottom of the world and thus stand upside down.

They've developed very strong toe muscles to enable them to grip the earth tightly and not fall off.

They simply don't have any energy left over to commit crimes or hurt other people. So giving up guns was no big deal for them.

Unfortunately, we here in the northern hemisphere don't have this advantage. What comes naturally to them by virtue of their physical situation we must acquire through tremendous mental, emotional, and spiritual effort.

The two situations aren't analogous at all.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:21pm

Plus, with all those kangaroos they have convening pouches in which to secret their now illegal firearms.

I stand corrected.

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 2:27pm

Plus, in case you haven't noticed, Aussies are Un-American. Don't even get me started on kangaroos. Two or three Fosters and they get hopping mad. The jingoistic bastards are bitter about the foreign rabbits taking over. The Roo gang used to control all the grass in the country. Shoot em all, I say. Oh, wait ...

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 3:55pm

If anybody on the U.S. right is saying that, ironically, they're drawing a very incorrect picture to their own detriment.

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 4:33pm

He reminds me of Mr Smith from the movie "The Matrix"

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:30pm

The "law-abiding gun owner" thing when used by hard liners is just red herring to get moderate folks within the coalition fold.

All you have to do is read Resistance's nonsense agitprop enough, over and over, to know that 2nd amendment absolutists are not about democracy (the majority making laws,) but mainly about the Bill of Rights purportedly enshrining weapon ownership as a human right, not to be enfringed by the majority over a minority. To be able to have another American revolution against the government and its laws enacted by a majority if need be, or to protect oneself when there's anarchy or whatever. It's proudly libertarian view of the U.S. Constitution, on the side of as few laws as possible.

I really don't see the hypocrisy you do, only a red herring to get moderates into the coalition, using a little democracy as long as they can, they think: why not, while it's there? It's: by all means possible...guns uber alles, guns as the most important human right, even over, like, the liberty of those that might be deemed mentally ill but have done nothing illegal....

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 3:09pm

Comes to mind, one thing that interests me about the history and the intent, maybe someone like moat can elucidate. The founding was by a coming together of 13 states, some not very libertarian at all, some with lots of laws, some of those laws even religious! It was libertarian only on a federal level, because, well, it had to be to get all those varied states to come together. Wasn't the unfinished business left by doing that, of necessity, basically addressed by the civil war? We (and the world, with the industrial revolution and all) finally grew large enough to need a real federal government, one with teeth and a standing army to go along with it. I think moat sorta got into this on a recent comment somewhere, how the 2nd amendment is like a ghost limb of the original federation...

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 3:17pm

Hey, does anyone know if any one of the original 13 regulated gun ownership by citizens in any form? Pennsylvania, the Quaker state, for instance, with Quaker laws?

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 3:20pm

The Uniform Firearms Act (UFA) is a set of statutes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that defines the limits of Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the right to bear arms, which predates the United States Constitution and reads: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." The laws range in scope from use of force in self-defense situations, to specific categories citizens that are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms.

by EmmaZahn on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:51am

In the United States, with a common law tradition and a constitution dating to the 18th century, the "right to keep and bear arms" has been enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States); precursory legal wording can also be found in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.^[6] Many English common law traditions were enshrined in the US Constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties. Significant principles of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States.^[7]

I think we tend to forget in these discussions that the first Americans were formerly British subjects who were acutely aware of historical precedents especially recent ones resulting from the Glorious Revolution such as the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

by EmmaZahn on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 10:12am

Almost forgot, apparently the Revolutionary War caused a schism in the Pennsylvania Society of Friends aka Quakers.

The Religious Society of Free Quakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a notable member of the revolution-supporting Free Quakers: Betsey Ross.

by EmmaZahn on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 10:18am

Emma, I was not expecting anyone to do my homework (hate when people do that), just wondering if anyone knew, so thank you for looking all that interesting stuff up. It is definitely interesting that the language there includes self-defense and that does have to do with English common law and the Glorious Revolution, etc., and, one could argue, having protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. (I think: so are "stand your ground" supporters using that?)

Right away, I also go to thinking of how some states had as their basis of formation religious sects escaping from persecution. But then I also think of other states where there was no such foundation but merely many people (and including not just individuals but companies, corporations as it were,) looking for different things like economic opportunity or adventure (New York, for example.) Where protection of property would be of utmost concern. Er, enter "unfair" taxation...er, also enter "slaves."

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 1:35pm

Not a problem at all plus it gave me some notes to add to family records. Some ancestors were on Pennsylvania Quaker rolls but I have other records that my branch of their descendants were not all that pacifist. Must have been part of those expelled Free Quakers.

by EmmaZahn on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 1:46pm

Don't know for sure how accurate it was, but I recall in the HBO miniseries John Adams, great drama was made of the Pennsylvania delegation being very reluctant to even threaten any kind of violent reaction to the attacks Massachusetts had suffered. Wanted to try every other angle. Where if you were from Massachusetts, it was almost a sort of "blame the victim" scenario, like: if we just tried sounding more reasonable, maybe all of this wouldn't have happened...maybe we can still walk it back....etc.

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 2:01pm

Yes, I read about that here:

Quakers and Their Impact on the American Revolution - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Of course, as this paragraph explains, relations between Massachusetts and Pennsylvania as well as within Pennsylvania were becoming strained.

In an interesting instance of conflict of interest, two of the ships that were to be subject to the frivolities at the Boston Tea Party, were owned by Quakers. During this time period it is where it begins to be evident of the coming divisions between Friends. As Hugh and Barbour point out, the tea that was being imported from Britain, and soon to be dumped into Boston Harbor, was "to be distributed through the firms of James and Drinker and Thomas and Isaac Wharton," This lead Quakers in Philadelphia to be suspicious of the "radicals in Philadelphia," because the people who owned those two firms were indeed Quakers themselves. [16]

by EmmaZahn on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 2:11pm

It was libertarian only on a federal level, because, well, it had to be to get all those varied states to come together.

The truth is, none of it was very libertarian, though I would say there's a wee libertarian element to it.

The Articles were probably more libertarian than the Constitution, but even that's a stretch, IMO. Yes, the Articles weren't working, and the Revolution showed us the need for a standing army, even if a small one. Problems of trade and common defense all entered into it.

But the Constitution was, if anything, anti-libertarian and provided for the supremacy of federal law over state law and made Americans citizens of an overarching country (and subject to federal taxes) and not just of various states.

It's true that they had trouble getting all the states to come together, but even committed federalists (i.e., those who supported the Constitution) like Madison and TJ believed strongly in the importance of the states and keeping a lot of power at that level. It was a tension. The Constitution drew individuals away from belonging solely the states as citizens and made them part of the larger whole, but the larger whole was supposed to be made up of these very important constituent units, i.e., the states. This was how they were able to conceive of a very large country as a democracy which had been thought to require a small political unit to work.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 4:45pm

moat did get into that in Doc's post about how polite armed society can be if you just let it.

The idea that demands upon the nation to steadily grow a more Federal establishment certainly is what happened. But the discussions about militias at the beginning were not just about maintaining the right of states versus the power of an Executive. I suggest reading the Federalist Paper #29, penned by that uber-Federalist Alexander Hamilton.

One one hand, Hamilton is just striking a deal between two sides of an argument:

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

On the other hand, Hamilton is arguing against some unnamed critics who say the arrangement will devolve into Civil War:

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

Looking at this passage after 1861 cannot help but send the frisson that always comes from resembling a remark.

It would be a mistake to read the communitarian language in the Second Amendment as code for "States' Rights" in every instance. Even the most ardent proponents of Federal power were rooting for the militia system.

by moat on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 9:07pm

Well, but our democracy does protect the rights of the minority.

It isn't simply majority rule.

The minority can't trump the majority, as the GOP tries to do nowadays, but the majority can't simply trample the minority, either.

There's an essential and intended tension there.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 4:27pm

Our republic does. I used the term "democracy," and not "republic," on purpose, as in: simple majority rule.

Jolly's thread really starts beyond your point, you are stating the obvious. I.E, he's pointing out if a democratic majority wanted to change the Constitution, would these people follow that law? He's saying they wouldn't, so they are not small-d democrats willing to abide by majority rule, that makes them not "law abiding." That they care more about keeping this a fundamental human right in eternity as it were than in "democracy." In Jolly's argument, "law abiding" means willing to follow laws enacted by the majority.

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 4:45pm

Yes, I see that.

But the whole point in having a right is that it can't be done away with by the majority. Or a minority. That's what the fight around abortion laws is all about, i.e., fighting laws that may pass, but which abridge a woman's right to choose, etc.

To be sure, there's a tension there in that the Bill of Rights wasn't dictated by God like the Ten Commandments, but still...

Perhaps the solution is that one would need something like a super majority because of the arduous amendment process that's required to change the Constitution.

Not just a majority, but a helluva majority...

Edit to add: I guess also that I don't see how Jolly can propose what he's proposing except within the context of the republic. And "law-abiding citizens" are law abiding in terms of the laws of the republic. I mean, the Aussies did what they did within the context of their form of government, and so would we have to.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 4:54pm

Here is some interesting facts. I didn't have the numbers but knew this was a health crises and a major pandemic. More people have died since 1968 from domestic guns then all the wars we have engaged in. Someone on Kos tracked down the numbers that have been out there for a while. I have been waiting to see if someone else would post this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/22/1279667/-Study-Proves-Since-1968-More-Americans-Have-Died-From-Gunfire-Than-All-U-S-Wars-Combined?detail=email

End of argument.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 5:58pm

Lemme flesh this out a bit.

Assume, arguendo, that we wish to avoid the Sandy Hook scenario, where the gun owner (Mrs Lanza) carelessly enables the homicidal nut by not securing her weapons.

So, we pass a law that says, in order to own a firearm, you must either keep it in a secure safe, or disable unauthorized use via a trigger lock or biometric safety.

To enforce the above, surprise inspections will be conducted from time to time.

Thus:

Knock knock.(Jack Boot, from ATF, is here to conduct a surprise inspection)

Mrs. Lanza: Yes

Jack Boot: Hi, I'm here to check on the storage of a Bushmaster AR 15 which is registered to you at this address.

Mrs Lanza, come right in. The gun is

a) right over there on the wall

b) right over there in the safe.

If "a", Boot says: Where's the trigger lock?

No Lock? Sorry, we have to take the gun in.

If "b" Boot says, thanks Mrs. Lanza, we'll see you again. Meanwhile, have a nice day.

Now, it is evident that this system would require registration and would help prevent the regular need to bury babies.

But the gun nuts say, no dice, cause that would make it too easy to confiscate my legally owned firearm, and then only outlaws would have guns.

At this point, everyone grants the truth of the major premise (that registration would facilitate confiscation if that were to be the will of a democratically elected supermajority needed to amend the constitution) but instead of insisting that if such a decision were taken it would be the obligation of a person wishing to call himself law abiding to follow the law, we either lie and say "no one wants to take your gun ", when in fact, some of us do want that, or we end the discussion, and registration/regulation of the gun and its storage never occurs.

I don't want the objections to gun confiscation to be allowed to be asserted as a reason to end the conversation re:safe storage, etc.

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 6:37pm

But but but surely what started us on the road to ruin of spying on American citizens was requiring annual automobile inspections? Those little stickers? The mark of the beast!

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:13pm

And comes to mind, with your example of the Lanza house.

One could apply Resistance's suggestions here on the thread about the Naval Yard shooting, which I just looked up. I've been inspired.

You could instead have jack-booted thug social workers check on families with members who have had psychological or psychiatric care. They see the mother owns some guns. They see the kid's room with the garbage bags on the windows et. al., give him a little interview, and involuntarily commit him, so that the guns can remain safely in the mother's possession without any hassle. Guns of a trained and law-abiding gunowner > protected! Great idea huh? Like it?

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:40pm

So they know where the nuts are instead of knowing where the guns are? That oughtta work, cause everyone knows that social services is always the best funded agency in the government.

(Parenthetically, how the fuck did they merge the fundamentally different problems represented by Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms into one jurisdictional bureaucratic stew??)

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:01pm

That oughtta work

Especially given the advanced state of psychiatric medicine today! Did I mention that Brezhnev found it a crucial tool for ensuring a happy, healthy society?

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:38pm

cause everyone knows that social services is always the best funded agency in the government.

If it isn't why isn't it?

"He has excited domestic insurrections ....."

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free ...

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 9:44pm

AA in all these discussions I have never seen you offer any solutions to the problem, of what to do with people, who are in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.

AA here is your opportunity to shine a light on your solution.

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 9:15pm

You Wanna Solution?

Two ounces of weak green tea with a wee drop of cannabis oil every four hours does wonders for your apparent serious case of irritable bowel syndrome.

~OGD~

by oldenGoldenDecoy on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:22pm

hahahahahahahahah

I GOT NOTHIN

by Richard Day on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:28pm

You sound so sure of your remedy; are you giving a testimonial?

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:34pm

Note underlined word . . .

...does wonders for your apparent serious case of irritable bowel syndrome.

~OGD~

by oldenGoldenDecoy on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 1:40am

Does it bring you pleasure to mock others with Crohn's disease too?

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:55am

Ducky, I just received an email that we lost Miguel.

Maybe you received the same email.

I am very sad!

by Richard Day on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:01pm

Some comments on that here, Richard.

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:11pm

THANKS!

I HIT THE LINK.

AS USUAL, I MISSED THE WHOLE THING.

I really liked that guy.

He was kind to me!

by Richard Day on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:19pm

That is very sad news. To hear of his travels was always a dream of mine. I thought he was living the good life. Didn't he have a website showing pictures of his travels?

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:23pm

There is a website, I saw it day before yesterday, and will try to track down the link.

edit to add: here it is:

http://miguelitoh2o.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-city-of-divine-beings.html

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:27pm

Thank you so much Jolly, it worked.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:40pm

The question is...what does one accept as a "solution."

Is a solution that no one gets murdered or robbed at gun point or otherwise?

Is a solution that these incidents go down?

One solution to preventing break-ins to one's house is ADT. Seeing the sign out front is a deterrent to many criminals who don't want to risk that the sign might have a system backing it up. And the system, when it is installed, in my experience, works quickly and well. The cops come quickly.

Clearly, it's not perfect. Sometimes, the bad guys aren't deterred. And sometimes the police don't come quickly enough. Then again, no one ever killed himself showing his girlfriend how to "arm" the ADT system "safely." Nor has any 4 year old shot a 3 year old with an ADT system. Nor has any wife been murdered by her enraged husband with an ADT system.

So there are some real pluses here, especially given all the accidental deaths that occur with firearms, not to mention the crimes of passion that seem to take place pretty regularly inside the home between people who know each other.

ADT probably has some stats on crime reduction using its system. I KNOW that one's home owner's insurance will give a discount to you when you install a system. That indicates that home robberies (for which homeowner's claims are made) goes down when you have a home security system.

You can also heavy up the system with cameras and perimeter triggers that go off when someone steps on to your property long before they get to your house. A lot of squirrels have been collared that way, and they are a lot smarter than your average crook.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:35am

Peter, AA 's link was about the mentally ill.. What is her solution to the problem.... , who gets to decide and what to do to protect society from them?

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 10:04am

Ah, sorry, misread.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:08am

Anyone who has read my discussions with Orion on this issue knows I don't have answers because I believe that psychiatry isn't developed enough to have them. It's an especially tragic problem for the families of victims of mental illness, one which I have incredible sympathy. Regardless of whether the mentally ill have access to guns or not, no society has figured out how to handle it properly because, again, medicine is lacking in answers or even in defining what mental illness is.

Luckily, as I have argued with Orion many times, mass shootings by mentally ill are a very miniscule part of the problem of deaths and maimings from gun violence in this country, and the over reaction by society to them is due to letting emotions rule and letting the perps get exactly what they are looking for: an emotional reaction and fame from society. These mass attacks don't require guns (they can be done with bombs or like in China, with knives.) Gun regulation won't stop them, it would only lessen the number of victims there might be in any one incident. If new laws impeded this ability, they might just switch to bombs more often.

I have argued many times that the mass shootings by mentally ill are not the main problem and that politicians just use the emotional reaction to them to try to get something we all needed long ago: licensing and/or registration of guns to lessen the massive amounts of other kinds of gun violence we have in this country. I have been straight about this. I don't think we are at a state of science yet where we can lessen attacks of any kind by mentally ill, and I don't think that these attacks are so massive in number that they are a threat to civilization. They are a very small problem. Fear of them is irrational, like being afraid of being hit by lightning every time you go out. What would be far more logical fear: every time you go out in public, to consider that something like this might happen: a guy might end up shooting at his ex-wife at her place of employment in the local shopping mall, wounding others like you, because there is a custody battle going on between them. Or you could get caught inbetween two hotheads shooting at each other over texting in theater, or shooting over some minor road rage incident, or because one gang member dissed a member of another gang. A far more common kind of thing, far more worrisome.

All that said I am very much against any government involuntarily incarcerating someone in an institution before they have committed any crime! That is something that perhaps families of the mentally ill should have a stronger ability to do, but not the government! (And I will remind you that most families do not want this until the ill family member has actually first committed an incident of violence against them or their own selves, not pre-emptively.) You want pre-emptive incarceration by the government so all those who are left unincarcerated are free to have unlicensed guns?

Just because someone or something says a person is mentally ill, you want to take away their freedom so other people are free to have unlicensed guns?!!?

Well , ok then, let's all have a democratic vote on whether Resistance should be labeled mentally ill based on his comments on Dagblog, his seeming fixation on vigilantism and guns, paranoid fantasies and persecution complex and incarcerate him. How would you like that scenario? What you are advocating for is a civil libertarian's nightmare, a far far more egregious attack against human rights and civil liberty than any regulation of weapons. And you are doing that just because you don't want to have to have a license for your gun!

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 3:56pm

It does seem rather like overkill (no pun intended) to set a wide net for the troubled among us a opposed to formulating some system (eg, my example vis-a-vis insuring that guns legally bought did not fall into the hands of those we don't want to commit but don't trust with firearms).

Admittedly, Mrs. Lanza was a weak vessel in the instant case, as she seems to have had poor insight into Adam's psyche...she took him to the range, after all, but it is possible that if nudged by a system of registration and inspection she might have been at least careful enough not to hand him the bushmaster and then take a nap...

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:03pm

she might have been at least careful enough not to hand him the bushmaster and then take a nap...

Exactly, she knew of her sons problems, even if the State didn't,

I've seen it too many times where little Johnny a young child throws a tantrum and the parents talk about counting to ten with 9.5, 9,6 ...9.9 . 5

The State resources are cut and if you put you son or daughter into the system, its the parents cost, and the so called expert (leaches) prey on the charged individual and their family.

How many horror stories have we not heard about Ritalin, and once Johnny gets hooked as a child he begins to self medicate with street drugs when he gets older. All because the education system couldn't handle Johnny in a class room with 30 other kids.

Added We have reaped what we have sown.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:56am

Careful, Res!

You would appear to the casual observer to be agreeing that under current law Mrs. Lanza was not sufficiently motivated to think through the risks to herself and others of allowing her son access to firearms, and further conceding that perhaps some incentives could be applied via state intervention (which would, I think, require some kind of registration if not the occasional visit from Mr Boot) that might have ameliorated the risks, which in this nightmare resulted in her death and....(In the name of GOD) the babies...the babies..

Will you be so obstinate in your fear of confiscation that you would eschew anything that might possibly have saved those babies?

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:56am

And... How would a National Registration have totally prevented the death of the babies?

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:25am

By itself, it wouldn't. It would have to have been backed up by storage regulations (enforced by inspections?).vol

Edit to add: Assuming momma Lanza wouldn't hand Adam the Bushmaster voluntarily...

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 11:20am

Just found, on the mental illness topic:

Summary Bloomberg news article about study: Who Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Own a Gun? Dec. 9, 2013

The study report itself in 52-page PDF: Guns, Public Health and Mental Illness, An Evidence-Based Approach for State Policy, Dec. 2, 2013

Excuse more off-topic railroading, Jolly, but I felt the need to plant it here right after my long screed, so's I can find it again.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 2:01am

I did some skimming of the report. Looks to me like they concluded that pursuing an angle of mental illness was basically worthless excepting for those who had already had a record of being involuntarily hospitalized precisely because the percentage of those carrying the label of mental illness in our society who become violent is so tiny. That going that way is therefore basically a big waste of time. That what would get better results is to target other factors which are far more proven to indicate potential for violence, and that these factors would also coincidentally envelop a significant number of the violently mentally ill in the process.

This excerpt from page 9 is a good summary:

....In the large majority of cases, mental illness does not lead to violence. (61) In contrast, the evidence suggests other factors - including conviction for violent misdemeanor crimes (62) perpetration of domestic violence, (63-65) alcohol abuse (66,67) and drug abuse (68) can significantly increase individuals' risk of committing future violence. Use of these evidence-based criteria to prohibit firearm purchase and possession at high risk of committing future violence is a promising avenue for gun violence prevention policy. The strongest predicator for future violence is prior violent behavior. (69, 70) To date, however, few mechanisms exist to remove firearms from individuals exhibiting dangerous behavior. The Consortium therefore recommends development of a legal mechanism to temporarily remove firearms from individuals posing an immediate danger to self or others for any reason.

The Path Forward

The Consortium supports three distinct paths for intervention at state level....

Makes sense. Most of the stories on mass shootings with mental illness--Sandy Hook is an outlier in Adam did not exhibit any indicators--there were these indicators. Like the Navy Yard shooter.

All of their recommendations presume a state where there are already mechanisms of licensing or whatever you want to call it, goes without saying. What their report is about is how state authorities, could do it smart as regards mental illness, and in general, who it is smart to target regarding limiting gun availability when you want to reduce gun violence.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:06pm

I agree, makes sense.

The other problem, perhaps included in this, is that "mental illness" is a very broad term.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:17pm

Maybe the point is not government involuntarily committing, but family members when they feel the person could be a danger to himself or others.

Not sure of the procedure, so maybe a court is involved in any involuntary commitment--seem to remember that.

But still, that's different from a knock on the door by a government agent who takes you away to the loony bin.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:55am

You might have missed this which touches on some of the difficulties embraced by this sort of situation

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/defunding-mental-health-stranding-rich-a...

Edit to add: this involved Creigh Deeds, a (losing) Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate and his now deceased son.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:28am

I'll tell ya 'bout the BEAST . Fuck them stickers, it's the CHIPS! The chips, I say, that they embed in your sticker so the cops don't even have to look at the sticker (which, just between you and me--don't ask how I know--can be so well counterfeited with few layers of colored celophane and a computer printer that I a person could get a ticket tucked right under the wiper and half-over the fake sticker and not have it noticed) but if you drive it within 20 feet of the police car an alarm tells the cop that a non-complier is sharing the streets with him.

And then there are the bar codes, the bar codes, I tell ya', in invisible ink on our foreheads...

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:56pm

Its all in your head.

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 9:16pm

HA-ha-ha-ha-HAH!!!

Do you think me a FOOL? I'll have you to know that (unlike when fucking....) I WEAR PROTECTION!!!

I favor "The Centurion"

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 12:15am

LOL.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:36am

More Americans have been killed by gun fire in this nation than all the soldiers killed in action during all of our wars put together.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/22/1279667/-Study-Proves-Since-1968-More-Americans-Have-Died-From-Gunfire-Than-All-U-S-Wars-Combined?detail=email

And I personally do not believe that we as a nation can do one damn thing about it!

Now compared to one battle during WWII where more than a million lost their lives at the Battle of Stalingrad, these numbers are not so great.

If there are over 300 million guns in this country, we aint never goin to get rid of them. hahahah

The argument is moot, really.

I mean we certainly can curtail the sale of bazookas or ground to air missiles for chrissakes.

But the battle is over.

Americans just love to shoot one another.

I will personally attempt to stay out of the way.

But DAMN!

We already lose more folks from domestic gunfire than from car accidents!

And do you really know what it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment?

It aint gonna happen

The Supremes have passed over three challenges to state action today. Including Texas?

I suppose we might further punish convicted felons (I mean these folks are not human beings anyway; I mean we do not let them vote or even work for that matter).

Traceability aspects under the new tech devices aint gonna work.

We have 'handles' on the weapons that defy fingerprinting tech.

This bullshite about finger prints on bullets?

Ahhhh, forget it.

Jolly you can keep your guns.

The only thing to remember is that most deaths from gunfire involve suicide.

SO WATCH YOUR DRUG AND ALCOHOL MIXTURES.

HAHAHAHAHAH

by Richard Day on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 7:00pm

There will be things done about it. If the punishment is strong enough to be caught with a illegal gun, people will comply except for the few crazies.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:21pm

One solution I favor is to hold the last owner of a weapon financially liable for its use. Maybe criminally liable, but at least financially. Including manufacturers.

That should get folks to be a little more careful with how they store and to whom they sell their guns. IOW, guns, like humans, don't begin life "illegal." They start off legal and then pass into the hands no goodniks.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:39am

Insurance forms the basis for all trade for at least five hundred years.

I have no problem with your suggestion at all!

WHO'S GUN KILLED THAT GUY, THAT GAL, THAT CHILD!

Then let us reach into the manufacturer's cache of misgotten gains!

Okay with me!

And the drillers?

The cause of water and air pollution and earthquakes?

Yeah!

How about the Wall Street pricks?

A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there.

Why not make the perpetrators pay?

I got no problem with that at all!

by Richard Day on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:27pm

Oh, man, you are so two thousand and late...the merchants of death are way ahead of you

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:37pm

From the article

How many more tragedies must there be before our politicians have the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association and take action?

Demonstrating once again; that the proponents of Gun control; will exploit tragedies, to push their political agenda."

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:25pm

To you, "exploiting tragedy"

To me, "connecting the dots."

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:27pm

Connecting the dots ....where have I heard that before.

If when the working class does connects the dots, is why the government wants to prevent the citizens from having a means to resist

Men allowed to learn how to fly airplanes but never learning to land. Leading to the worst terrorist attack in US history, leading us to go to war.

Affecting our people with loss of lives and billions of dollars. Destroying any possibility of having available, the Peace Dividends to support badly needed programs. for the general welfare of the country.

Billions for war profiteers and alms for the poor and no cake....... Connect the dots.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:26pm

Impassioned, but inapposite. (Not for the first time...)

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:32pm

More people with guns concealed from the powers-that-be could solve nearly everything, including not just the U.S.'s problems, but many around the world, can't you see?

It's really very simple, very, very, simple.

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:36pm

This is true, but I don't think this applies to individuals.

That is, you leave your gun lying around; I take it and kill someone.

I'm tried for murder; you're tried for negligence.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:57am

No, the intervening criminal act relieves the negligent owner of liability, possible difference where children are involved.

Here's a useful review of the caselaw:

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/Article/Responsibility-of-Firearm-Owners-and-Dea...

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:25am

The trouble is not the use of guns for suicide, it's using the wrong end...If you have ever had the misfortune to see people in the throes of dementia, (people, if I may say by way of imagining myself in their position) who really NEED a quick (preferably pain free) ticket to ride, you know that there's risk that by the time you need to use it, you forget how.

Hence, I anticipate a wall mounted 357, under glass, with the notice

In case of dementia emergency, 1.break glass , 2. insert ROUND END in mouth..., 3. pull trigger.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:02pm

Reminds me of that great scene with Leo G. Carroll in Hitchcock's Spellbound from his POV. He's pointing the gun at Peck, and then...

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:45pm

All the arguments that the NRA/manufactures and gun hoarders had was lost the day the kids and teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook. The country was traumatized by the horrific deaths. The general public now realizes that there has to be changes made because there is too many guns in the wrong hands. Those changes will include gun registration and restrictions on what kind of guns that the public will own. The public's attitude is not going to change because the deaths keep mounting and the lack of justice of SYG laws.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:00pm

You are so right, even now, I can remember that stirring moment when the Senate rose as with one voice, saying "ENOUGH, and like Jesus scourging the money changers, Mitch McConnell drove Wayne La Pierre from the capitol saying "Back to hell, demon, I command you", and now we have no gun shows at all, and we have full background checks, and registration, and if you can't fly you can't buy (guns) and ...wait, WHAT!!!

by jollyroger on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:10pm

LOL...Have your fun. I live in Florida. This is a big issue here. Sandy Hook was a tipping point.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:29pm

did everyone see the just up NYT Op-Ed, Locke and Load? It concludes: ..autonomy is doomed in a Stand Your Ground world. It makes no sense to speak of autonomy, freedom, or self-determination in a state of war. As Locke knew too well, the sovereignty of the individual is intolerably tenuous where all are sovereign.

by Anonymous ndc (not verified) on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:19pm

Thanks for the tip, NCD; here's a link :"Locke and Load: The Fatal Error of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Philosophy".

The bio. says he's writing a whole book on topic:

Firmin DeBrabander, an associate professor of philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore, is the author of “Spinoza and the Stoics” and a forthcoming book critiquing the gun rights movement.

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:37pm

Thanks AA. I wanted to read it. Like I said, this is a big issue here in Florida for 2014.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 8:47pm

"fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it's a fundamental human right. To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda."

NRA-ILA | NRA Responds to Attacks on "Stand Your Ground" Laws

“legitimate self-defense is not justice….. or vengeance”

The man is working for his political agenda as he too exploits “ tragedies to push their political agenda."

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 9:36pm

Holder's statement only sends a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame if his charge that Stand Your Ground legislation is not legitimate is actually an attack against the laws supporting self-defense that he does support. But he does support those other measures so what Cox says is absurd.

Cox needs to review his syllogisms more carefully before releasing them into the atmosphere.

by moat on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:01pm

For you, from Locke, via Debrabander's NYT essay:

When individuals feel such strong passions — anger, fear, hatred — and are liable to act irrationally and regrettably, that is precisely when they must be prevented, as far as possible, from wielding definitive force. And they must be thus prevented in order to honor and promote the instinct for justice surging through us. This is the critical role that civil society plays; for Locke, it perfects nature.

This is the reason I agreed with Jolly here.

This is also the clearly the reason behind some of requirements for Concealed Pistol Licenses in Michigan (& Detroit.) Legal proof of too often having shown irrational anger, fear or hatred? No gun use for you. Just like: shown proof of driving under the influence? No driver's license for you. A privilege, not a right. It was also a privilege to be part of a "well-regulated militia" in the olden days, BTW.

by artappraiser on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:20pm

When individuals feel such strong passions — anger, fear, hatred — and are liable to act irrationally and regrettably, that is precisely when they must be prevented, as far as possible, from Driving automobiles? Or have a knife or baseball bat in hand?

Did the Founding fathers believe they were writing too and for angels? Or imperfect people who have moments of anger, fear, hatred — and are liable to act irrationally and regrettably.

for Locke, it perfects nature.

Locke looking for perfection? Good luck with that.

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:29pm

It was also a privilege to be part of a "well-regulated militia"

Some Constitutional scholars having studied the meaning of the term "militia" during that time period, and have concluded the term, referred to the individual.

A well regulated individual. ....is one who is known for not engaging in drunken bouts or being associated with other acts of disorderly conduct or senseless behavior. that would endanger the community . The community would surely take away the right to bear arms. Just as our current laws on the books permit.

Well regulated, as it relates to self control.

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 11:39pm

Who gives a fuck...we're gonna wipe it outta the constitution. Regulate THAT

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 12:05am

I don't know why but it works quicker if you click on the upper left hand side of the screen.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:14am

Can you name any of these scholars?

I have read quite a lot on the subject and never encountered anyone advancing such an absurd interpretation of the amendment.

by moat on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:07am

When I return later, I'll find the article.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:57am

Here is what I believe, is a good place to start

Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as...

But I don't care to do all the work, for those who will never accept they are wrong.

Sincerely Moat I am not speaking of you when I say..... I just can't fix stupid or those content on being purposely ignorant, because it goes against their political agenda.

As Jolly succinctly stated.... Who gives a $#@!.

No amount of truth of what the Forefathers intended, will change some minds. Even if the SCOTUS rules in the favor of Gun rights supporters. Some people will never accept the Second is a Right secured.

It is these folks I and other Americans worry about; because what other Rights do they want to take away or weaken?

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:22pm

militia = individual?

Ah...they had the word "individual" or "person," didn't they?

Maybe only well-regulated individuals could join a well-regulated militia, because a bunch of un-well-regulated individuals coming together would not produce a well-regulated militia.

I can agree with that. Just one look at all the un-well-regulated Dagbloggers is enough to tell you that that would be true.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:16am

I wonder if they even had the term sheriff or policeman?

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 10:00am

Great article. Thanks.

"Stand your ground" is a military term. The idea that we don't have to "retreat" is also a military term. We do not have the right to choose to kill in this country. The justice system can declare it justifiable when there isn't any other choice. Justifiable does not mean the right. To write a law that says that you don't have to get away from danger first and give the OK to chose to kill when afraid is not morally correct or in our constitution. SYG law is trying to give the OK to declare war on someone and kill when you can choose not to. Only Congress has the right to declare war by our constitution not a state legislators. Some gun toting fools have turned Florida into the wild west.

by trkingmomoe on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 3:38am

the computer stuttered a double comment

by trkingmomoe on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 3:44am

This is progress.

At least he didn't shoot his girlfriend.

AND she got a valuable lesson in gun safety.

Abstinence is the only guarantee of safety.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michigan-man-shoots-himself-demonstrating-gun-safety

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 10:29pm

Abstinence is the only guarantee of safety? Tell that to our government who doesn't care who gets hurt .............all in the name of self defense

by Resistance on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 11:00pm

Yes, our government has it wrong.

Don't copy them fer crissakes!

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:17am

Ironically, I will bet $100. that if Jack Boot showed at at Resistance's place, he would find him in compliance.

(except for the gun in his shoulder holster, and the one in his "pancake holster" in the small of his back, and, oh yeah, the ankle holster, cuz, you can't be too careful. But those are attended, and therefor need no additional security.)

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 12:41am

Ha ha .... you forgot the sleeve gun.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:46am

That's not a holster...it's a gimmick.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 3:01pm

It's strange that as gun violence and deaths have declined dramatically in the last twenty years the shrill cry for more gun control/prohibition has risen dramatically. All that's been accomplished by this Liberal/Authoritarian Paternalism is that legal gun sales have skyrocketed while their illegal use has declined. The fact that most of the gun hysteria has been directed at legal gun ownership is telling, it seems to be more about a minority trying to dictate their twisted version of reality onto the majority. The depths that gun control fanatics will stoop to is evident in the call to strip one of our few remaining rights from the constitution and surrender more totalitarian power to the government to enforce their twisted dream.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:28pm

Jolly, looks like you may finally have attracted a more formidable adversary in Peter (not verified) than the easy pickings of previous challenges....

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:33pm

I've been waiting for him to walk into the saloon...I always knew he was out there, (the straight white boy who could dance better than me...)

Once I missed him by 20 minutes at Save the Robots around 5 AM, and they say he came to Future at 8 AM but I was in the bathroom with that model...

Oh, wait--that's a different competitive field..carry on.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:36pm

Since you adduce the concept of "legal" gun ownership, I presume that as an advocate of law compliance , you would have no problem, (should the majority make a considered decision notwithstanding your protestations that they would like to have fewer guns around, to that end amending the constitution appropriately,) turning in your weapons?

Edit to add: 5 style points to Peter (not verified) for the use of "shrill"

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 4:40pm

I have never been accused of being compliant when facing totalitarian laws that undermine rights. The idea that a law like this would ever be enacted ,although it might be imposed, is nonsense and I think you know this and are being overly provocative for effect. I do thank you Rex for the dancing compliment, although I can no longer rock or roll and I appreciate the style points whatever their worth.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:23pm

Do not let me deceive you--I am already an admitted UNLAWFUL gun owner.

I just posted in irritation at those who would cloak themselves in some sort of special virtue to shore up their objections to regulation (including but not limited to registration)

Also, while I always appreciate being addressed by my title (Rex), and I live in hope that Juan Carlos will abdicate in my favor, until that happens I go by my given name, "Roger"

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:00pm

I’ve recall a name of another person who was "overly provocative for effect" Others called him Dick.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:16pm

In deference to "Baby", about whom I have recently chatted with Doc C in connection with her father, and referring you to my set of favorite quotations (specifically the one which originates with her..) I prefer

"Pretty Dick"

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:19pm

There is nothing in the Preamble or opening statement of the Second Amendment or whatever you want to call it, ........it is not a qualifier, to deny individuals the freedom to bear arms. Only the recognition that “ A well regulated, (or disciplined) Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.”

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Read the link below, for a detailed discussion

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment - GunCite

Militia

The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service

(dictionary.com)

Word Origin & History
militia

1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (seemilitary). Sense of "citizen army"

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 5:01pm

For purposes of elusive clarity, I repeat:

The Second Amendment must be amended or fully expunged if guns are to be confiscated.

We need no further exegesis or deconstruction vis-a-vis militias, blah blah blah , etc.

That ship has sailed.

FYI, no part of the Constitution, be it the original document or any Amendment, is unamendable.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:14pm

"tyranny of the majority....involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group , constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proving once again what our forefathers expected could happen and why they wanted WE the people, who would agree to form a government. should maintain our rights to bear arms

Never to trust some of the people to honor a lawful document. The original Thirteen Colonies should have remained un -united, if the Constitution they signed, wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:41pm

It is what it is. On that paper is set forth the protocol for amendment. May I remind you that it is by said process that your cherished Second Amendment came into being?

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:12pm

May I suggest that simple bold text may not be enough to get your very good point across, maybe a definition link is needed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:22pm

It is tiresome to see a thread filled with disquisitions about the protection afforded by an amendment that has been conceded effectively to block the proposed action, and whose elimination is the predicate of the topic under discussion...

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:25pm

You put the word "guns" in the title, did you not? It's an unwritten dagblog rule: doing that means it is not necessary to read or understand your blog post, but does allow for umpteen number of sermons of good old time 2nd amendment religion in comments and the regurgitations of same old same old discussion thereafter.

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:58pm

It is an insult to those of us who don't find it funny, that there are elements in this country who would like nothing better, than to attack any part of the Bill of Rights to weaken them. or rid them

Who will stand and defend the Rights against the constant assault? When a Patriot does stand up, for the preservation of any of the other Rights they are pilloried, until someday we all look around and find, the Rights are gone.

But as other have pointed out and they say, I am easily offended.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 12:37am

Your response should be to his comment, not mine:

I was just trying to alleviate his frustration, with some humor, that his proposed point of discussion was being ignored,saying it happens to everyone here. You respond by basically saying you don't care how he wants to premise the conversation, that your mission is too damn important. Making my parodying come real.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:05am

No AA...... Go back and read your own comment again and tell me your comment isn't ridicule?

I was just trying to alleviate his frustration,

How about you and others, begin by not engaging in disparaging remarks towards others ?

That is what is frustrating the important conversations, this country needs to have.

But hey I'll get over it, as Jolly might just say "who give a ...." about

Don't encourage him to be so dismissive.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:18am

Oh, please, I need no encouragement...

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:30am

Incorrigible? Just like some governments.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:49am

Lemme tell you what I find funny. I find it funny when guys dress up in camoflage that really can't stretch across their beer bellies and have pretend "sovereign citizen's court" meetings and run around with fake automatic weapons fluffing each other with fantasies about how they are gonna take on the government any day now and while they're at it they'll clean out the commies (and stuff) and wave their ~~dicks~~ weapons around so they can get cranked up enough to fuck their wives. (hint:they still can't)

THAT is just funny as shit....

Edit to add: BTW, I don't think you match the description, but, buddy, you run with that crowd.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:14am

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:49am

It just never ends.

by Ramona on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:19am

To be fair...the Amendment, yes.

But as AA (I think) has pointed out, the right to bear arms preceded the Constitution.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 8:56pm

Preceded the written constitution...The Brits think that they have one too, but it's embedded in common law.

Edit to add: Certainly the jurisprudence around gun rights in this country is fully dependent upon the textual analysis of the Second Amendment and confers wildly larger gun franchise than anything contemplated by British Common Law jurisprudence.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:13pm

Was only pondering in response to Emma's links on Pennsylvania law preceding the Revolution, upthread starting @ 2/25/2014 - 9:51 Found the raising of the self-defense issue there interesting, especially for a Quaker majority. It's not really 2nd amendment stuff, it's clearly to me about defending against hostile Injuns and thieves, and anyone anti-Quaker, perhaps. An awareness of the limits of pacifism in a new and dangerous world? The first link (Wikipedia) makes clear that the Pennsylvania legislature over the past centuries has written tons of regulations defining and very much putting lots of limits on the meaning of this phrase in their original constitution "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." So for the purpose of Jolly's argument, it's all moot.

by artappraiser on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 11:07pm

But the 2nd Amendment is just a codification of a status quo that had long preceded it in history. They assumed it (took it over) more than created it.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:55am

I read through the link. It makes many good points. If all one wanted to say is that the communitarian language of Second Amendment does not sanction disarming the populace per se, I would have to agree. I like Tribe's argument because of the way it distinguishes between a right extended to citizens by Federal decree from what can be canceled by a State prerogative, even though States have been given a role in forming and supplying the militia. Jolly's challenge falls in with this understanding because he is proposing to amend the amendment itself that extends that condition to private citizens.

But when the discussion in the link gets involved with whether the "National" Guard can be counted as a militia in conformity with the language of the amendment, it becomes absurd. Especially after remembering members of those units have been sent out to fight in foreign wars. But also because state participation is no longer essential to procurement and supply. States don't make Surface to Air missiles, etcetera.

The language of the Second Amendment was obviously concerned with the evils attending the establishment of a free standing military. The concern may not be the last word on who gets to hold a gun. But deciding who gets to own one can no longer be imagined to solve a lot of other problems that the Founders thought it did.

by moat on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 6:56pm

Thank you Moat for responding with a thoughtful deliberation,

Give me the opportunity to give your thoughts further consideration, I've had a bad day health wise and am retiring for a few hours.

by Resistance on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:39pm

Take your time.

I will take mine.

by moat on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 7:49pm

Well Jolly...another fine mess you've gotten us into.

Would I like guns taken out of the hands of everyone?

Yes.

Is it ever going to happen?

No. Never.

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, a favorite of gun owners, spoke in favor of having regular constitutional conventions. (And I read that Tom Coburn, after stepping down, will be stumping to convene a convention, mostly for banning Barack Obama, but hey, once Pandora's box is open, it's anyone's ball.)

TJ seemed to believe that subsequent generations shouldn't be burdened with the decisions or the debts of previous generations.

So, for example, I believe he was for simply canceling out the debt of a generation rather than passing it on. When that point was when one generation took the reins from another, I'm not sure.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:11pm

Boy, I am so torn about a convention.

On the one hand, we really need to change the legislative structure.

But on the other, it's hard to imagine that a new convention would pass the First, fFourth and Fifth amendments, and one has to be nervous about the 14th and 15th (pretty secure about the 13th, but I'm a pathological optimist...)

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:18pm

It would be a fucking disaster.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:20pm

Succinctly put...

Edit to add: everyone has there favorite from the Bill of Rights--oddly, those enamored of the Second would love to eviscerate the 4th and 5th...

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:39pm

Sorry to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but there you have it.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:19pm

That's easy--every time the last living parent of a currently serving President dies...it's kinda ad hoc, but it works.

by jollyroger on Tue, 02/25/2014 - 9:43pm

Jolly, I'm going to suggest an "assignment" for you...

Something's been bothering me about this post, and I think I know what it is and have a more interesting and fruitful topic to suggest.

You say basically: If we amended the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, and then passed a law confiscating all guns, then all those "law abiding" gun owners would no longer be law abiding if they didn't give up their guns.

Yes, but this is a little bit--maybe not entirely, but a little bit--like saying if my mother were a man, she'd be my father. Leaving biological and time-space obstacles aside, I would say, "Yes, but so what?'

So yes, they wouldn't be law abiding if they didn't give up their guns. But this is like saying, "If we changed the laws so that everyone had to drive backwards, then folks who drove forwards would no longer be law abiding."

When they say "law abiding," they mean current laws. What else could they mean? And what else could we require them to mean? Are we really going to accuse them of being potential law breakers by supposing a complete change in the laws of which they would vehemently disapprove?

In short, how big a sin is it to be proven a potential law breaker (and potential only if we change our entire legal framework, not potential in that they're just itching to break the law now and just haven't had the overwhelming urge or opportunity)?

Added to this...

You have very big problems with your solution...

The amending process was purposely designed to be VERY arduous and hard to pull off. I'm sure you know the requirements better than I. 2/3 of Congress. 2/3 of all the state legislatures. I think. And a whole bunch of those legislatures are redder than a cherry, places where people learn to shoot before they learn to walk. We can't even get milquetoast gun laws passed. And actually, in some of those places, guns really are an important tool.

So what has Jolly done here? Has he gotten us worked up about a fantasy? Playing Imagine would have been a lot easier.

So here's my "assignment": What would it take to actually pull this off? What kinds of arguments would we have to make to make this change a reality? And let me start things off with this suggestion:

Instead of proposing to do away with the 2nd Amendment, how would we amend the Amendment to allow for a saner approach to gun ownership than what we have now and one that the vast majority of sane gun owners could support?

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:35am

The amending process was purposely designed to be VERY arduous and hard to pull off. I'm sure you know the requirements better than I. 2/3 of Congress. 2/3 of all the state legislatures.

Actually, it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or 38 out of 50 states. That said, it does not technically require 2/3 of Congress, as a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the states could also get the ball rolling. I say "technically" because this has never happened. All 27 of our amendments started in Congress.

Edit to add: you raise a very valid point, however. My nitpick was not meant to detract from that.

by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:45am

It's good to get the details correct. Thanks.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:57am

Easy peasy. Add this sentence.

"Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to constrain the government of the several states or of the United States from requiring that individuals owning firearms register the same, apply for and receive licenses for their continued possession, and setting forth the conditions for the safe storage, transport and transfer of the same as shall seem proper. Enforcement of said conditions of safe storage, transport and transfer shall be exempt from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and the inspection of the conditions of storage in particular may be inforced by the unannounced inspection of the premises wherein the firearms are registered to be kept.

Edit to add: You haven't quite stated my point. It is that in resisting registration, current "lawful" owners are asserting an interest in maintaining ambiguity as to their ownership and possession of firearms for the declared purpose of being better able to evade a legal confiscation should one come about.

It's kinda like when we object to having to carry ID (your papers) but permit the cops to ask our identity--we are asserting an interest in being able to lie, not in maintaining our privacy, which would only be afforded by refusing the cops the right to routinely ask our identity absent some probable cause to need to know it.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:11am

You were the one that suggested Jack boots coming to the house. We don't need to be reminded this type of event has and will continue to happen, a fact; we will not ignore despite you and others saying it is absurd.

As I recall a most recent history; all Germans were required to fill out papers, about their Jewish ancestry.

WHY? .......Had they done something wrong?

Should the people have been alarmed and asked "why does my name have to be on some "National Registry" and who controls this data?

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:43am

Edit to add: You haven't quite stated my point. It is that in resisting registration, current "lawful" owners are asserting an interest in maintaining ambiguity as to their ownership and possession of firearms for the declared purpose of being better able to evade a legal confiscation should one come about.

Ambiguity or privacy? I have to disagree. You're being too clever by half. They fear a lawless government coming to confiscate their arms. They fight to keep the legal status quo on ownership. If the law is changed, then the government can legally confiscate.

It's kinda like when we object to having to carry ID (your papers) but permit the cops to ask our identity--we are asserting an interest in being able to lie, not in maintaining our privacy, which would only be afforded by refusing the cops the right to routinely ask our identity absent some probable cause to need to know it.

We assert our right not to reveal--to maintain our privacy. We permit the cops to ask, but don't we also permit ourselves not to tell? You're the lawyer, so I'm arguing with an expert, but I do watch Law and Order SVU re-runs, so watch the fuck out!

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 10:05am

Let me take this one step further. I'm going to talk about Resistance in the 3rd person only because he's forced me to wrestle with this.

The foundational insight that Resistance and the pro-gunners have correct is that people have a right to defend themselves. Ultimately, this has little to do with what's written in the Constitution or elsewhere. It's a fact of nature. When attacked or threatened, ALL creatures, large and small, will seek to defend themselves. This is why I say the 2nd Amendment post-dates this right; the Amendment simply codifies it in writing.

Preventing someone from trying to defend himself is not only illegal or immoral...it is impossible. When strangled, a person will fight to get a breath. It's almost like that. Seen this way, it's less a "right" that can be argued over; it's a fact of nature. An instinct. And in fact, it would be immoral and thus should be illegal to prevent someone from defending himself in most situations--forcing him to die or get mugged or robbed--so you don't want a law that crosses this moral line.

(I'm sure there are situations we could imagine in which an act of self defense should be stopped on moral grounds--but let's leave this aside.)

So the question then becomes: Is access to firearms a necessary means to exercising this "right" or this "instinct"? Extending the question a bit, is it necessary because many people don't have the skill or strength to defend themselves in any other way? Or because their attackers bearing firearms (illegal ones) can only be deterred by opposing firearms?

This line of questioning seems legitimate to me and essential to convincing enough people to agree to amend the 2nd Amendment to make it happen.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 10:23am

Inasmuch as I have, myself, found it meet to go about strapped, I certainly sympathize with the stated need.

That said, many societies find it possible to honor the urge towards self-defense without enduring the horrors via retelling.

My post was directed, as I have said, at deconstructing the rationales offered as barriers to the kind of regulations that would permit gun ownership and usage for self-defense (particularly in one's home) but ameliorate as much as possible the risks attendant upon such ownership.

I only extended my overview to full confiscation to expose the fact that resistance to registration on the grounds that the latter would facilitate confiscation might be logically consistent but could not be called , ipso facto, lawful behavior.

Where the (as you call them) pro-gunners fall, it seems to me, is when they say that in order to preserve their peace of mind vis-a-vis potential confiscation, we have to endure the wild west, and the babies of Sandy Hook are acceptable collateral damage.

That is obscene.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 10:48am

Okay.

We're in agreement on registration...Sandy Hook...and most of this.

But this...

I only extended my overview to full confiscation to expose the fact that resistance to registration on the grounds that the latter would facilitate confiscation might be logically consistent but could not be called , ipso facto, lawful behavior.

No, but we can change the law to say anything we want, and then opposing said law is, by definition, illegal. And conforming with that law is also, by definition, legal.

It's probably not worth arguing about, but I don't see how this twist exposes anything. When they talk about being "law abiding," they're about current law. They aren't talking about some possible law we might make up. So yes, if the law changed to allow or require confiscation and they resisted, they would no longer be "law abiding" citizens. And they wouldn't like that, of course. No one wants what they do and love to suddenly be proclaimed illegal. It's just that I don't see where this line of arguing gets us. Maybe I'm being dense; in which case, I apologize.

Whether laws requiring registration lead ineluctably to laws allowing confiscation is one of those slippery slope arguments that are impossible to deal with. All sides use them, and they only make sense to someone if he shares the fear or he can point to real reasons or precedents for believing the slope really is slippery.

So pro choice people use this argument any time any restrictions on abortion are brought up. I, personally, think they have a case only because the "pro life" folks equate abortion with murder and have stated their purpose as eliminating abortion altogether. So it's reasonable to fear that slope as a possibility.

Resistance has a chunk of truth in his arguments, but they are swaddled in layers upon layers of fear--which you can't argue with. What makes them doubly bad, however, is that his proposed response to those fears is utterly ineffective. When Jack comes to the door, he ain't coming alone or unarmed or underarmed compared to you. Your AR-15 will be as useful as a bow and arrow in that event.

He just doesn't get that, but hopefully many others will and do.

Politics is the only answer. What people who bring up the Nazis don't understand is that Hitler was elected. People loved him. I imagine there were even quite a few German Jews who, early on, liked him. So that's one. Two is, what percentage of the German population was made up of Jews? Even if they were ALL armed with hunting rifles, what is a quickly formed group of ill-trained and ill-organized people going to do against a highly trained well-equipped army? Nothing.

Politics, applied early on, is the only thing that might have saved them. IMHO. But even then, widespread anti-Semitism in Europe might have deprived them of any real allies and done them in.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 11:28am

Roger, you make assumptions that are not based on facts only on wishful thinking. Where are the studies that verify the idea that gun registration will have any deterrent on incidents such as Sandy Hook? I don't have to oppose registration because it might lead to confiscation but because it will not lead to the results you claim to desire and it will infringe on all our rights. You and many others seem to believe you have special knowledge not possessed by us regular folk and your remedies will produce the desired results ignoring facts and reality. Registering guns will not cure a sick predatory society that produces horrors like Sandy Hook. What is truly chilling is how much of other people's rights Liberals are determined to usurp to gain a sense of pseudo security. Their overwhelming support of Drone Murder to protect their babies by killing the Other's babies is the international manifestation of this disease.

by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 3:36pm

What is truly chilling is how much of other people's rights Liberals are determined to usurp to gain a sense of pseudo security.

How much is it, actually, Peter?

Whether registration works to decrease gun violence remains to be seen--it can't be seen unless it's tried, can it?--but it's silly to claim that requiring registration is some huge curtailment of people's rights, as you clearly suggest.

Owning a car, though not a right, is an apposite example. The number of hoops one has to go through to buy and operate a car is pretty substantial, and yet it's hardly slowed down the pace at which nor the ease with which Americans buy cars.

But beyond gun rights, which other rights do see liberals attempting to "usurp"?

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 4:45pm

Your willingness to sacrifice other's rights and your dismissal of their valid concerns about government intrusion in their life just to see if it might solve a problem is telling. It goes beyond faulty logic into the realm of Paternalism and goes far in justifying why many people will never trust Liberals. Some of the most prominent Liberals in the US including Pelosi and Obama are outspoken advocates for the Surveillance State, hawkish bloody foreign policy, neoliberal dismantling of democracy and destroying public education, the list is much longer but you should get the picture.

by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:18pm

I'm sorry: There is NO sacrifice of rights in requiring registration.

It's a nonsense argument that assumes what it needs to prove.

Not every inconvenience is an infringement on rights. All rights enumerated in the Constitution have limits. Even the originalists accept this.

And if you're looking for numbers and proof, as you were "five minutes" ago, how do you expect to get them without trying a policy?

SYG is an experiment, after all. As is loosening the requirements for CCR. As was capital punishment. As were virtually all the laws we've put into place. We couldn't have known beforehand what they would yield.

Loosening here always impinges somewhere else. Impinging here always loosens somewhere else.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 3:52pm

It is an infringement on the Peoples Rights and your mischievous attempts can only be construed as to overthrow the intended PURPOSES of the Second Amendment .

Despite all your arguments or ridicule, our forefathers did intend for the people to have the right to bear arms to to be used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants.

The first thing a foreign power or a domestic tyrant would want to do, is get a list of those who could resist.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:36pm

There was NO ridicule in my post.

You should retract that accusation.

In return, I'll stop posting about guns.

It's a pointless merry-go-round.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:55pm

Lemme understand, you are taking umbrage at being accused of practicing "ridicule"?

What's wrong with ridicule? It eases the somnolent seriousness and tedious torpor of our self-important circle jerking, n'est ce pas?

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:02pm

The ridicule I mentioned was an the anticipated response, if I were to expound on defending against the Superior authority. Not that your question was ridicule.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:04pm

Paternalism now that is a good description.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:58pm

Perhaps you have not been paying attention, this is a long thread.

Re: Sandy Hook. A detestable basket case who, (let us give present restrictions the benefit of the doubt) probably could not have held it together enough to buy the bushmaster himself (and we can address the issue of threshold testing elsewhere) was able to avail himself of his mother's careless storage to commit a monstrous act.

In my little scenario, I proposed that a small step towards sanity would be to require that at least those weapons purchased by the ostensibly sane non-disqualified might be put outside the reach of the *flagrant nut jobs.

I did not content myself with registration, (which appears to be as far as you have thought this through) but added regulations as to storage, and upon such regulations hypothesized an enforcement regime, the operation of which turned upon knowing by whom a gun was bought, and where it was stored, in order to enforce the safe storage law.

Thus, licensing.

Does that help?

*(cf. Jared Loughner, James Holmes--bearing in mind those two got their own weapons legally under our absurdly low thresholds for purchase, but let's call them "wobblers" who might have crapped out with a bit more scrutiny. BTW, I'm gonna put Lanza down as way worse than either of them. YMMV, but we could discuss the issue. They didn't go looking for babies to kill)

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:07pm

You don't seem to even be able to understand what you are trying to sell here, Roger. Your "little scenario" would require massive resources and manpower and Jack Boot Enforcers by the thousands. There are about 50 million legal gun owners that will have to be interrogated, once , twice or possibly many times a year. This new Enforcement Regime could be sold as a jobs program for returning vets who already have the training in forced entry and terrorizing civilians. Simplistic Authoritarian solutions to complex social problems is all that feeble Liberal minds have to offer and luckily few people actually buy this BS.

by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:01pm

Well, of course, the virtue of the "surprise inspection" coupled with the high cost of noncompliance (confiscation) is that one hopes to motivate compliance.

That said, and considering what we hope to preserve by limiting unauthorized access (go look at the pictures if you dare) I'm willing to paraphrase Madeleine Albright in an entirely different context, and say "we think it's worth it"...

But since you are worried about cost, we'll let the federal employee who visits six times a week do the job when he drops off the mail. Best of all, he already works for a "general" and wears a uniform.

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:16pm

This comment has been deleted.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 3:55pm

This comment has been deleted.

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:36pm

What do you mean?

Seriously, don't get what you're saying.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:46pm

Ah, I see, but can't edit it any more.

"...gun country..."

Sorry.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:48pm

This comment has been deleted.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:51pm

How, exactly? I don't see the button to click anymore even tho I deleted my comment. (stupid interface!)

Edit to add: of course, without my helpful commentary, PS may get clean away with the typo...

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:56pm

Your a good man Jolly.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:09pm

I'll move...here's hoping you can fix it

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 5:54pm

With a nod towards the topic of this thread, would it be too precious to say "You dodged a bullet, there, partner..."

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:08pm

(groan)

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:11pm

Are honest mistakes/typos no longer allowed?

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:14pm

This comment has been deleted.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 6:30pm

Raging?

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

by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 7:38pm

by Resistance on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 11:45pm

What you say is true and is what I have been trying to say, but just couldn't find the words . Maybe I should watch Law and Order SVU too.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 12:48pm

Alas, we do not have the right to refuse to give our names, that's why it's inapposite to complain about carrying an ID card.

In California, there was a non law student whose name now escapes me, who used to get picked up regularly walking in the Berkeley Hills (high priced real estate) who would get jacked up by the cops who demanded he tell his name--he went to the Ca. Supreme Court in pro per and as I recollect, won, but that was the Rose Bird court, and we know what happened to her.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 11:11am

Easy peasy.

Indeed, that is what Emma's first link on Pennsylvania was about, the Uniform Firearms Act which put limits on the right-to-bear-arms line in the Pennsylvania constitution.

Sec. 21 of the PA constitution still reads: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

But the Uniform Firearms Act is an added set of statutes that, among other things prohibits the carrying of certain firearms in vehicles or concealed on the person without a license; prohibits ownership or possession of firearms by certain persons; provides for the licensing for concealed carry; provided strictures for dealers in firearms and; provides penalties for violations of the law and establishes mandatory, state-wide procedures for issuing a license to carry firearms.

The "slippery slope" gang would argue that once you amend with requirements for concealed carry, next is licensing of weapons kept at home. Let's give them this concession: they are indeed right, those statutes do mean that could happen, even though it hasn't.

It's actual of interest to delve into the original Pennsylvania line, the words defense of themselves and the State. What does "defense" mean in PA, as opposed to like, "stand your ground" laws? Wikipedia gives me a clue: to protect the public by preventing an individual from having at hand, a weapon of which the public is unaware. Allowing citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state means ensuring a fair fight and safety with licensing.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 12:33pm

P.S. A reminder that one of Resistance's most frequent arguments against licensing is that the usefulness of guns for protection is all about a perp not knowing whether others are armed or not. And he has often argued similar as regards Mr. Jackboot in foreign countries-that Mr. Jackboot could do nothing and would try nothing if Mr. Jackboot didn't know who had guns and who didn't.

Pennsylvania law basically implies just the opposite, that part of citizens being able to defend themselves and their state is knowing who has a gun. In their case, only carrying. But that implies other forms of ownership could be identified to the public, too.

You did a post on the latter once, I recall, something about publishing lists of gun owners, so that maybe some families might not want to let their little Johnny go and play at some houses where there were firearms?

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 12:46pm

Resistance's most frequent arguments against licensing

The only reason it is frequent, is because you continue to dredge up an old response that I have already admitted, should have been worded differently.

Loop

Resistance's most frequent arguments against licensing

The only reason it is frequent, is because you continue to dredge up an old response that I have already admitted, should have been worded differently.

Loop

Resistance's most frequent arguments against licensing

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 12:56pm

Oh puhleez you bring it up every chance you get. I am not a fool. When you're all fired up by a debate on guns on another thread, where I'm not involved, and I happen to post a news item on some foreign country upheaval, you have often come over to my news thread and bring it there. It's like this, you all of a sudden jump to my new news item on Nigeria or whatever and say: see what happens when the people don't have guns! Gays can't defend themselves! You've done that to me many times.

Sometimes I actually give you the respect of explaining why I think that it's not applicable. You seem to prefer Jolly's method of being told to cut the shit, as in his reply to you upthread Impassioned, but inapposite. (Not for the first time...) I really should resist more (get it? > resist/Resistance) because it's just hijacking for most everyone else with any sense and an insult to all the readers of your comments to whom it is obvious what you are up to. I have learned my lesson, when you do that from now on, I will just quote Jolly in response Impassioned, but inapposite. (Not for the first time...)

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:33pm

see what happens when the people don't have guns! Gays can't defend themselves!

Is not the same as

is all about a perp not knowing whether others are armed or not.

I suspect the gays or any other group that is about to be attacked; is banned from having guns? But the perps acting violently against the gays, probably already know that as they may have researched the National Registry?

As for the Jolly response, he just couldn't or he wouldn't see my point was not inapposite but I'm sure that if you thought it useful in further disparaging me or pillorying me, I have no doubt you will use it. You'll probably be the first one to throw the stone.

Cant we just agree, we don't agree on this subject and bury the hatchet.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 2:23pm

Dude, what ever else might be argued, you are in no position to complain about the repetition of a narrative.

You cruise up and down the streets of this discussion board looking for any conversation you can grab and drive away with in your van. You have been doing it for so many years now, I could do it for you.

I know all the talking points. I am familiar with all the rhetorical forms used for attack and evasion and understand the logic of their alternating progression. I know when to pull the van over and pop the victim hood when all the roads have been blocked.

Gotta go. I hear the TOS sirens closing in on my position.

by moat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:40am

Take the battery outta your cellphone NOW. There's not a moment to lose...

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:15am

Same old tactics against the Second Amendment ........ same old defense

Stop attacking. and there would be no need for defenders to stand up and speak out.

Gun control advocates will never win, the exercise is futile. Just like those knowledgeable of the Second trying to convince the stubborn, uneducated ..... a lesson in futility.

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:59am

Gun control disarms law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care if the gun they use is registered; they probably stole it anyway. The more restrictive you make gun ownership, the more brazen the criminal, who figures he'll take a chance, the odds are in their favor, the intended victim is unarmed.

Even Bus, cab and convenience stores put up signs to act as a disincentive to robbers stating how little cash the criminal would receive if they did rob.

Put a sign in the front window at your home, for criminals to read "Owner doesn't own a gun" or the sign at the entrance to the city "This city has banned guns within the city limits". You really think a criminal gives a crap, what the city has banned?

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:51pm

Let's get slightly meta...

For some reason, you interpret licensing--which admittedly was not the subject of this post by Jolly, by anyways--as "disarming."

I know there's a slippery slope argument, but still, you need more than that to be convincing.

The "restrictiveness" in the licensing process, as AA laid out in her quotes about PA laws, restricts bad buys from getting guns. Guys who likelihood says will do something bad with their firearm. It weeds them out. That's good, right? That's one less bad guy a good guy has to defend against with his firearm, right?

Yes, it's one more hoop for good guys to go through, too, but it's hardly onerous. Everyone goes through the same process to register their cars. Smart people, dumb people, rich people, poor people, people who don't speak English or can't write.

And yet still, they all get cars.

And arguably, when you've got a license, you've put a "sign" up in your front yard that says, "Hey, I've got a gun. Here's my #. You can look it up if you don't believe me." Maybe a real sign would do the trick. Like an ADT sign on your lawn. "Gun inside. License # 1234. Look it up or Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

But if the guy has to guess whether you have a gun because there is no licensing and there's no way of his knowing for sure, then maybe he feels lucky that day and gives your house a try. Do you want him to feel lucky? Because even if he isn't lucky, and you've got a gun, there's no guarantee that you won't get hurt instead of him.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 2:36pm

Criminals don't care if the gun they use is registered; they probably stole it anyway.

This is not true, criminals admit they use straw purchases when they can't buy guns themselves. They don't have to steal guns Their ability to do this is because laws on guns differ between states and with certain venues like gun shows and websites. The N.R.A. and other lobbyists fight solving that problem.

Of course, you don't like to read articles like that, as shown on that thread, because they deny your narratives.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 5:00pm

Follow the Movement of Crime Guns in America: Click a State or Law.

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#

(Found on one of Erica's early 2013 threads on topic where you also commented with the usual agitprop, seemingly not acknowledging the actual issues being discussed or paying any attention to the nuances therein.)

We know exactly what the problem is:

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), straw purchasers “represent a significant overall crime and public safety problem.”⁴ By intentionally buying firearms for someone else, straw purchasers thwart the background check requirement and allow firearms to be funneled to criminals, domestic abusers and gangs.⁵

According to a study ATF conducted in 2000 of 1,530 firearms trafficking investigations, straw purchasing accounted for almost one-half (46%) of all investigations, and was associated with nearly 26,000 illegally trafficked firearms.⁶

Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows from 2004 – 2006 also uncovered “widespread” straw purchasing from firearms dealers, where guns were diverted to “convicted felons and local and international gangs.”⁷

In 2009, New York City officials conducted their own investigation at gun shows across the U.S. to test whether, among other things, firearms dealers would be willing to sell guns to someone who appeared to be a straw purchaser.⁸ New York’s investigation found that 16 out of 17 (or 94% of) dealers approached by investigators willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.⁹

A 2007 study found that straw purchases were significantly more common at gun shows in states with little regulation (Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Texas) than at gun shows in California, which regulates gun shows and requires background checks for all firearm transfers.¹⁰

Guns move from states with weak gun laws into states with strong gun laws. More specifically, gun traffickers frequently obtain guns in states that lack laws such as dealer regulations, background check requirements, and lost and stolen reporting requirements, and re-sell them in states that have these laws.¹¹

Trafficking channels are identified through the use of crime gun tracing.¹²

This proposed attempt to make straw purchasing a Federal crime was stripped from the gun bill last April because it didn't get 60 votes in the Senate, 58 Democrats voted for it, vs. 42 Republicans.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 5:31pm

You enjoy spreading myths about gun shows.

Explain this fact ….the first Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. "Our ultimate goal," Pete Shields said, is "to make the the possession of all handguns and handgun ammunition . . . totally illegal ("The New Yorker , July 26, 1976)

Why don't you and the others who mock me, when I suggest they "really do want the guns

Tell me again, how the gun control advocates don’t want the guns.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 6:51pm

The world of Resistance when backed into a corner on his narrative being disrupted is one where he lashes out with ill-thought out comments where facts are myths and myths are facts, and anarchy and oppressive government can exist at the same time. Instead of sitting back and reading citations and thinking about them and coming back with a cogent argument. I would not be surprised to see you quote freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength in the future.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:04pm

Myths? How so?

Seems like AA has a lot of...wait for it!...footnotes!

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:45pm

NRA-ILA | The Gun Show Myth

Video: Debunking the Gun-Show Loophole Myth - Leah Barkoukis

“universal background checks” equals de facto registration.

Video] NRA Commentator Colion Noir Debunks “Gun Show Loophole” Myth

As for the reaction from the National Rifle Association, here was the group's statement:

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:49pm

The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson.

That is so far from true as to be laughable. I could spell out for you a series of very simple checks that would have flagged both of these guys.

eg:

Fill out this questionaire:

Please list the person or persons in whose employ you labored for the prior 6 months.

If your time has not been spent in compensated labor, please list your teachers.

List your physicians.

Please sign the authorization to inquire of your employers or teachers and physicians whether they know of any reason why you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

Don't want to fill out the form? no harm no foul (no gun)

Y'gotta problem with that?

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:56pm

Yes I do.

You cant even purchase Sudafed or any other controlled substance, without someone knowing your medical history, If the Government was so inclined, they could probably track all kinds of medicines that might interfere with a persons ability or Right to own a gun. Without the rest of us law abiding citizens, having to give up our Right to privacy, in order to exercise our other Rights.

Not satisfied with attacking the Right to Bear Arm now you want to weaken the Right to Privacy? Hell this ain't no slippery slope; its a highway big enough for semis to punch a hole in, every other Rights

Obamacare a backdoor to invade privacy?

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:28pm

I don't want EVERYONE'S guns, just the mouth frothers. (I leave it to you to decide whether such a standard poses a threat to you personally...)

Long before I would put you away in the nuthouse, I believe that a simple panel of neurotransmitter blood assays would distinguish whether you ought to be permitted to own (let alone pack).

Of course, that sort of regime means no private (read, unregulated) sales outside of licensed gun dealerships.

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:19pm

I would suggest that Congress remove or arrest Eric Holder and those responsible for covering up the operation of Fast and Furious; a program initiated by our government where they encouraged and facilitated Straw buyers

From your link

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), straw purchasers “represent a significant overall crime and public safety problem.”⁴

Another study points out that the near absence of ammunition sales regulation in the U.S. also contributes substantially to the cross-border trafficking problem.¹⁸

Colby Goodman and Michel Marizco, U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico: New Data and Insights Illuminate Key Trends and Challenges 198, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September 2010

AA the article hides this fact

“U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico” ?????? is included to support the agenda of gun control advocates, ....is why Americans should give up their rights?

I and others always thought there was an alterior motive for Fast and Furious.

Plan : Shock the people into begging the Congress for more gun control, all the while the Obama administration was purposely, not controlling the guns they had in their possession. Not controlling for a reason? The Family of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry’ family should bring suit against the government for negligence..

ATF Agent Sends Shockwaves Across Internet With Explosive ...

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:21pm

That listing brought down a true shitstorm on the newspaper, which was curious in the variety of the complaints against it.

Some argued that it vitiated the "herd immunity" by letting miscreants know who was unprotected. Others complained that it was a roadmap to where one might hope to steal a gun.

Oddly, my "public health" argument as well as the roadmap to plunder argument would be met by a biometric safety (unless you worry that the gun owner him or her self might go beserk and kill your visiting kid, but in that case you probably wouldn't want your kid visiting even if that person had only a butter knife and a teeter totter to work with)

On that note, it does strike me that the floridly overwrought tone of the gun nuts proclamations of impending extinguishment of all rights won since Runnymeade does seem to run through all their purported "reasoning" on this matter, to a disquieting extent.

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:10pm

Wikipedia gives me a clue: to protect the public by preventing an individual from having at hand, a weapon of which the public is unaware. Allowing citizens of Pennsylvania to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state means ensuring a fair fight and safety with licensing.

I'm not entirely clear on the meaning of this, especially the meaning of "public," but...

In the situations the pro-gunners contemplate, they don't want a "fair fight" and neither would anyone else.

A bad guy comes up to you with a gun. He already has a jump on you. In a situation like this, do you want a "fair fight"?

Not sure it makes a lot of sense to think that such a person would know you might be carrying because you're on a licensed to carry list somewhere in the capital...

But then, what does it mean to say the public is aware?

OTOH, and this could be a strong argument, if the bad guy IS aware that you have a gun on you (because he's looked you up) he might be less likely to try anything. Your person or your house.

Pro-gunners have made the argument that if criminals know the public in place X is definitely unarmed, they feel liberated to do their worst. But if, conversely, they know you're carrying because you're licensed, then that might be a deterrent.

Of course, then they might know who was not licensed or carrying...so it goes.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:32pm

Okay, I'm tired of this.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 1:34pm

Come back ~~Shane~~ Peter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoCw2iOTSc @.24

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 2:02pm

I put up a link in the News section a few minutes ago about how militias in Kiev are struggling to maintain order since most of the police fled the city. You all should read it as the people of Kiev are facing some of Resistance's worst fears.

I have no idea how much PR went into the piece but, honestly, my eyes teared up a few times at how brave and determined some of these people are not to lose their city to utter chaos.

Militias Hunt Kiev Looters From Central Bank to Bling Palace

by EmmaZahn on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 5:16pm

That's why I very much dislike romanticizing of revolution without a plan, or even glorifying the thought of it like some extreme gun advocates do. The niceties of civilization and government are not something to be thrown aside without planning for the aftermath.

Nonetheless the article says

While Kiev is mostly peaceful, there is no central authority in full control.

As the speed of change sinks in among Ukrainians, the risk is that security will eventually break down if the police force isn’t reconfigured and returned to the streets.

If. It will probably happen, their Parliament seems relatively solid (though they've got to face money problems, not to mention probably some angry constituents of Russian ethnic background.)

In Egypt, they eventually chose to go waaaay overboard with the returning to a security state, that's what eventually happened there after it all played out.

I am also reminded of some old long ago Rumsfeld quotes about looting, like "It's untidy, and freedom's untidy."

Security is #1. You don't have civilization without it. Just because fascist governments also usually offer it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Armed militias substituting for weak or failed central government are one of the major causes of suffering around the globe today.

Luckily in the Ukraine, they seem to be really good people so far, for now.

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 6:09pm

Some times, there is no time for a well thought out plan. Only preparedness for "in case" the hypothetical (what if's) does happen. Some might say "we never saw it coming" or believing it couldn't happen, but it did happen and others were warning them, it could happen. But the warning message was rejected as nuts.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 6:42pm

"for now"

That is one thought that brought a tear. They have such hopes that they can make things better. I hope they are right but the odds are against them.

by EmmaZahn on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:16pm

Okay, but...

What has actually been proposed is registration and closing some of the loopholes, like straw man purchases and gun show and internet purchases.

Not disarming the populace.

Even in a much more totalitarian society, such as the Ukraine, it appears there are plenty of people with guns stop looters and maintain some order. The government hasn't disarmed them.

And note, please: This is not "the government" attacking the people. Right? If anything, it's the people running wild. The government, in the form of the police, has vamoosed.

IOW, I don't think this is really R's scenario--serious though it is.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 7:50pm

What do you mean "I don't think this is really R's scenario"?

I have continually stated, my position is all about self defense.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:17pm

Let's see if we can't find some refuge in technology.

If I say you can have your gun but it must be personalized to you, so only you can fire it (now pretty much within technological reach ), a step which would really enhance your self defense interest since it would keep it from being turned against you by an assailant, would you agree, or would you tell me that you would feel so infringed in your freedom that your dick would no longer get hard, and therefor I have to risk seeing those pictures again and again?

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:28pm

Next thing you know the government will have some sort of v- chip installed, allowing access by the government through some back door technology; allowing them to send a signal (OnStar for guns) making the gun inoperable, Then the government would pass a law that says, no one can tamper with the chip, a punishable offense.

I'd like to tell you where you could put your ......technology.

by Resistance on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:10pm

I would not risk a TOS reprimand redux.

I will merely point out that you have done everything but answer the question.

Shall I put you down, then, for "no, I will not accept a biometric safety pursuant to which I, but only I, can fire as much as my psyche requires."?

BTW, I like that on/star gun chip...good lookin' out, partner!

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 9:27pm

That's what friends are for

BTW....... looking back on one of the links you provided. I came across the name Obey, what ever happened? We don't see the name anymore, I enjoyed reading Obey's comments.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 2:04am

He's posting over at Fire Dog Lake, and I just read something from him on Wendy Davis's (wearestardust) eulogy to Miguel.

http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2014/02/26/vaya-con-dios-miguelitoh2o/

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 2:43am

There's no defense against paranoia, my friend.

It insinuates itself into the deepest and darkest recesses of our being, down to the atomic cellular level.

The universe itself is paranoid finding itself to be untrustworthy and therefore unworthy even of itself.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:40am

The only refuge is...like happiness...a warm gun.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:47am

I would really have wished to understand what objection could be raised (other than, potentially cost) to a biometric safety, which would pose no impediment whatsoever to quick deployment of the weapon (unlike a trigger lock) and would have the added benefit of preventing the weapon from doing you yourself any harm other than as a club.

Win-win, I would think. What interest does R seek to vindicate, other than some stubborn demand that no rules whatsoever will be accepted when it comes to his piece.

I don't know why he won't answer with an actually responsive dialog?

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 9:15am

True, but he was clear about his reasoning, too. At a time when the NSA is able to creep into every nook and cranny via the omnipresent and omnivorous WWW, who's to say one's gun couldn't be hacked? That refrigerator that tells you when you're out of milk and whether the store has stocked your brand could be hacked and send you off to buy fluoride-laced "milk." Why not your gun? That's not so far fetched, right?

Paranoia is like the NSA, but without the limitations. Anything that can be thought can come true. All IS mind, but in a paranoid state, the mind mistakes itself for the enemy and self cannibalizes. All phenomena, contradictory and confirming, are fed into the same maw and exit as a perfect mirror on one's paranoid mental state. Think of it as the Borg, at least as I understand it.

The sad thing is that Resistance really thinks his gun will protect him from "this."

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:08am

I suppose that technological naivete coupled with paranoia might lead him to worry that a purely local transaction like the palm print reading gun butt transferring permission to the firing pin to operate, unconnected to any external signal (unlike the fridge) could expose him to hacking, but Geez!

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:46pm

Go ahead Jolly, tell me all about this device; how it works, who installs it, who controls it, how does the transferring transmission work, if the weapon is sold how do you reset?

You're correct; tech stuff is very confusing I believe in keeping things simple.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:20pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_gun

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:35pm

When I return I'll review it further, would it surprise you, I tend to be critical of any attempts intended to slip a Trojan Horse into our camp? Under the heading Criticism is where I'll be focusing my attention.

We stand together because if we get divided, we fall. We know how the attackers of our Rights, works.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:55pm

We stand together because if we get divided, we fall. We know how the attackers of our Rights, works.

I'm not sure who you mean by we but most gun owners, even NRA members, don't stand with you.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americ...

A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal

The survey purposely over-sampled gun owners and those living in homes with guns to better estimate the differences between gun-owners and non-gun owners. For the most part, the study found there was little difference in support between the two.

"Not only are gun owners and non-gun-owners very much aligned in their support for proposals to strengthen U.S. gun laws, but the majority of NRA members are also in favor of many of these policies," Daniel Webster, co-author of the study and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said in a statement.

In addition to favoring universal background checks, the majority of NRA members surveyed supported prohibiting people with recent alcohol or drug charges to purchase guns, and 70 percent supported a mandatory minimum of 2 years in prison for selling guns to persons who are not legally allowed to have one.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 2:21pm

but most gun owners, even NRA members, don't stand with you.

The spreading of more misinformation by gun control advocates, is their best tool to convince the uninformed.

Propaganda

Like Tokyo Rose and folks like her, who would spread lies about progress in the war They would say how great their side was doing and how we should put down our arms and join them. “why American GI, should you die for your leaders”

Here’s how it works with the gun control propaganda. “ Look even members of your own organization, members of the NRA disagree with their leaders; so why should you believe and fight for anything the NRA says”

Gun control advocates like Toyko Rose "willing to lie" or mis-characterize the polls to serve their political agenda.

Here is the TRUTH and not the lies the other side employs.

It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.

It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.

Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

"Universal Background Checks" – Absolutely Not

Alert: Universal Background Checks Explained

Florida Alert: What Can Happen Under So-Called "Universal" Background Checks

NRA POSITION

We do believe that records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) ought to be included in the federal instant check system.

You got a problem with that?

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 6:02pm

Let's review the bidding:

O-K brings the results of three polls (Johns Hopkins, Pew, Gallup) in support of his contention that even NRA members support universal background checks.

Resistance: "You lie!". Brings no counter polls from NRA, merely polemic tracts plus one weak minded criticism of some hypothetical methodological objection to an unidentified poll (possible attribution to Mayor Bloomberg, who, as far as we know, is not a pollster, but, who cares?")

I have failed as a teacher. Resistance, you have learned nothing in this class.

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 6:23pm

Yes I have

U R a son of a gun, (No offense to my brothers father, whose last name is Gunn)

I'll have to go back and read the posed questions used in the polls. But I know how deceptive, pollsters can be, as they serve their agenda, Was it you that implied how stupid people were, when they voted for Buchanan?

But a bigger issue should be considered , why would I ever accept a majority, overruling my RIGHTS

Imagine a poll, First the pollster brings up Jeff Warren the LDS leader, then the pollster asks the question how many of you like Mormonism? The poll says that fully 90% disapprove, therefore we the majority outlaw Mormonism?

Get real Jolly.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 6:47pm

but most gun owners, even NRA members, don't stand with you.

The spreading of more misinformation by gun control advocates, is their best tool to convince the uninformed.

You, not I, chose the ground on which you wished to fight out this issue, viz, the truth or falsehood of O-K's cited information about public opinion re:background checks.

Having been exposed, you wish now to disavow polls as a basis for public policy guidance. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, and save yourself embarrassment?

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 6:52pm

Why do you and others keep trying to pull a fast one?

Despite some other good comments by others ie Peter, you keep coming after a weaker advocate of Gun rights.

So you and others just as sharks circling, keep repeating the same old questions previously answered, trying to find a weakness, to prey upon.

In the future, I'll let the legal counsel of the NRA try to answer your questions, That's what we pay them to do ......

Or why be a member of the NRA?

So a poll about what members of the NRA believe and agreeing with a position that undermines the membership, makes it so unbelievable.

We recognize for what it is; as an attempt to divide and conquer the NRA a formidable force to be reckoned with.

Good luck Democrats, the members of the NRA know who they can trust on this issue.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:28pm

I remain open to the entry into evidence of a poll taken by and of NRA members.

There is a principle in the law of evidence, that where a piece of evidence would rebut a material fact argued by one side, and the opposing side has access to that piece of evidence yet fails to produce it, a finder of fact is free to infer that the evidence, if produced, would be damaging to the argument of the party so failing to produce.

Shorter version: Show me the NRA commissioned poll rebutting the several cited polls which argue that NRA members overwhelmingly support universal background checks.

As to the rest, Peter has been answered, I believe, on each of his posts, and has chosen not to mount a counter-rebuttal.

Take it up with him.

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:40pm

What material evidence?

Heresay is not evidence?

the admissibility of an anonymous statement requires additional legal burden of proof.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:51pm

re-start at bottom for room....

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 7:56pm

Wow. Back from the dead to do us a study.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 3:58pm

I don't know why he won't answer with an actually responsive dialog?

It's amazing that you would still wonder that, given that you have experience interacting on religious topics. That's his online personality, that's how he interacts. He preaches, taking hints from the dialogue or post about what sermon is needed next, no matter what the topic. It's just the way he is.

Edit to add: this is not exclusive to religious types; there are plenty of secular left-wing blogger preachers, for example...

by artappraiser on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 2:02pm

It's amazing that you would still wonder that,

I am a slow learner (witness, the five marriages...)

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 2:09pm

Okay, this is a fair comment from you.

You're right: You HAVE envisioned states of anarchy...or even dwindling, underfunded police forces...as a reason to be prepared with one's own firearm.

OTOH, and only somewhat humorously, in fairness to me, there are NO circumstances in which you would say that owning or carrying a gun was NOT the right way to go. That's a little bit like playing heads you win, tails I lose.

Too many police? Yes. Too few police? Yes. Good government? Yes. Bad government? Yes. No government? Bien sur. And so on.

This is a little bit like the GOP's approach to tax cuts. They're ALWAYS a good idea, regardless of the economic circumstances.

What this boils down to is this: You ALWAYS want your guns. Period. No exceptions. No interruptions. No obstacles. No hoops however easy to clear. So, as you said to AA above, perhaps we should just agree to disagree. You can ignore my arguments, and I'll ignore yours. Deal?

Of course, as I've made clear, I have NOT ignored your arguments, though the favor has not been returned except where I agree with you--yes?

(And please, no--"ignore me if you want and at your own peril"--because I'll be busy returning the favor and ignoring what you say--but also because we all gotta die sometime, and boots on or off, it all comes down to the same thing. But do remember, as long as I'm still saying stuff you plan to ignore, that bad guy with a gun you're worried about? He might well be a better shot than you are and he, almost by definition, starts with a step on you.)

But I do want to make a general point:

What has just happened in the Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet bloc? People defenestrated their governments without the aid of guns. Armed rebellion is not what brought down the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia and the rest of them lot. Large masses of people acting politically in concert did it. And in places where the rebels have turned to arms--notably Syria--it hasn't gone well for them.

Now, I'm not trying to promulgate some iron law of politics or predict the future. We see in Egypt how the road to liberation is crooked and many set backs are possible and even probable...but the one thing we have NOT seen is examples of the people rising up in armed rebellion leading to the government being overthrown in the face of armed resistance or from a thousand cuts from pesky guerillas.

In fact, in places where we've seen guerilla warfare, notably in South America, those battles have dragged on and on and on. They're not successful.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:25am

First off Thank you for keeping it civil. Yes we can disagree without being disagreeable

Did I fail to respond to a one of your comments?

There are some comments, that are better ignored than to continue down a road leading to more attacks.

Second - I am all for self defense despite all the other twisted words or mis-characterization thrown out .

As others have noted; self defense it is not a right granted by men in the constitution it is nature codified. In the event someone should challenge common sense

Self defense ......Just like the Minutemen in our forefathers day,.. Ready to defend

As AA pointed out about wanting a licensed guard? or ex cop? ( or something to that affect) I would remind her and others Beggars can't be Choosers and if all you have to stand between order and the collapse of civil society, is a rag tag force of armed men and woman who bring whatever arms they have, to defend against lawlessness.

To protect and defend themselves, friends and families lives, or property, from the assault from people who would do things, that they wouldn't do, if not for the ability to resist.

Absent a police force that serve the needs of the people, who else would be able to stand guard?

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 12:54pm

I can agree with the need for self defense.

Where we part company is in our views about various laws or actions we might take to cut down on gun violence.

For example, I don't see licensing as a slippery slope to anywhere, whereas you do, I think. It might or might not be effective at reducing gun violence, but it's worth a try. I see no downside.

If, in fact, as I thought I read elsewhere, that you're a Crohn's sufferer, I'm sorry to hear that. It's painful. My wife had a boss who suffered from it. Not pleasant.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:17pm

Where we part company is in our views about various laws or actions we might take to cut down on gun violence.

Ever heard of this "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us"

This government already has the tools...., it just doesn't want to put the money into this cause, it would rather fund wars and tax cuts. Screw the domestics

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us"

This is what our forefathers said were the identifying marks; the working and machinations of Tyrants.

If the objective, is to get people to give up their guns, can’t you see the design behind allowing the “domestics to fight amongst themselves so that Paternal Government, will have to come in and save us from ourselves.

Once they get the guns, what makes you think they'd care for the domestics?

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:44pm

Icky and controversial, but promising

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/helminthic-therapy-mucus/

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 1:55pm

I did not say anything about R's scenario. I said his worst fears, granted though those are inferred.

by EmmaZahn on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:34pm

Yes, my comment sounded harsh but wasn't meant to be.

You're right: Resistance has envisioned states of anarchy in which one would want/need a firearm for protection.

Here's one sentence from your article that popped out at me:

"'No shooting, use only words,' Jean ordered his men."

Now, as I'm sure Resistance will point, and it does make sense, words might only work if your partner sees that you have a gun backing you up should he decide to ignore your words and use force.

Fair enough. But still...

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:34am

I already checked it out. The civilians of the Ukraine own a considerable number of guns In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Ukraine ranked at No. 24, which were also nearly all fully licensed.

Which in my opinion, bodes very well for the prospect of them maintaining a civil society while the transition goes on! Where the people can be sure that all the gun owners have shown a willingness for rule of law.

I believe I even opined elsewhere recently that if faced with a state of anarchy and need of self-defense, I for one would look for the protectors who held licenses from the previous government. No anti-registration anti-gummint yahoos for this 110-lb. female weakling in such a situation! (Becoming a fan of The Walking Dead has actually forced me to think about these scenarios,which I might otherwise think a waste of time.)

by artappraiser on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:41pm

Dagblog hosts a shout-out to Zombie preparedness...Jane Austen, eat your heart out!

by jollyroger on Wed, 02/26/2014 - 8:47pm

One can never be TOO well prepared.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:36am

My dear, in a state of anarchy, no one's going to be going around with their licenses on their sleeve. And I doubt you're going to be too picky when the bullets start flying.

Just sayin'...

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:45am

Here's the logic, Jolly...

If you go without a gun, you just might find you need one.

But if you go with a gun, you'll never be caught without one.

The end.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:42am

The issue on which you challenged o-k's credibility, the opinion of NRA members on universal background checks.

Material evidence adduced by O-K

three identified polls, with citations

Material evidence which could have rebutted O-K, a poll of NRA members conducted or commissioned by THE NRA

Not presented, although the NRA has means, motive, and opportunity to possess itself of the same. Ergo I infer that they know that if conducted it would confirm the polls already done, or that it has been conducted and the results confirm the polls adduced by O-K.

(Don't know what the fuck your remarks about hearsay mean in this context, but, carry on...)

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:01pm

Your honor the other side has not carried it's burden of proof when it makes the charge that members of the NRA agree.

I object to this Poll being admitted, it is nothing but heresay evidence, to admit it it would be prejudicial to my case.

We have not, had an opportunity to question the respondents to said questionnaire, to ascertain whether the pollster did in fact report accurately respondents reply.

Furthermore the saying, one is a member of the NRA doesn't prove they are. Again highly prejudicial

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:06pm

So let me understand this...The NRA doesn't have a list of it's members, so it can't produce it's own, rock solid NRA member only poll, or, it has a list, but it's too busy to mail out the questionnaire?

Is that your story, Bunky?

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:07pm

The burden is not the NRAs or mine

Ocean Kat made the charge

but most gun owners, even NRA members, don't stand with you.

and proceeded to offer into evidence this link

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americ...

Strong Majority of Americans, NRA Members Back Gun Control

the article has not met the burden so it must be dismissed, as biased and prejudicial.

The NRA or it's members are not obligated to disprove the lie, the burden is on those making the false claims.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:21pm

Whatever. The polls are wrong, there should be an unskewed polls site. That worked out so good for Romney last election.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:17pm

I am just having fun with Jolly.

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 8:22pm

by Peter Schwartz in What the hell is Barack Obama's presidency.

But I fear not and, in fact, worry they may well take over the House and the Senate in 2014. I don't have numbers or a library of links to "prove" this, but my reading suggests it.

Mine too, Obama and Biden brought forth a very big wedge issue and it backfired. It fired up a lot of people who circled the wagons to defend the Second Amendment Rights issue. This will not be forgotten. Obama had enough on his plate at the time but instead chose to direct his troops in another “Pickets Charge” blunder and he lost.

Its futility was predicted by the charge's commander, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, and it was arguably an avoidable mistake from which the Southern war effort never fully recovered psychologically

Pickett's Charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

by Resistance on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 10:30pm

five, no EIGHT style points for cross thread hijack gloat...

by jollyroger on Thu, 02/27/2014 - 11:47pm

Good to see we're still fighting, not just to the last "man," but the last limb!

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:19am

The limb regrew like a grape vine . You have to kill the root and that aint happenin.

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:44am

How did this thread get diverted from gun registration and Jackbooted Postlady Enforcers to background checks and polls? Background checks are accepted by most people as part of prudent gun control while gun registration is the hobbyhorse of a few Liberal fanatics. The straw-buyer problem is an interesting related topic because the government seems to want it to continue, could that be because they use it to supply arms to the cartels they support? Biometric gun security may have some uses mainly for police and security personnel but it will have no effect on the 300 million private weapons already held in the US.

by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 10:36am

I like the conundrum posed by those who refuse any sort of cursory background check as ineffective (you'll just weed out the convicted felons...) but scream bloody murder at a *real background check.

I'd like something similar to the character committee you have to pass for a Bar Card. (Not Hogs and Heifers, the other Bar)

*edit to add: It's harder to rent an apartment than buy a gun--I'll bet James Holmes and Jared Loughner would have been totally defeated by a requirement to submit the names of three personal references. Everyone who knew them knew they were stomp down nut cases.

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:05pm

Jolly, it's time for you to take on this subject from the POV of a gun owner and carrier. It would add spice to this stew.

Like the way I dole out assignments?

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:25pm

But I am, (albeit not currently...) a gun owner and carrier.

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:36pm

He's an radical restrictionist, some memorable posts here and here and here.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:52pm

I rise to object to the gentlelady's characterization.

In fact, I take refuge in my most recent proposition that anyone can have a gun who can pass character committee scrutiny.

After all, as capital punishment disappears, it is increasingly difficult for a lawyer to kill you just by fucking up your case...

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:55pm

anyone can have a gun who can pass character committee scrutiny.

Have you changed your thoughts about what kinds of gun that would be?

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:23pm

No--I would still restrict ownership outside the military to the basic six-shooter. (that includes restrictions on cops as well)

Edit to add: and by "basic" six shooter, I mean no 12 gauge buckshot loads

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:29pm

Resistance!! Stop that drooling...it's unseemly!

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:30pm

OTOH, for home defense, this is the shizzle-nizzle...

Edit to add: Since, (by report) you have maintained your 110lb weight since you were rolling the top of you parochial school uniform skirt (sorry, the image stuck...) this gun is not for you--I'm pretty sure that anyone smaller than Refrigerator Perry would have to be braced against a wall, and even then wrist fracture would have to be a serious risk...

Edit to add: My mistake, the above gun loads 28 gauge shells. If you want 12 gauge, you have to graduate to the streetsweeper

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:56pm

Imagine having that big one when confronted with another only this time it's a gun

That's A Knife - Crocodile Dundee (4/8) Movie CLIP ... - YouTube

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:04pm

No drooling!!

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:04pm

An ironic bit of security on that cannon.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:08pm

Probably works to slow down any potential smash and grab...but, yeah, compared with the size of the weapon it does seem dwarfed.

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:16pm

¿How far back does your library of links go?

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:07pm

I spent like less than 2 minutes quickly scrolling through the first 4 of his blog pages here and picked out a few that I recognized as memorable. Every member's page gives you not just a complete library of all their blog posts, but access to a record of every time they've been active on any post, going back to when they signed up. Just hit the "Track" tab on their blog page for the latter.

Edit to add: In case you don't know, all you have to do to go a person's page is click on their name anywhere. That's why every registered user name has a link, so you see their stuff. News posts don't show up as blog posts, but they do show up in "Track". (And that's actually how you get editing access to your own news posts if you want to edit or delete them before anyone comments on them, you go to your own "Track" page.)

As a matter of fact, a lot of user libraries may go back to before they signed up here, or maybe even before this site existed, because Michael Wolraich transferred all their TPMCafe posts here for them if they wanted them stored here before TPMCafe shut down.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:41pm

a few that I recognized as memorable.

We here at jollyroger central like to think of all the posts as memorable...

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:02pm

Also...isn't weeding out convicted felons a GOOD thing?

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:26pm

Well, I think upthread I proposed that they were more likely than you or I to NEED weapons, running as they do in a rougher crowd...

That said, the law is the law...

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:38pm

submit the names of three personal references

My friends at the NRA meetings?

How about people who go to the Socialist Workers Party meetings, would they counts as references?

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:11pm

sure...it's a low bar. That said, I think if we examine (at least, Loughner) some of the florid mass murderers, virtually everyone who was in contact with them during the time they were "working themselves up" was worried.

(granted, this doesn't screen for those who purchased five years ago, before the neurotransmitters went cuckoo, but y'gotta start somewhere)

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:15pm

They don't seem to accept them (background checks) at gun shows or over the Internet (much).

F&F is, of course, a straw dog that won't hunt. Whatever the demerits of that program, there is still a problem with straw buyers.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:24pm

They do not like them at a show

They do not like them, this we know

They do not like them, Sam-I-am

Those checks right up your ass they'll cram

(T. Cruz, poet)

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 12:44pm

Since this thread refuses to fray away, I am going to take the opportunity to ask a question that I wonder about from time to time.

The Second Amendment reads,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That sounds to me like the whole rationale for keeping and bearing arms is to have a well regulated militia. So, do We, the People, have a right to a well-regulated militia and if so, why is that group right not being demanded as well as the individual right to self-defense?

Personally, I would prefer not to find me and mine standing alone with the 1913 .22 rifle I inherited come the 'pocalyspe. I think I really would like to have some basic military training, just in case.

by EmmaZahn on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:20pm

You need to go down to your local paintball emporium and sign up with the wanna be militia colonel. They'll sign you right up.

But that may be bit more informal than what you have in mind.

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:23pm

I think paintball war games are an excellent idea. I even think paying people to play them is a good idea. But that would require the well-regulated militia the Second Amendment guaranteed, not just a wannabe colonel.

by EmmaZahn on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:46pm

Well, of course, as soon as the militia actually gets halfway professional, some bozo in DC calls them The National Guard and ships them off for 5 consecutive tours in Afghanistan...

(O/T-I show ~~my age~~ the efficacy of my implanted by aliens memories when I say that there was a time when being in The National Guard meant never having to say "I'm leaving, on a jet plane, don't know when I'll be back again.."

by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:03pm

You're getting at the reason for my zombie apocalypse thoughts. But I weigh the apocalypse factor as very improbable, a risk so low that I am not going to want to spend time and effort to get training myself in something disagreeable to me. Peter joked that the good guys aren't going to be wearing their licenses on their sleeves. I meant someone who was part of a respect rule-of-law system before, a Sheriff, for example, is likely to be the protector I want to be with since I didn't train myself. Not someone whose pre-disposition is to think government is evil. Because when there is anarchy, you want to be with people who have an idea of how government re-starts, who look positively towards it. (The series actually throw a classic hook atcha on this whole thing, as "the governor" and his picturesque Woodbury sanctuary is "making the trains run on time," is actually like Hitler and Nazi Germany.)

Depends upon what kind of society/civilization you are born into, of course. I venture a guess that most of the citizens of the Ukraine are doing relatively fine right now, suffering a bit, but not on the verge of the apocalypse and not woe-ing the fact that they don't have a gun or military training. If one is born in the C.A.R., on the other hand, maybe it would be wise to seek out some military training.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 2:42pm

If civil society breaks down, you think that sheriff you thought you could depend upon, would risk his life for no pay? He's got his own family and property to defend.

If you want to pay his bills, he might put his services up for hire, what is your long term disability plan what are the surviving spouses benefits.

When the ex sheriff or his deputy tells you "grass, gas or ... they aint working for free.

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:22pm

You obviously don't watch The Walking Dead.

You also obviously have a very low bar for a definition of anarchy or apocalypse, where there are still things like disability plans and stuff like private property. Unlike a true anarchic state where smart people who want to live don't encumber themselves with things like attachment to property.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:36pm

I don't watch those kinds of entertainment, because it spreads a lie about the condition of the dead.

Your pictures you provided about Assyrian refugees drives the point home clearly enough. What do you suppose would happen if there was no aid at all? Survival of the fittest?

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:45pm

They aren't Syrian refugees, they are Palestinian refugee that have long lived in a camp on the outskirts of Damascus. They have long relied on aid to live. They have been cut off from their usual aid by the fighting. They can't leave for somewhere else, like Syrian refugees do, because they are already stateless "guests" in a camp in a foreign country, a country that is now at war.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:03pm

Thank you for the correction, I have been telling others about the pictures you posted and I was telling the account wrong.

I cant find the words to describe how I felt and the pain it brought, to see and think about the suffering. Those could be my parents, grandparents .....family. and who'll help us?

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:33pm

Here's the website of the U.N. organization specifically devoted to aiding all the Palestinian refugees in camps:

http://www.unrwa.org/

Note it has an "how you can help" link:

http://www.unrwa.org/how-you-can-help

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 6:20pm

And since you don't watch the program, I would like to add that the two most badass (in a good way) survivor characters prefer to wield not guns, but 1) a crossbow 2) a katana sword. Guns are used by weaker types who often don't survive. And very sparingly by smarter survivor types, only with mass attacks when their automation is the last best chance, as the noise they produce draws more danger, and as ammunition will not last much longer because there are no factories, no electricity, there is no civilization, it is anarchy.

Edit to add: It must be difficult to properly prepare for an apocalypse or anarchy without the imagination-enabling effects of science fiction. Betting everything that it will turn out just like Revelations says? Yez, I'm planting seeds of doubt, imagination, go ahead and call me if you wish.

by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:01pm

Not hard at all, haven't we all seen the harm and atrocities, man does against man.?

by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:29pm

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 8 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 9 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 11 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day