Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The inevitable gun control post

Obama's executive order proposals on gun regulation look reasonable, at least to my eyes. If you're a gun nut, your eyes probably work differently. The stuff he hopes to get through Congress won't go anywhere.

This excerpt from Obama's speech should give you the gist:
The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.

But it’s hard to enforce that law, when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That’s not smart. That’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.

If you want to buy a gun, whether it’s from a licensed dealer, or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks, including more than 70 percent of the National Rifle Association’s members according to one survey.
Yeah, but the 30 percenters are going to be very, very loud.

I'm reminded of the Obamacare fight, which had a paradoxical effect: The President paid the political price for inflicting "socialized medicine" on the nation -- even though he began the process by taking actual socialized medical insurance off the table. Now, Obama will be labeled a gun-grabber -- even though, in the end, I doubt that he'll grab a single gun.

The NRA responded to the President before he got a chance to say anything, which is a neat trick. They think Obama is a hypocrite because armed Secret Service guards protecting his daughters carry weapons.
This does actually reveal an important aspect of the NRA's world view. As far as they're concerned, all of us should act as though we exist in the same security situation as the president of the United States. You may think you're just the assistant regional manager of a widget company, but in fact, a terrorist commando strike force could be coming to lay siege to your home at any moment. Which is why you need to be prepared not just with a gun, but with enough weaponry to hold your own in the two-hour firefight that's just inevitable.
I would add that those Secret Service guards are there to protect the President's family from the exactly the same sort of rage-filed paranoia buffs to whom the NRA has addressed its argument. So there's hypocrisy and then there's hypocrisy.

There are people in this country who apparently want all social relations reduced to the concept of one person getting the drop on another:

"Time for lunch, Timmy!" says mother as she cocks her Glock. "Not so fast, mother dear," says Timmy as he dashes out of the pantry brandishing his Colt. "I couldn't help noticing the non-premium kibble in my dish," says Rover, who has a rocket launcher strapped to his back...

Let's all calm down and speak realistically. When this whole thing shakes out, I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to have to give up any armaments. Okay, maybe a few schizophrenics will lose easy access to firearms. I'm fine with that, and you should be as well.
I guess you'll have to call me a gun nut.

If ACA set progressives hair on fire because it didn't supply single-payer, it was because they don't understand 'mission creep'. The appearance of Medicare has modest beginnings, but was the foundation for future improvements. This modest proposal is reasonable, but provides the gateway for ratcheting up controls. Kinda like death by carbon monoxide. Need I mention the Patriot Act?

"Mission creep" is another term for "slippery slope" -- a fallacy. It IS possible (for example) to regulate traffic without banning cars.

The Patriot Act was not so much a slippery slope as a slippery cliff, created by an atom bomb.
gun nut? that's as far as "libtard," its slanderous and obnoxious.. ok, maybe not as bad as libtard, but I'm working quickly herefire arm enthusiast checking in...

and honestly, no, none of these are unreasonable. there's a fear of "mission creep," and there's alot of things that will worry the true gun nuts out there, but honestly, its all very straight forward.

except to hear people crying about Presidential fiat (somewhat justified, remember the fuss we put up about W's shit) and the legistlation they're trying to run through, which should be shut down.

if the Executive thought a two pronged attack would get more of these in without a fuss, hats off to him. again, i like them. they are common sense.

see you in the comments about the AWB legislation, which is shit. :)

"created by an atom bomb."

I see what you did there, but it could be called a 'Phallacy", and then it would auger well for the dicks.

Them fallacies, though.....

Look, guys -- I'm not anti-gun. I've never owned one, but I may in the future. But yeah, there are such creatures as gun NUTS. I've met them, and they scared me. They really seem to be sexually turned on by the proximity of firepower.

Neither am I anti-car. But I do think vehicle use should be regulated. Not OVER-regulated, but regulated.

See my point?
I understand where you're coming from, Joe.

But, it's not the reasonable folks people fear.

'A government should fear it's people...." not the converse.

I don't have any issues with universal background checks, other than to question their effectiveness. Colorado already has universal background checks. James Holmes passed that check, despite being pretty obviously nuts. Jared Loughner passed a background check. The Oregon mall shooter stole his weapons from a friend who passed a background check. Adam Lanza stole his weapons from his mother, who had passed a background check.

A background check would not have prevented Columbine (which was the impetus behind Colorado's universal check) - those guns were acquired illegally by minors in what is known as a "strawman purchase". Seung-hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) passed a background check, even though he had been legally committed to a mental institution as a danger to himself and others.

I can't really think of a single well-publicized recent incident that would have been affected by this proposal.

So yes, by all means have background checks - but we really need to work on making those checks effective, particularly at screening out the mentally ill.
I have been saying (elsewhere) that properly diagnosed cognitive or psychic anomolies, is the proper venue.

In California, and I assume elsewhere, there is a pronounced denial of public school services around special ed. Traumatized by severe budget cuts, districts have to be nearly hauled into court to get curriculums and instructional experts to those students with social or learning disabilities. Identifying the problem, then treating it, is expensive in the short game, but priceless in the long.

Guns are built for one reason, and one reason only.
If you buy a car, you must transfer the title. It you wish to drive that car on the highway you must have it registered, show proof of insurance and a driver's license. If you replace a body part on that car the salvage yard will provide you with a receipt that includes the VIN of the donor car. We have gotten recall letters from the manufacturer of 10 year or older cars we have owned.

We should have the same for firearms.

Up here in the Alabama Triangle of PA a sports and outdoor show promoter has banned the display of Assault style rifles and hi capacity clip. The insane invective in the comments section of the local paper's forum is truly frightening when you consider the posters probably have a stash of assault guns with big clips.
I'd like to chime in with my own thoughts. Although I voted for Barack Obama, this issue of gun control (as so many other topics) is one that I don't agree with him on.

Amendment II of the USA Bill of Rights 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."

This quote is not taken out of context or removed from some larger discussion of the subject as the sentences preceding it and those after it discuss other subjects entirely that are unrelated.

But let's examine the above, because it actually entails two inalienable rights to the 'people'. The first is that the people have the right to organize their own militias and paramilitary groups and secures the right of any community to organise their own militia/paramilitary/guerrillas apart from the US military and without the need for the federal government's approval to do so.

The second part, separate yet related to the first right, is that folks have the right to bear arms, in other words to possess weapons. According to Amendment II, they have such a right to do so without any regulation or government control in the matter. All gun control laws that do exist or will exist are in direct violation of Amendment II and are nullified by such. It really is that simple.

If you disagree with this, you disagree with the US Bill of Rights (the front end of the USA Constitution).

And no, I wasn't payed by the NRA to write this. And no, I don't agree with the USA Constitution. I am not a Constitutionalist and I think the US Constitution is outdated severely.

The concept of regulation is in the wording of the amendment, Jay. Thanks for making my point.
No, the concept of regulation is not in the amendment, Joseph. A regulated Militia is in the amendment, not a regulated right to bear arms. It specifically says a well regulated Militia. Regulated by whom? The community forming the militia. Not a well regulated right to bear arms. You are trying to insert regulation into the second right outlined by deliberately misinterpreting the run-on sentence that is Amendment II. Regulating a militia has nothing to do with regulating the right to bear arms, WHICH IS NOT STIPULATED by the Amendment.
Now, i'm really confused, Joseph.

The car analogy threw me. There is no constitutional right to drive a car, hence regulations around a 'privilege' exist.

'Well regulated miliitia' could describe the National Guard, which is composed of the People, not regular army.

Tiananmen Square was a wake up call for the Chinese People. They were shocked when the People's Army' which had been thought, 'for the People' raised arms against them.

I think I'd rather have a Mini-14, anyway. It's more powerful than an AR-15, shoots just as fast, but isn't an "assault weapon".

That should make everyone happy, right? ;-)
Such desperate casuistry, Jay.

Regulation means laws, and law means either local law, state law or federal law. Fed law trumps all, as the Supreme Court decided in Don't-Make-Me-Look-Up-The-Case.

The Constitution is deliberately vague about a lot of things -- as it needs to be, to be a living document. But "regulation" is a word that hasn't changed in meaning since the 18th century.
The finding of a personal right to bear arms outside the national security needs for a well-regulated militia was novel, and overturned nearly a century of high court precedents, based on a conservative stacking of the justices.

Before that recent Heller decision, it was well understood that the well-regulated militia language related to the Founders' extreme caution to avoid standing armies. With a minimal army, the defense of the country required raising up an army when necessary, with the militia available in the meantime for national homeland defense. That was our defense posture up to WW II.

Now, since the onset of the Cold War after WW II, we maintain a large standing army, mooting the necessity of a civilian militia, which has been substantially replaced in function by the (well-regulated) National Guard. So, much of the 2nd amendment is outdated by the course of events.

And 'conservative' (radical) judicial activist justices on the high court invented the now events-mooted personal right to bear arms against 100 years of the Supreme Court's own precedential decisions, and the still-longer centuries no one thought it existed even before that series of high court cases which all found (until Heller) it didn't as well.

Post Heller, it's true we do have this new personal right re: the 2nd amendment. It may be returned to the status quo ante, no personal gun rights per se, with 1 to 3 additional Obama appointed justices.


I find it interesting that the gun nuts rant and rave about how if guns are illegal, only criminals will have them. So their solution is to make them easier for everyone to get. I just don't follow that logic, as when everyone is armed, everyone becomes a threat (just like you were saying about "getting the drop" on each other).

Now, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch, let alone anti-second amendment (of course, amendments have been removed in the past, for very good reasons). I think that law abiding, sane people should be allowed to own weapons, and even carry them when appropriate. But they should not be in any way easy to acquire. Criminals will always find ways to get weapons to commit crimes with, but let's not make it easy for them, like it is now.
This is all smoke and mirrors to distract the Left while Social Security and Medicare are "reformed".
The idea that the framers of the Constitution meant 'regulated' to mean 'sdlf-regulated' is asinine to the point of giving offense. I can't believe anyone else could be stupid enough to think that, and I'm insulted to think anyone might believe ME to be so stupid. It's an argument whose entire strength lies in the possibility both sides might pretend to take it seriously so as not to have to deal with the real issue - kind of like why there's a supposedly serious academic subject called 'theology' devoted to understanding the mind of god.
I guess no one here has seen Thom Hartmann's article at Truthout ( ), which draws on a 1998 UC Davis Law Review article, "The Secret History of the Second Amendment" by Carl Bogus (real name, not a joke). The law review article, which you can read at , argues that the Second Amendment was intended to let Southern states keep their slave patrols, which they called militias. Food for thought, at the very least.
Jay, a review in grammar may help. That is one sentence, not "two parts."

According to the sentence as constructed, the founders did not consider regulation as an infringement.

iow, the citizens are allowed to form well regulated militias BECAUSE they have the right to bear arms...and they have a right to bear arms BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is a necessary balance. It's one sentence, one sentiment.
The arms they're allowed to bear are in the well regulated militias.
It's not even a compound's one sentence.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic