Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 17, 2011

No we can't

We simply can't do nothing about the daily toll of life from bullets. Particularly after the focus on what happened in Tucson has given us an opportunity to right some wrongs. Instead some states are actually weakening their gun laws. I have written about the Minnesota legislature's repeal of long standing state background checks on handguns and assault weapons. I have written about South Dakota's proposal to require everyone to be armed.  These bills, as the ones below, have come up by surprise. Stealth moves by the Republican led legislators in many states. Mind you, they did not talk about these during the election. But now that they are in charge, anything and everything goes. Never mind jobs and employment. Only in America would this happen. I find it quite contrary to everything right and decent that our state legislatures are repealing common sense gun laws and trying to pass laws allowing more guns in more places. Sometimes only humor, as this Doonesbury cartoon shows, can get us to see the point. For if we don't laugh, we would cry. We can't ignore what people are or are not saying during elections.

Stephen Colbert's segment about a Florida state senator shows us why we can't let people like Senator Gould make the rules. You just can't make stuff like this up. Can you imagine a bill that will be "anything goes" regarding guns? No one will need to be responsible for anything. Gun homicides will apparently now be sanctioned by the state of Florida if this bill passes. And with all the craziness in state legislatures around the country, it will probably pass. God help us all. The country is going nuts. And the guys with the guns are making the rules.

This blog posted in the Huffington Post by Josh Horwitz, Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence fleshes out the recent remarks of NRA Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre at the CPAC conference. We must pay attention to what the NRA is saying for they are becoming more bellicose in their ideas about when and where private citizens can use their guns for "self protection". On this blog, I have been having a back and forth with the gun guys about what armed citizen militias actually mean. They are telling me that they may need their guns in case an uprising against their duly elected government. Most especially, this has been the thread concerning what just happened in Egypt.

What I found out was that we can't always assume that people see the news in the same way and we can't assume that all agree with the idea of a peaceful uprising to overturn a government. What happened in Egypt was celebrated for the peaceful protests and the legitimacy of that kind of overthrow of a government as opposed to the usually violent changes in power experienced historically. Surely there were some violent actions and hundreds of people died as the Egyptian government fought back in the beginning. There was also some looting and now we learn that a U.S. television reporter was beaten and sexually assaulted by some of the protesters. That is to be condemned. For the most part, however, this event was achieved without a lot of violence. The pro gun folks who write on this blog like to point out the violent incidents to me and then some start down the road of genocides in Rwanda and Camodia which leads inevitably to the ubiquitous comparisons with Nazi Germany. This is for another posting.

Now I want to talk about the things that can't be believed. Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center writes this about what the NRA has actually agreed to but doesn't want to talk about.  I guess the can do attitude about working towards a system that actually keeps guns away from people who can't handle them responsibly is a no-no when talking in public. The image of the NRA cannot be tarnished by the truth. For if it is, what's left?

Not to be outdone by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Chris Cox, made some comments that strain credulity.  I read similar talking points from some of my readers. I would challenge several things that Cox said in the article above. First of all, to think that police officers and private citizens have the same needs for guns and ammo, we must imagine that they are doing the same job and facing the same dangers as each other on a daily basis. Such, of course, is not the case. Private citizens do not have a defensive need for large capacity magazines- they only imagine that they do. What happens in the real world is that when private citizens use these large capacity magazines offensively to kill in mass shootings, they aren't thinking defensively. But the NRA rhetoric after such incidents becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in that they they claim that because a "nut case" opened fire with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, then they need their own large capacity magazines to defend themselves from the nut cases.

Secondly, it is amusing and disingenuous for Chris Cox to highlight the politicians who receive money from gun violence prevention groups. What? Does he think we don't understand that the NRA is the organization with the money and influence? They are the ones who are contributing vast amounts of money to buy votes in Congress. It is not the Brady Campaign's or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence or the Violence Policy Center's money that is making a difference. It is plain and simply the money coming from the NRA that is influencing gun policy in this country.

Really folks, it gets more interesting with every passing minute. This bill just passed the Arkansas House of Representatives. So now we will legalize armed citizen militia groups who will "take care of us all" in times of emergencies just like the group did in New Orleans in total contrast to what the the NRA says happened in New Orleans. See Josh Horwitz's article linked above. We can't allow this to happen.

And now in a proposed new measure in Indiana, employers can't stop employees from keeping any kind of gun in their cars in parking lots. An AK 47? No problem? Angry at your boss? - just go to your car and get your gun. Will people be looking for guns in those cars to steal? No problem. Everyone has a right to carry any kind of gun wherever they want. No we can't stop them, I guess.

And no we can't allow gun range owners to do whatever they want when they are located near a residential area. This article about a Massachusetts shooting gun range points out that the noise from machine gun shooting has been bothering their right to have some peace in their neighborhood. But hey, the owner is upset because he doesn't want any restrictions. What's worse is that the owner allows just about anyone to shoot at the range. There is a photo(I could not link to for your viewing pleasure) of a father with an 18 month old baby shooting at this firing range. Really? Come on.The photo is courtesy of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence . You may be able to find it there.

No we can't forget that once upon a time, even reasonable gun owners talked common sense concerning gun laws. This blog by Brady Campaign/Center President Paul Helmke points out the difference between the rhetoric of NRA VP Wayne LaPierre and former President Ronald Reagan. Here are the words of President Reagan: " "We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons," read a letter from Reagan along with former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. "While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."" In today's political world, such rhetoric would not be allowed to leave the lips of an elected official, particularly a Republican in the position of Ronald Reagan.


No, we can't let the NRA continue their influence on our politics and our politicians. They are not about saving lives and preventing gun injuries and deaths. They are about diverting the argument to other topics to avoid talking about the real problems in this country. Meanwhile, think about what we can accomplish if we work together towards common sense and denounce the tactics used by the influential gun lobby. The NRA is not your average non-profit organization. Their leaders make millions in salary and benefits. Their future depends on making sure we can't pass reasonable gun laws. 


Those of us fighting for reasonable gun laws and common sense know that most in the public realize that we can pass reasonable gun laws and still not take away rights or guns. As long as we feel as if we can't, the NRA has won and there will continue to be more victims amongst us. If that is not what you want, speak up and join the "can do "world view. We can do this if we but get involved and speak up loudly. We have to make more noise than the pro gun folks. They are big and intimidating and have lots of people who believe strongly in their cause willing to invest their time and money to keep their world as it is now. Anything we might do differently is a threat to their very being, as I have discovered. But that, too, will be explored in a future post.

140 comments:

  1. One of the problems with gun ranges is that what was once far out into the country is now being surrounded by houses. The article is a bit unclear to when the range opened and when the houses were built. If the range was there first I would think that it is a bit silly to then complain about the noise. It would be like buying a house at the end of the MSP airport then trying to shut down the airport.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want to link to a picture oon facebook and the new picture viewer comes up you need to go to the end of the address bar and delete "&theater" and hit enter. The old page will then load and you can copy the link to the picture

    http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/180651_193808873980019_147886928572214_650773_1266497_n.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know you are in favor of gun control, and you're not alone in that, but in a country that prides itself on being the "land of the free and the home of the brave" is too little regulation every really a "wrong?" Even if more regulation would be a positive in some manner?

    I find your view of humanity just amazing. And from my Point of View "your world" is a very dark and scary place for all of the gun control you envision as somehow fixing the violent nature of humanity.

    Angry at your boss? - just go to your car and get your gun.,.

    I, like probably every gun owner in this country, have been mad at my boss. Sometimes seething. But did I get the gun in my car and commit murder? Of course not! Would you? As angry as you are at we pro-gun guys for shutting your anti-gun movement down with our voices and our votes, would you murder us? I would think not. Because however great your phobia of guns, you don't strike me as a murderess.

    A person has to be pretty psychotic to murder their boss -- or politician, or anyone -- just because they got angry at them. Do you think that person would be deterred because he had to go home to get his gun rather than just to his car? Do you think a person that much on edge cares about a ban on guns in parking lots, or will he have one anyway? People don't go from normal to murderer in a split second, it's a journey of many steps.

    Perhaps "common sense" might be accepting that many of us do like guns and do legally carry them for self defense (and it doesn't appear you can stop us on that, as we have been expanding that right for decades) and instead of fighting laws that only empower law abiding people, maybe you should just target laws that would actually have an effect?

    I at least understand the concept of gun registration/background checking every gun transfer, even though I don't support any of the proposals I've heard. But restricting people who already own guns as to where they can legally take them? Saying it will make a difference if we can only have 10 rounds in our semi-automatic guns instead of 15 or 20 or 30?

    Those just don't make sense to anybody who actually understands the issues or takes the time to listen to both sides. Only you and the 5 or so other anti-gun bloggers who frequent your site buy into that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Private citizens do not have a defensive need for large capacity magazines- they only imagine that they do. "

    Hello!

    I live in small town America. There are now members from MS-13, the Crips, and the Bloods here dealing crack cocaine and carrying firearms. The armed home invasions by them or their customers have begun in this area.

    I had thought it would be prudent to obtain standard issue magazines for my firearms to defend against these organized heavily armed cracked out gangsters. I guess I was wrong. How many rounds should I load into my magazines? Perhaps it's just my imagination that these people with long criminal histories are a threat - or maybe it's "common sense" that I should give them my property, my life, and my sister to have some fun with?

    Since I with my many years of studying the the lethal arts and since all of the experts and professionals are wrong about the need for magazines holding more than ten rounds - perhaps you can tell me exactly what I should do.

    It also occurs to me that you should write a book and make a video series about "Self Defense: Ten Rounds Is Plenty Enough" instructing us how to use ten round magazines to defend against all threats to our lives.

    Also, is it "common sense" to load only ten rounds into a larger magazine because any more is a mortal sin?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That is to be condemned."

    Of course. We can agree on that.

    If you saw something like that happen, and it most certainly does happen here in the United States - what would you do? Since you have no need for guns, let alone "high capacity magazines" - what would you do if you saw a woman being beaten and raped by a gang of thugs?

    I hope you have the time and strength to answer that. My guess is that you'd call 911 and hope that the folks with high capacity magazines that aren't needed show up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Private citizens do not have a defensive need for large capacity magazines- they only imagine that they do"

    _ really, this is not for you to say nor is it for you to make the determination on what's needed. Cops carry guns for a rather specific purpose - self defense. Private citizens carrying them do so for the same purpose.

    Not all of us are Loughner.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "No, we can't let the NRA continue their influence on our politics and our politicians. They are not about saving lives and preventing gun injuries and deaths."

    I don't like the NRA, but they are excellent at saving lives and preventing gun injuries and deaths. If I'm not mistaken that organization spends more dollars and more manhours and training more people and more children about how to safely handle firearms. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but based on my past readings the NRA is the leading gun safety educator in the country. It's one of the few things I like about the outfit.

    http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

    According to that site, the Eddie Eagle has taught 21 million kids the fundamentals of how to handle guns safely (for kids: DON'T TOUCH). How many kids have been taught by the Brady Campaign, the VPC, and yourself? It sure seems to me that y'all spend your resources trying to make life difficult or impossible for responsible adults, and battling the NRA in Washington.

    If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "What happens in the real world is that when private citizens use these large capacity magazines offensively to kill in mass shootings, they aren't thinking defensively. But the NRA rhetoric after such incidents becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in that they they claim that because a "nut case" opened fire with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, then they need their own large capacity magazines to defend themselves from the nut cases."

    When a person uses a kitchen knife offensively, they aren't thinking culinary. Won't you support common sense regulations to prohibit kitchen knives over 10" in length? I think the UK already did so - shouldn't we?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stephen- I like your responses. They are usually polite and thoughtful. So here goes:
    1.Otherwise law abiding citizens have been known to bring guns into workplaces and open fire because of some problem with their boss or company. I am not saying that would be you. I am saying that if we make it easier for that to happen, it just might. I err on the side of prevention.
    2.I accept that you all like- no love- your guns and that you carry them for self defense. I am not trying to denigrate that at all. If that is your choice, so be it. I am trying to target laws that won't affect you all while making it less easy for people who can't handle guns responsibly from getting them. We do not agree that that would not affect you in some negative way. I see it happening without doing that.
    3.I don't believe that all incidents coming from angry, crazed folks with murder on their minds will be stopped by anything my side proposes. I only hope to make them fewer and further between than are now.
    4/. I do think it would make a difference if someone intent on murder has fewer rounds of ammunition. At the least, the carnage would be less.
    5. I am not an anti-gun blogger but you all want to call me that. I don't like guns and don't understand why people have pistols in their homes or on their person. I don't see the world the same way. But I acknowledge your right to own your guns if you so choose. That is a right. With rights come responsibililties. I would prefer that there were a lot fewer pistols around but know that will not happen. We have what we have. I just want to make things better, which you think is worse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, true. I think I read in the article though that the range had been there for 30 years or so, the noise had become worse because of extended hours and the use of machine guns which was not the case in past years. So that leads me to believe that the owners were there some years ago. It would have to be further researched. But if changes have occurred that are bothering the neighbors, it seems reasonable that they would complain. I would. That does happen in neighborhoods and has happened in mine actually with some noise and lights issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Anthony. I hope I will remember how to do this again. Good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sure, I love Peace, that you perceive that you have a need for 30 rounds. Can you not defend yourself adequately with 10 or 11 rounds? Or with a handgun? Do you live in the middle of the city where gang confrontations are happening? We have gangs in my small city as well. I don't live where they tend to hang out and I am not really concerned that they will show up in my neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I don't like guns and don't understand why people have pistols in their homes or on their person. I don't see the world the same way. "

    You've never been raped, have you? You don't know what it's like, do you?

    I learned a few things by the time I was 6. There are evil men in this world. The cops won't be there to save you. Guns can save you when the cops can't or won't.

    I was a victim once when I was powerless. Now I hold the power of the gun - and I won't be a victim again. Unless of course you put me into prison for my common sense anti-rape precautions.

    "I would prefer that there were a lot fewer pistols around but know that will not happen. "

    I would prefer that there were a lot fewer rapists and murderers around. Apparently you don't give a damn about stopping these people as they aren't the target of your obsession. Better that we get raped (again in many cases) than we arm ourselves with pistols and magazines holding 11, 12, or 15 rounds, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yup. I don't think I would fire a gun into the melee since the woman was in the middle of a group of men and women, by the way, who finally rescued her from the men. I'm not sure that a gun would be helpful in that case because who knows who would get shot? In the mood those guys were in, I doubt they would take kindly to your pointing a gun at them. But then, maybe they would be dissuaded or stopped. It's hard to know isn't it? I would call 911 as you suggested. In this case, that would not have worked.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Can you not defend yourself adequately with 10 or 11 rounds?"

    I'm not a psychic. I can't predict the future. I pray that guns in my future will be less necessary than fire extinguishers and fire hoses were in my past.

    I recently read of a case a couple of years ago where a cop stopped a suspicious person. The person ended up shooting the cop four times. The cop shot the bad guy 21 times - 17 times center of mass. I'm not sure how many times he missed the bad guy. 11 rounds would have not been enough. You can claim that only cops deal with such people - but it turned out that the guy was wanted for murder, and I would have to say that his victim would have NEEDED more than 11 rounds. The guy was also sober, no psychiatric diagnosis or history, and there was only one of him - and he didn't have body armor like many gangsters do these days.

    "Do you live in the middle of the city where gang confrontations are happening? "

    No. The gangbangers are moving up from Mass and New York. The nearest town is too small to be a city. Yet there are gangsters from out of state and out of country - the kind of gangsters who rape kids, women, murder men for the hell of it. Ever read about MS-13? They are here. I'm about to go into town to hang out with my brother - more than likely nothing will happen. If it does I have no idea how many rounds I'll need.

    "I don't live where they tend to hang out and I am not really concerned that they will show up in my neighborhood. "

    This is why people say you are the "n-word". No, not the race based n-word, the one that refers to your gross misunderstanding of the varied nature of people and their actions. When gangs want easy targets they leave their "hood" and go find people like you to prey on.

    I hope your luck holds out for the remainder of your life. Even if you don't ever get into guns for defensive purposes there is a ton you can and should do. Locks, laminating the windows, making sure your doors and door frames are solid, lighting, and having a safe room might save your life.

    God bless. I'm going to town, small town America, where the city officials and cops work for the drug dealers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's always amazing to me that you guys make such assumptions about me. Really, what do you know about me, my life, or where I live? What do you know about my knowledge of my city. And the "n" word? What does that "n" stand for anyway? And don't say I'm naive because I don't know what it means. I just don't hang out with folks who talk like you all do and likely vice versa. Do you think I have thought about things I can do to keep safe in my home? Why do you assume I haven't? But thanks for the suggestions anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  17. " Yup. I don't think I would fire a gun into the melee since the woman was in the middle of a group of men and women, by the way, who finally rescued her from the men."

    Such an incident is one of the few times where firing a warning shot (into a safe direction) is likely to get results.

    "But then, maybe they would be dissuaded or stopped."

    The sight of a gun is enough to scare most criminals away. They are cowards who prey on the weak. For the stupid and the insane hardheads there is what I call "tough love" - the bullets.

    "It's hard to know isn't it? "

    Impossible to know. That's one of the reasons why banning magazines is so offensive. If these magazines are banned and a woman is brutally raped and killed after she ran out of bullets only wounding her two assailants - are you going to say it's worth it?

    11 bullets isn't enough for multiple attackers, especially if they are wearing body armor. Between the misses, the rounds that hit but only superficially wound, and the bullets that hit and inflict a killing wound that won't stop the person for seconds minutes hours or days - 11 rounds is not enough for some situations. The odds may be slim, but when everything is on the line, it makes sense to be as prepared as you can be.

    "I would call 911 as you suggested. In this case, that would not have worked."

    It's not a sure bet by any means, but an AK-47 with a 75 round magazine shooting a few rounds into a safe direction would most likely command immediate attention, respect, and obedience.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are kidding right?- an AK47 with a 75 round magazine? Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "It's always amazing to me that you guys make such assumptions about me. Really, what do you know about me, my life, or where I live? "

    You've repeatedly stated your sense of security without making any effort to provide a means of security. That's quite a statement.

    "And the "n" word? What does that "n" stand for anyway? And don't say I'm naive because I don't know what it means. "

    Naive. I'm not calling you a name. I'm using an adjective to describe your character.

    Naive: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment;

    Worldly wisdom and informed judgment says there are unbelievably evil sick people in the world and in your town and they abuse people every day.

    "I am not really concerned that they will show up in my neighborhood. "

    Famous last words. "It can't happen here" "It won't happen here" "I don't see a threat"

    You speak, think, and act like a victim. That's why we say you are naive. You think you'll be okay because you've been okay, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as the women in their seventies or above who have been raped in their homes in nice parts of nice towns. It has happened to them. It is happening to others. It could happen to you. To be unaware of this is to be naive - which isn't entirely a bad thing, it means you've been very lucky and had a good life, which are good things.

    It's not an insult, it's not a label, it's an adjective.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Perspective is a powerful thing.

    Joan,
    I do not know you. However, having read a lot of your writings I would venture to say that you live in a relatively safe place. Probably surrounded by people of similar background, political thought, and income level. Crime happens around you but is generally on the lower end of things. Petty theft and the like. I truly hope that you never have any issues like it would seem I Love Peace has. When you speak about whether 10, 11, or X number of rounds is enough, it shows your perspective clearly. The odds of any of us not in a combat zone needing more than X rounds is pretty slim. Yet, God be with you if such a thing happens and all you have is X. As ILP pointed out, sometimes it takes far more hits than you'd imagine to put down one attacker. What if there are two, or three? Is that likely? No. Does it matter that it isn't likely? No. You can't go back and ask for a redo. You just deal with what you have right then and there.

    As to the example given of the poor woman raped by a gang of men. No, you wouldn't fire into a group as that would be unwise. However, "stop or I'll shoot" carries infinitely more weight than "stop or I'll call 911 and in 15 minutes someone may show up!" If you or a loved one needed saving, would you rather someone call the cops or give you direct aid? I know my answer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joan, If I made any false assumptions in my previous comment I apologize.

    75 round magazine? Heavy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. And that is the reason why we live in 2 different worlds. I do not hang around with people who insult each other and call each other naive and think it is a just an off the cuff remark. I will also not be hanging around with you any more either.

    Dear readers- if anyone else calls me naive- their comments will not be published. I find it insulting and just because you don't doesn't give you license to say anything that comes out of your fingers as you write.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I got suckered into following a link to this crap but before I go and never come back... on the 10 round mag issue, 2nd is *not* about self defense, it's about having the capability the fight back against an oppressive government (exactly what the US government has been slowly turning into over the last 80-90 year., It most likely wont happen in any of our lives though, but as history has taught us, it will happen). That means the same small arms (including mags) as the current military has access to. Go to the library, read some history, learn something. Well in your case, send someone to the library. Obviously you'd be shot if you are spotted on the street.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Obviously you'd be shot if you are spotted on the street. " I need to know if that is a threat, anon. Threats to me will be taken very seriously and reported to my local authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear readers,

    I will be stopping all comments on this blog if I get one more threat. I believe that what anon said above is a threat to me. If not, he can let me know. Otherwise, I will keep blogging and you all lose your chance to harass me on a daily basis. This is serious stuff here. You are the guys with the guns. And some of you scare me, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That wasn't a threat that anonymous poster made, that was a tongue in cheek comment, playing off the image you portray to him as being exceptionally fearful of gun violence.

    He was making fun, in a stupid way, of what he perceives as your fear of guns. I think it was a stupid comment that shouldn't have been made, but I think you need to lighten up a tiny bit, you take a lot of comments very personally and seriously, when I don't think they are meant to be taken that way. When someone says something horrible like "i hope you die in a mysterious gun accident", than THAT would be a threat, and completely unacceptable. Btw, gun owners get threatened and harassed too.

    Anyways, I noticed this line: "They are telling me that they may need their guns in case an uprising against their duly elected government." Haven't we debunked that by now? Nobody here is saying that they want to overthrow a duly elected government. We are saying that if the government becomes a tyranny (no longer a duly elected government), then the arms are needed to overthrow it. The fact that the citizens are armed and capable of overthrowing a tyranny, should prevent the government from every becoming one. The concept, is that the guns should never be used, because their very presence serves as a deterrent to keep the government as a duly elected government and not turn into a tyranny.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  27. Excellent response to Stephen, Joan. Much better ;)

    "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men (and women like ILP) with rifles."

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I think I read in the article though that the range had been there for 30 years or so"

    No, the article said that the family had been shooting there since the 1930's which would have been somewhere around 70 or so years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "And that is the reason why we live in 2 different worlds."

    That is true within our heads, our perspectives, but beyond our own limited world of ourselves, there is but one real world. Violence is a blight upon this world. It's a scourge that can never be completely eliminated, but it surely can be mitigated. The question is: how?

    You are right to take action - but I have very good reasons to believe you are taking the wrong actions. They don't address the causes of violence - they address only a handful of the means of violence and in a fundamentally ineffective way that causes an unintended set of harmful effects far greater than those prevented or mitigated.

    I hope that in time you might find the strength and understanding to reconsider your positions.

    "I do not hang around with people who insult each other and call each other naive and think it is a just an off the cuff remark."

    That is not an insult. It is a criticism. If you are going to enter into the public sphere, particularly if you are entering politics, most especially if you are waging a public relations campaign against the essential liberties of others in America then you can expect to get a considerable amount of criticism. If you consider and respond appropriately to feedback, whether it is true false or in between, then you will be able to improve your chances of success. Ignore it and you will lose an opportunity for growth and improvement.

    "I will also not be hanging around with you any more either."

    If you only surround yourself with people who don't point out areas where you have ample room and need for improvement you are hurting yourself.

    "Dear readers- if anyone else calls me naive- their comments will not be published. I find it insulting and just because you don't doesn't give you license to say anything that comes out of your fingers as you write."

    I think long and hard about what I write. You are taking a criticism of your public figure as a personal insult. If the charge was completely false then it would not hurt you in the least. The pain you feel, that sting is not from being insulted - it's the truth you can't handle.

    You can censor me, you can ban me, you can ignore me, but if you ignore the truth then it is you who is hurting yourself. I'd love to help work with you towards doing something to make an actual real and major difference in limiting violence. So long as you don't want to understand my perspective, which is the perspective of the American patriot also known as the philosophy of libertarianism, then we can not work together and I dare say that you have unwittingly joined forces with the causes of violence.

    I value this dialogue. While this is most certainly not a free speech forum, you have responded to a considerable number of questions, points, issues, and lines of argument and debate. That's not a common thing - Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign don't do that. They just repeat themselves endlessly and make no attempt to respond to their critics.

    Even if we never agree - you could and should learn something about your nemesis - the NRA. At least so far as I can tell the NRA is more powerful than ever. Why is that? My belief is that it's the change you've commented on - the abandonment of what you call "common sense". The NRA used to be against "black rifles" and "high capacity magazines". Now they are fully for them, at least so far as the public speeches go. Why did they change? it's because of their critics, a great many of whom were NRA members and who complained loudly and or quit, and many others such as myself who spoke very harshly and unfavorably of the NRA. The times they are a changing - and modern firearms are now a popular thing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "employers can't stop employees from keeping any kind of gun in their cars in parking lots"


    Where are employees supposed to store their guns, while they're at work? Leave them under a park bench?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am not Anonymous, but I do believe you misread his statement.

    "Obviously you'd be shot if you are spotted on the street. " I need to know if that is a threat, anon. Threats to me will be taken very seriously and reported to my local authorities. "

    The person was (quite clearly in my opnion) attempting to "make fun" of your fear of guns. i.e. since you are so afraid of guns, you shouldn't go out on the street ever since it's so dangerous that the only thing that could happen is your being a victim of gun violence. It's not fun or funny, in poor taste, poorly done, most likely because the author was a "hit and run" commenter who has no interest in establishing a dialogue.

    Don't worry - bad jokes aren't a threat to you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Duluth MN is hardly crime central, and doesn't put one into a position of authority on crime and violence.

    A 91-yr old woman was assaulted in my town.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/116201644.html

    This was the 2nd such home invasion in recent weeks on the East Side. I'll continue to fight your opposition to me defending myself and my loved ones with whatever weapon I see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Otherwise, I will keep blogging and you all lose your chance to harass me on a daily basis. "

    That would be unfortunate. I've been inspired and tempted by your example (and censorship)to start my own blog though.

    "This is serious stuff here. You are the guys with the guns. And some of you scare me, frankly."

    I can speak only for myself although most likely for all the commenters I've read so far would agree - but I would never threaten or hurt you. In fact, I'd be willing to die for you. It's not about being a hero or wanting attention or being like John Wayne or some other film star - this isn't a movie - but if I had the choice of being a bystander or taking a bullet for you or any other innocent person - I'd be willing to die. I wouldn't be happy about it though. I would certainly hope that in that sort of crisis I should have the chance to use my guns, knives, fists, or wits to avert any sort of violence or bloodshed, wits being the preferred means.

    That's the way of a real "gunslinger" to use Steven King's word. Do no harm - and stop harm from happening whenever possible. There are some armed citizens who carry arms only for their own defense or that of their family, but a lot of folks feel it's a moral duty to intervene against violence.

    "And some of you scare me, frankly. "

    You scare me. Those who agree with you scare me. I read the article you linked to from Yes magazine and my heart started beating and I lost my breath. Whereas I won't harm other people, and am willing to be harmed to prevent harm from touching a hair on their heads, you are willing and even eager to harm me. Not only are you willing to harm me, you are able to dos o without understanding that you are going to harm me. That's what really frightens me - you think you are doing something good by hurting me. History says people like you are dangerous, very very very dangerous. You want to use the police power of the state in order to enact sweeping laws with harsh penalties, in the name of "security", at the price of liberty, and you claim this is for the good of all, and that it won't harm us one bit - but we can see quite plainly that you intent to use the iron fist of the state to crush us.

    A little forthrightness on your part would calm my nerves, but it would not serve your cause well to say it bluntly: "Gun owners: we will place ever greater restrictions designed to make criminals out of you, and you will pay an ever greater price for attempting to remain free." Calling for "commonsense regulations" sounds so much better and is surely more effective, but it really does scare me to no end.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I removed my own post because of a grammatical error. I am not convinced that some among you are not ready to take up arms at any time against the Obama administration. So no, I don't think you have debunked it at all. I take all things said from you guys seriously. You seem to do the same with me even when I am making light of things. I guess it goes both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But anon-you are saying that the good people with guns can correct the evil ones. I want to keep the evil ones from gaining easy access to guns in the first place so that good people like you won't feel threatened enough by them so you feel the need to have your guns at the ready at all times.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, anon. Someone else pointed that out- about the gun range being there since 1930. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Joan said: "I want to keep the evil ones from gaining easy access to guns in the first place so that good people like you won't feel threatened enough by them so you feel the need to have your guns at the ready at all times."

    It is a noble goal, it just isn't workable in the real world. I'd love to live in a world that no one ever brought unjustified harm onto another. Sadly, that world can't ever really work that way as the issue isn't one of arms or not arms but a core problem with human beings. Some will always be evil/bad. Am I making sense?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pat- I don't proclaim to be an authority on crime and violence. I am aware of the difference between my city and yours concerning crime. We do have crime here, though. In my own neigbhorhood there have been recent break-ins of cars- across the street and next door. There have been several recent shootings and we actually have gang activity here. I know you will fight me. You mention it often. But I will continue doing what I am doing because I know it is the right thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I Love Peace-" Not only are you willing to harm me, you are able to dos o without understanding that you are going to harm me. That's what really frightens me - you think you are doing something good by hurting me. History says people like you are dangerous, very very very dangerous. You want to use the police power of the state in order to enact sweeping laws with harsh penalties, in the name of "security", at the price of liberty, and you claim this is for the good of all, and that it won't harm us one bit - but we can see quite plainly that you intent to use the iron fist of the state to crush us." Do you really believe this? I can't believe you get that out of what I am doing. We are not a threat to you. We are a threat to those who should not be able to have guns but have easy access to them. There are people who can't handle guns responsibly. That is who we want to keep guns away from. In addition, we want people to understand that there are times when people they know or love should not have access to guns because they might harm themselves or others. I think I have been pretty clear in my comments and my posts but you are a fairly new reader so you haven't heard all I have said.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes, Atrius. I get what you are saying. I happen to think it is workable though and in a way that will not take away your rights or your guns.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Migo- thanks for your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Joan said: "Yes, Atrius. I get what you are saying. I happen to think it is workable though and in a way that will not take away your rights or your guns."

    Were that possible it would be ducky. The thing of it is this, just as I am only one part of a movement so are you only one part. You may not want to go as far as ILP suggested, but many in your movement do. She's right. Citizen disarmament has always been dangerous. I am very happy that things turned out the way they did in Egypt with little bloodshed. However, that was entirely due to the fact that the military wasn't too happy with Mubarak in the first place and didn't follow orders to crush the protestors. If they had, what then? See Bahrain for "what then".

    People have said many times, if you ban guns (or just greatly restrict them or whatever) then only criminals will have them. That's an undeniable fact. So, what do we do then? I've suggested before that a far more effective method of crime reduction, even if your primary goal is to reduce gun crime, would be to focus on efforts and methods that have been proven to reduce crime and violence. Gun crime and violence would almost certainly follow the resulting downward trend. Once that is done, you can work on the tragic number of suicides.

    I own an undisclosed number of guns. Many of which would be banned under various proposals. How would any of that impact criminals in the street? Does it really impact them in any way? Do they even care?

    It seems to me that your primary goal would be better accomplished through intervention methods and education rather than "stronger" laws. I also believe we would all like to see even lower levels of crime and violence. We just don't agree on the proper method to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Do you really believe this? I can't believe you get that out of what I am doing. We are not a threat to you. "

    You say that. I believe you believe it. I don't believe it. Most of what you support will cost me time, money, privacy. Some of what you support will likely put me or my loved ones into prison. I've never been a protester but if the magazine ban somehow makes it of committee and through Congress then I think I'm gonna have to see how many people I can get to join me to commit civil disobedience and hand a bunch of empty magazines around, which will be known as "illegal possession and transfer of high capacity ammunition feeding devices". Since I live in an activist town in an activist state, it seems I should be able to get up to a hundred people to join in. If we all each bring one magazine and trade for a few moments then we will be facing a prison sentence of 100 to 1000 years. If we bring unloaded guns it'll be a mandatory minimum of 300 years. But somehow you believe that the equivalent of multiple life sentences for merely holding pieces of plastic and metal is not harming me? Or that even a single year in prison is not harming me?

    I guess we have different understandings of what "harm" is.

    "We are a threat to those who should not be able to have guns but have easy access to them. "

    If I was a criminal or a lunatic I wouldn't be worried about you one bit. Guns are easy to obtain for any criminal or lunatic, so are magazines. So are far deadlier weapons. There is nothing you can do to stop any determined criminal or lunatic. Nor is there anything the government can do before the fact. All of the money and resources spent so far can't keep people from ruining their lives with cocaine, which can't even be produced in our nation. How are you going to keep people from obtaining that which is already in many houses and can also be made by any one with mechanical skills or who can use Google and follow instructions? How are you going to keep people from dealing these magazines and guns like they already do in the areas prohibiting/strictly controlling them?

    "That is who we want to keep guns away from."

    But you are okay with them having any other means of destruction or by obtaining them by the means you can never control? You don't want them to have easy access to guns, so you will let them roam around the streets where they can steal buy or make guns and magazines?

    Does not compute. It doesn't make sense, let alone common sense. People who can't be trusted with guns should be under supervision, either in an institution or outside of it once they can be trusted to that degree.

    "I think I have been pretty clear in my comments and my posts but you are a fairly new reader so you haven't heard all I have said. "

    I've been working through your old posts, and in time will read them all. One thing that is clear is that you support draconian punishments for magazines.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I can tell that you don't believe anything I say so saying anything else in response to you is an exercise in futility, I Love.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Please read all of my response to this quote

    "I am not convinced that some among you are not ready to take up arms at any time against the Obama administration. So no, I don't think you have debunked it at all. I take all things said from you guys seriously. You seem to do the same with me even when I am making light of things. I guess it goes both ways."

    It is my belief, and I feel I speak for many, that a true patriot is ever vigilant against anyone who oversteps the boundaries set forth by the constitution. So yes, that means that I am ready to take up arms against a sitting president, BUT ONLY if s/he clearly and egregiously defiles or erodes the Constitution.

    Now read that again. Slowly.

    I am not saying Obama or Bush, Clinton or Reagan. I am suggesting that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance against tyranny. Others have said it much better than I, but what I am saying is simple.

    I have no desire, plan, nor intent to suggest that it is time to overthrow anything. However, if you read the Federalist papers, it becomes clear that the very founding fathers believed such scrutiny was and would forever be necessary.

    The Nation is not the Presidency, it is the people and the Constitution,


    I want you to carefully consider your response, remember my post is based on philosophy of government and not on any plan to act upon this sitting Government.

    I am not at all suggesting any action be taken, only that as a Citizen, it is my duty to be ever vigilant.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I can tell that you don't believe anything I say so saying anything else in response to you is an exercise in futility, I Love."

    I believe some it, and I listen to all of what you say. Sometimes I reread what you've said five to ten times, slowly, making sure I fully understand what you are saying and what you are meaning. I attempt sincerely to respond meaningfully to what you've said and meant. I hope it's not futile for political opponents to talk. I most certainly learn from you and wish for you to learn from me.

    @P

    "So yes, that means that I am ready to take up arms against a sitting president, BUT ONLY if s/he clearly and egregiously defiles or erodes the Constitution. "

    I'd say that was true of every President since Washington, if you consider that the Articles of Confederation were the law of the land, and the Constitution was a plot by various power factions, lawyers and bankers for the most part, to seize control.

    A better standard needs to be defined and recognized. I share a common concern with Joan to a large degree - I am worried about the division between gun owners and the government. Joan however apparently doesn't see any line in the sand. The violations of liberty and law that sparked the birth of our nation have long been surpassed by our government. It might be that we are along way off from genocide. Where's the point where armed force is justified?

    I personally think if death squads are used, if mass murder is used, if mass rape is used, then armed resistance will be appropriate and necessary. May it never come to that as it has so tragically so often before (and now, governments are still still using these means, often armed funded and trained by our government).

    and since I'm tired and willing to tangent - why is it okay for the military and government to have these high capacity magazines? They sell them or give them away with many other weapons to dictators and despots. Why is that gun violence okay?

    Related tangent: about that Doonesbury cartoon. We should also include those killed before the invasion by the sanctions and by the bombing campaigns. The UN said it was 1.5 million people, 1/3 of them children. Our "foreign policy" BETWEEN WARS killed more kids than all of the folks killed by guns in America after Kennedy was assassinated (per Bloombergs number). That's only one nation!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Joan-

    The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
    One motivator in "instrumental" violence is that criminals look around and see a force disparity that actually encourages victimization. "I can take whatever I want because I am willing and able to be violent, and they are not" If we could hypothetically get all the bad guys off the street and we all took our guns off, a new batch would eventually take their place. Besides, most of us never would take them off anyway. It's not about fear. It's about duty.

    This is why I insist that the vast majority of violent crime is a
    symptom, not a disease. Your time would, in my very humble opinion, be far better spent trying to diagnose and treat that disease, rather than chasing a symptom.

    Regarding your concern for our President-
    As long as the Constitution and BOR are adhered to (including the 2A) elected leaders, even minority ones, have nothing to fear beyond the occasional psychopath. And there's the irony- let us keep and bear arms like citizens rather than subjects, and we'll never need them. I've never met a gun owner who WANTS to take up arms against the government. But for both gun owners and politicians, that card, however dusty and unused, sits on the table.

    As for your discussion with ILP, I think she gets that you have good intentions. You're a starry eyed dreamer that just wants us to all get along. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to stop bad things from happening to people, even if we disagree on the methods.

    However, there are those who are not as compromising (in the good sense) as you are. You are aligned with people we view as political enemies and who have admitted wanting to confiscate all firearms. It's a shame, because you do seem to want to work with us. But if someone tells me they're going to strangle me, should I let them put their hands on my neck, even if they promise not to squeeze? That's who you're allied with, and that's why the "harassment" (I like to think of it as prolonged tough love) will continue.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Here's a news article about gun violence, both offensive and defensive.

    http://standardspeaker.com/news/home-invasion-intruder-killed-1.1102011

    That's a recent real life story. Three masked armed criminals, most likely all meth heads and bikers, invaded a woman's home. One home invader died, the armed citizen survived.

    The news didn't and probably won't report details, but it's quite possible that the woman used a "high capacity magazine" to defend herself.

    Is 11 rounds enough when three tweaked out armed masked members of a biker gang called "The Outlaws" invade your home? If you didn't know biker gangs have a history of very sick violence against women.

    That's not from a movie. That's the news.

    "Ten bullets and one in the chamber, that’s 11 bullets, so if you’re using it for self-defense at home, there’s plenty of ammo there for them.” - McCarthy

    Was it plenty of ammo for this woman? Even if it was - will that be the case for the next victim? And the one after that? And the one after that? Always and forever? McCarthy says so. You say so. I say hell no I want more ammo to protect my family against drug fueled gangsters.

    If this woman did use a magazine holding more than 10 rounds - was it only her imagination that made it necessary and the tweaking biker Outlaws were superfluous?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Quote: We are not a threat to you. We are a threat to those who should not be able to have guns but have easy access to them. There are people who can't handle guns responsibly. That is who we want to keep guns away from. In addition, we want people to understand that there are times when people they know or love should not have access to guns because they might harm themselves or others.

    Then stop advocating laws that would put vast numbers of law abiding, peaceful, non-aggressive citizens in jail. Just because HR 308 isn't called the "Put Chris into jail law" doesn't mean that it doesn't have the effect of criminalizing possession of an inanimate object and putting the burden of proof on the accused citizen to put up an affirmative defense.

    Stop advocating laws (Lautenberg's airport gun ban) that would prevent Alaskans from putting meat on the table and demolish a significant portion of our tourism industry (fly-in hunting).

    Stop advocating laws that deny effective defensive tools to low-income people, minorities who have been historically oppressed, and other vulnerable groups. Just because the law isn't called "disarming inner city blacks and charging large fees to keep out poor people act" doesn't mean that may-issue laws with high costs don't have that effect.

    If you actually cared about reducing overall suicides or violent crime then we'd have much more common ground. But I get the impression that you don't give a damn about reducing overall suicide -- which is epidemic in Alaska, by the way. You only care about reducing the number of people that shoot themselves, or commit crimes with guns. You refuse to admit that there might be a substitution effect, or that we live in a world with limited resources, or that there are costs associated with the policies you advocate.

    Even worse, you cannot accept any criticism of those policies without seeing it as a personal attack on yourself or your political allies, making it nearly impossible to have a civil discussion. Don't enter the marketplace of ideas unless you're willing to see what value will be assigned to yours.

    Don't take this personally -- I'd still give you a packet of halibut if you came up here. But I really, genuinely wish that you would realize that the policies you support have costs that you do not or will not acknowledge.

    Cheers,
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon- " a starry eyed dreamer " This is one phrase that cannot be ascribed to me. That would be the very last thing anyone who knows me would say about me. As to those others who are uncompromising- you don't know these folks like I do and you are wrong. But I will not convince you of that. My job here is to convince those who don't believe you are right ( and there are many of them) to rise up and speak in a loud voice to get something reasonable done to stop the carnage.

    ReplyDelete
  52. ILP- that surely was an awful crime. I suggest to you however that you have not made a point for a 30 round mag. from this story. One shot was probably enough here but 10-11 did the trick except that the woman herself was also shot and injured. I am guessing that these guys were not expecting someone to be home since they invaded in the middle of the day. Most home burglaries occur when people are not at home. It would be interesting to know who shot first and if the fact that the woman had a gun increased her own risk of being shot. That being said, there is no way of knowing what the biker gang would have done to the woman had she not had a gun. In these cases there is just no way of predicting the outcome with our without a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chris- " you don't give a damn about reducing overall suicide -- which is epidemic in Alaska, by the way. You only care about reducing the number of people that shoot themselves, or commit crimes with guns. You refuse to admit that there might be a substitution effect, or that we live in a world with limited resources, or that there are costs associated with the policies you advocate." Certainly we've gone over this one ad nauseum. There are many people working on suicide prevention. I am but one and my part of it has to do with guns which account for a great number of them. As to the substitution effect- your predictions are impossible to prove. More people actually live after suicide attempts with other methods. A gun makes it more lethal and quick. A good friend, someone involved in the gun violence prevention movement told me yesterday that her son, who has struggled with bipolar disease all his life, was in the hospital after making a suicide attempt. He was determined to die and even told her that in the hours before the attempt. When they finally tracked him down at a hotel, he had overdosed on prescription drugs and was taken to the hospital. Had he chosen a gun instead, she may have been going to her son's funeral this week instead of visiting him in the hospital. So that would be his substitution. Because of his bipolar disease, there are no guns in his home.

    ReplyDelete
  54. " Anon- " a starry eyed dreamer " This is one phrase that cannot be ascribed to me. "

    I think it's a nice way to describe anyone who believes that prohibiting magazines will "limit the carnage".

    Out of the roughly 34 people murdered by guns every day - what number would be prevented if no one had magazines holding more than 10 rounds? I'm guessing, with good reason, that it approaches zero. What number will be prevented if there is a "war on magazines"? Even closer to zero. I would further guess that the leading offensive use of such magazines isn't among the incredibly rare violent lunatic, but rather among the organized gangs who don't obey the prohibitions on drugs, guns, explosives, or magazines in those states with those restrictions in place.

    That's why Chris was right when he said "You refuse to admit that there might be a substitution effect, or that we live in a world with limited resources, or that there are costs associated with the policies you advocate."

    What you proposing, without realizing so far as I can tell, is spending many millions of dollars identifying, prosecuting, and imprisoning people for "high capacity magazines". The same funds and manpower could be used to find and stop lunatics, or criminals, but you think it's more important to go after target shooters etc. And you genuinely believe that this is the way to "limit the carnage" - target ten million peaceful people in order to try to thwart a criminal or criminally insane person.

    ReplyDelete
  55. So ILP- the way you worded this is awkward " Out of the roughly 34 people murdered by guns every day - what number would be prevented if no one had magazines holding more than 10 rounds? " Are you saying that a number of these 34 deaths would be prevented if people were allowed to have high capacity magazines? If that is what you are saying, how do you come to that conclusion? If it's not what you mean, can you explain further?

    ReplyDelete
  56. " ILP- that surely was an awful crime.

    I agree.

    "I suggest to you however that you have not made a point for a 30 round mag. from this story."

    I disagree. There are far too many accounts that demonstrate that people can take 10-20 rounds, each, before they are stopped. Bullets aren't a magic stop the bad guy when they get shot type weapon.

    "One shot was probably enough here but 10-11 did the trick except that the woman herself was also shot and injured."

    We don't know how many shots were fired. What is much more important is we don't know, can't predict, and can't ensure that more won't be needed at some point or many points in the future. As the gangs continue to grow more sophisticated and ever better armed the need for more firepower for defensive purposes will grow.

    "I am guessing that these guys were not expecting someone to be home since they invaded in the middle of the day. Most home burglaries occur when people are not at home."

    They were wearing masks. Unlike the cartoons and old movies, burglars don't wear masks, particularly during the day time - it screams CALL THE COPS.

    I did some more research. It appears that the home was operating a meth lab, which is why it was invaded. You might say that if you don't manufacture or deal drugs then you aren't at risk - but just like cops (but likely even more often) the bad guys get the wrong house. Happened in this area not too long ago.

    "It would be interesting to know who shot first and if the fact that the woman had a gun increased her own risk of being shot. That being said, there is no way of knowing what the biker gang would have done to the woman had she not had a gun. In these cases there is just no way of predicting the outcome with our without a gun."

    Exactly. It's not predictable, let alone controllable. Your ban is predicated on the notion that it's never ever necessary for the 12th round, unless of course you are a cop. Why would cops need such firepower? They respond to cases like this one.

    There is the error in your logic. Cops use their weapons in defense of the public. Almost always they respond AFTER the attack. It's more likely that they will deal with a violent criminal, but it's less likely that they will be the intended victim.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "So ILP- the way you worded this is awkward"

    Sorry and thank you for the feedback.

    "Are you saying that a number of these 34 deaths would be prevented if people were allowed to have high capacity magazines?"

    No, that's not what I meant, I will try to be more clear.

    How many murders are committed where magazine capacity of more than ten rounds is a factor?

    The Tucson shooting is the only example I know of in the last year. I still haven't seen a good explanation of the actual shooting, so to make up a number I'm guessing that 1/3 of the victims were shot with the first 11 rounds and the next 2/3 victims were shot with the rest. If that is the case, then 4 murder victims might have not been murder victims due to this case. That's out of 13000 a year is it? How many others are there? I'm guessing none as there aren't news reports about it, and I'm sure the press and the Brady campaign will let us know if there are any such cases.

    Now, you may be willing to spend any amount of money and resources to stop those four murders - but I'm not. Let's say the magazine ban passes, and not too many people go to prison for it, say only a thousand in the first year. If they serve three years and all plea guilty it's going to cost at least 100,000 to convict and imprison each of them, for a cost of 100,000,000. For a hundred million dollars we could lock up 1000 violent criminals who are the most likely to commit murder for the same amount of time, or preferably lock up only 100 of them for 30 years. If we carefully chose the people who have long histories of violence and gang activity and recidivism, then we might prevent at least fifty murders. Or we can try your way, imprison a thousand (and that's a lowball estimate) peaceful people and hope that the next lunatic doesn't use of the many millions of magazines already in circulation, those that will be sold on the black market, those that they can make with ease, doesn't decide to use bombs or rifles instead, doesn't get more guns and doesn't learn to reload half competently.

    That's my point. Very few innocent people are harmed by magazines that hold more than 11 rounds. Nearly zero. If we assume that banning certain numbers of capacity actually work, it would make more sense to ban guns holding less than six or seven rounds, as those are the ones preferred by gangbangers, and assuming that the prohibition worked the way you think it would work, then that would save hundreds of lives.

    Does that make sense? It's all about "bang for your buck" (pun intended, sorry :)

    There are many other options for this money. What if we spent 100 million bucks on counseling for husbands and exhusbands who are having a very difficult time and who show warning signs?

    What I'm proposing is what the police/FBI does when they are looking for a serial killer or other criminal. They "profile" behavior and the identifying characteristics of the criminal. They don't go after the very large number of people who happen to use the same knife, gun, or car as the criminal.

    The same is true of most mass shooters - they follow a pattern. Young male loners who are "creepy" and average regular joe folks suspect are crazy and who aren't into the shooting sports or the defensive arts suddenly purchase firearms and a lot of them. That's a warning sign, that's the profile that gunstore employees, family, friends, neighbors, classmates, and teachers should be looking for.

    Under McCarthy's ban, the guy with a million dollar plus collection who has dozens or hundreds of "high capacity" magazines will be arrested and imprisoned for buying one more magazine, even though such people have a very nearly perfect record of non-criminality. The guy who owns no guns who buys 25 ten round magazines will not be considered to be a threat.

    Sorry for the tangents, didn't sleep much.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Joan-

    Re: "Starry eyed". Fair enough, I don't know you personally. If you're suggesting that there are no politicians who want to see that card taken off the table because their projects are unpopular, I've got to disagree.

    Re: The home invasion. You grossly underestimate the difference between professional criminals and "most home burglaries". In this case, we're talking about yet another subculture that intitutionalizes violence and misogyny (only it's okay for me to openly criticize this one). Violence is not an impromptu means to an end for them, but a way of life. They have had guns pointed at them before, and probably been shot before. The ONLY THING that they respect is the capacity for violence. For women, that means magazine capacity.

    As for suicide, I'll admit that's a tough one. I'm glad things worked out for your friend's son. Mental health in general is something we need to improve. There needs to be more understanding that mental illness is often just a transient occurence rather than the way you permanently are. Right now there are veterans coming back suffering horribly from PTSD, and they can't talk to anyone military for fear of being processed out (or at the very least being unpromotable for at least a year), and worry that if they get help from civilians they'll have that "adjudicated mentally defective" scarlet letter on their forehead and not be able to own guns. If there were a process to restore rights as well as one to take them away, it would make it a lot easier.

    As for those who have serious, chronic, and debilitating mental diseases like bipolar disorder, sure it's best if they don't have guns. But until their is a very specific policy that specifies a course of action for each diagnosis and a process to restore rights (and the assurance that restoration will not be made unattainable in the future), I'll be staunchly against legislating away the rights of people with mental illness. If they're violent and scary, they will come to the attention of someone, just like Jerod Loughner did over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  59. ILP- I'm so glad you did that research. This was not your average home invasion then making this quite a different case which even you had to admit. It's pretty rare to have armed men in masks invading the average home. Just because you think there is an error in my logic does not mean there is an actual error in my logic.

    ReplyDelete
  60. ILP- Now I'm finding what I think is an error in your logic. "hen 4 murder victims might have not been murder victims due to this case." First of all, which 4 would you have sacrificed? 9 year old Christina Green? The Federal Judge? The young Giffords staffer set to get married this summer?

    Second- you will not go to jail if you don't transer or sell those large capacity magazines that you can continue to own under the McCarthy bill.

    Third- I think you are saying that since not that many people are killed with large capacity magazines we should not bother to try to stop it from happening by banning mags of more than that since it wouldn't have much affect anyway? And I agree with this one: " If we assume that banning certain numbers of capacity actually work, it would make more sense to ban guns holding less than six or seven rounds, as those are the ones preferred by gangbangers, and assuming that the prohibition worked the way you think it would work, then that would save hundreds of lives." So let's do it since you think it might work!! I'm on board.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Joan, I believe ILP is trying to say that very few, if any, of those people would be saved simply because regular magazines were illegal.

    The thing is, we're talking about corner cases here. In most cases, you don't really "need" more than X rounds. However, in those cases where you do need them, having them can mean the difference between life and death. A person who practices all the time and is very good can change magazines at a speed that may shock you. Most people don't practice like that and as such can get killed while changing a magazine.

    So what are we left with? A ban on something that will have little to no real impact on anything and yet could actually cost people their lives. Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Joan said: "Second- you will not go to jail if you don't transer or sell those large capacity magazines that you can continue to own under the McCarthy bill."

    That depends on the definition of "transfer" doesn't it? A strict meaning would include my handing a magazine to a friend at the range and he accidentally taking it home. We're both liable for prosecution now, whether it happens or not. Ridiculous? Of course it is. So is the fact that you can get prosecuted for an empty .22 shell stuck to your shoe in some states.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Few people's lives are saved by banning standard capacity mags.

    Few people's lives are saved by not banning standard capacity mags (allowing them to defend themselves in those rare situations we've been discussing.

    Why are the first few people more important than the second few people?

    Also, we've been over this before, but under the McCarthy bill it is an affirmative defense that you acquired the magazine prior to the ban. That means you would be arrested and have to prove in court that you owned it previously, which there really isn't any way to do seeing as magazines don't have individualized serial numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "It's pretty rare to have armed men in masks invading the average home. Just because you think there is an error in my logic does not mean there is an actual error in my logic. "

    No, but it's a fact that you say it's only the need for magazines holding more than ten rounds is imaginary, and it's fact that there are a considerable number of armed home invasions where it's commonsense to have and use "high capacity" magazines. I think the statistic I read was 8000 a year in this country. To say that there is only an imaginary need for citizens to be prepared is erroneous. Not my opinion, the facts clearly demonstrate it. It's only in your imagination where every citizen can use 11 rounds to stop all threats, and it's only in your imagination where even that isn't necessary.

    "First of all, which 4 would you have sacrificed? 9 year old Christina Green? The Federal Judge? The young Giffords staffer set to get married this summer?"

    I wouldn't have sacrificed any of them. It's impossible to say what would have happened if Loughner hadn't had easy access to those magazines. Most likely he would have used normal magazines and had no jamming issues, no reloading issues, and no lady grabbing the long magazine issues, and more people would have died. The other most likely option is that he would have chosen more powerful weapons or multiple weapons or both, and more people would have died. How many more people would you have sacrificed?

    I am not responsible for the criminal actions of a person who abuses our mutual liberty. I don't support prohibiting large pickup trucks, if someone uses one to kill a bunch of people I'm not responsible. If you get large pickup trucks banned and someone uses a tractor trailer for suicide there will will be blood on your hands.

    "Second- you will not go to jail if you don't transer or sell those large capacity magazines that you can continue to own under the McCarthy bill."

    Or loan or buy. I'm definitely going to loan my magazines and guns - three year mandatory minimum for that. Target practice is too important to me and my family and friends. If someone I know has such a magazine I'll be most happy to borrow it to examine it and the gun, and hopefully use it for target practice. Each time I'll be facing prison time. The only way to avoid prison time will be to volunteer to live with the chains of tyranny around my life.

    "
    Third- I think you are saying that since not that many people are killed with large capacity magazines we should not bother to try to stop it from happening by banning mags of more than that since it wouldn't have much affect anyway? "

    Correct. It's like banning engines that a V8 or larger to stop speeding. The people who still own them will still speed, those who buy them illegally will still speed, those who steal them will still speed, and everyone else driving any automobile made in the last 80 years will still speed. Yeah, you might stop one or two people from speeding who otherwise would, but many people will be harmed and the problem of speeding won't be solved at all.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "So let's do it since you think it might work!! I'm on board. "

    You misunderstood probably because you missed key works, like assume. Heck, IF banning things really words, then there is no need to ban guns or magazines at all, since the ban on crimes will keep them from happening!

    That's a big if!

    You want to impose these controls on 300,000,000 plus people. You've cited science and research before to support your position. These controls are not new and they have been tested. Before we expand them to a national standard we should review their record.

    I used to work in Oakland, CA. Mandatory background checks, no private transfers, no "high capacity " magazines, no concealed carry permits unless you were the corrupt mayor's chauffeur/bodyguard, no gun stores in town. If gun control worked then there would be very little gun violence. It's a bit better these days but it's still a very violent town with a lot of gun violence. One of my coworkers once found 14 9mm casings on the sidewalk, most surely not from a lawful carrier. I remember one case where a person used a prohibited SKS to kill a random person. He used only one or a few rounds from the prohibited high capacity magazine. There are too many stories to list.

    If gun control works - why are Oakland, Chicago, and Washington DC plagued with gun violence and violence?

    The usual story is to blame other places with "lax gun laws". I'm in a state with "lax gun laws" that are getting laxer. The last murder was with a knife, the one before that with a machete (four crazy foolish punks broke into a random home and attacked the woman and her daughter killing one for no reason, if she had a gun and high capacity magazine she likely would have lived). No gun violence. I hear gunshots all the time when it's not hunting season, none are aimed at people. Vermont next door has even "looser" gun laws, no problem there. Massachusetts however has gun control, including the ban on many magazines, and they have a much worse problem with gun violence. Mexico has extremely stringent gun control and they have extreme gun violence.

    So for those reasons I don't think we can assume that your proposals are going to start working if you only get more power.



    Good news - tax funds are here and I'll be buying "high capacity" magazines holding a whopping 12 rounds!!!! It's like getting away with murder!!!

    The above isn't a threat to commit murder. It's a joke, pointing out that what I am going to do is perfectly legal, but if your wish comes true, I'll be looking at 40 years in prison, which is on the high side for actually committing murder. So I'll be doing something you believe should be punished like murder but I won't be facing a single day in prison. Freedom rocks!

    ReplyDelete
  66. So ILP- the way you worded this is awkward " Out of the roughly 34 people murdered by guns every day - what number would be prevented if no one had magazines holding more than 10 rounds? " Are you saying that a number of these 34 deaths would be prevented if people were allowed to have high capacity magazines? If that is what you are saying, how do you come to that conclusion? If it's not what you mean, can you explain further?

    In short, violent people will victimize others with 3 rounds, 10 rounds, 33 rounds, or a board with a nail in it. Google the Malaysian phenomenon "amok" for a fascinating cultural analog. The difference is that when an eighty year old woman is attacked by a knife wielding sociopath in a Malay marketplace, if she isn't some sort of martial arts expert she's pretty assuredly going to die. In much of America, that same 80 year old woman can end an ex-linebacker's violent rampage, and not go to jail for it.


    "It's pretty rare to have armed men in masks invading the average home."

    It is statistically safer to travel by air than to drive, but that doesn't mean we just dismiss aviation safety. In fact, taking the threat seriously is one of the reasons we don't have as many aviation mishaps.

    Here's a more applicable example, since you mentioned John Roll. Who needs to bring a gun to church? How often are there mass shootings at churches? Not that often, right? You'd have to be some kind of nutjob to bring a gun to church...

    John Roll was known to often carry a gun, but he'd just come from church. Just as you can ask "what if", so can we.

    ReplyDelete
  67. You will just have to be more careful, Atrius. That shouldn't be too inconvenient.

    ReplyDelete
  68. ILP= perhaps you will have to be more careful about loaning out those magazines- probably a good idea anyway considering you can't guarantee what will happen to them once they leave your hands. That would be the only responsible thing to do. If you are concerned about those magazines getting out to the wrong hands, you will take more care. No this isn't at all like a car. That analogy is irrelevant here. " It's impossible to say what would have happened if Loughner hadn't had easy access to those magazines. " This is right. No way of knowing. Why not err on the side of prevention? As to this: " I read was 8000 a year in this country. "? Find me a source. I have trouble believing that large capacity magazines were used in this many home invasions. That would likely mean a lot of dead people.

    ReplyDelete
  69. ILP- you can own your 30 round mags if the law goes through. You just can't transfer or sell them. So hang on to them in the event your house is hit by a bunch of armed home invaders. As to this one: "If gun control works - why are Oakland, Chicago, and Washington DC plagued with gun violence and violence?" You have it exactly right. Until we have national laws guns can be bought in other states and transported. That is just a plain old fact. Vermont is a different state than Massachusetts- low population and not a lot of large densely populated cities where many gun homicides occur. Suicide is another story however. I actually had a good friend who shot himself in the state of Vermont. It happens.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "LP= perhaps you will have to be more careful about loaning out those magazines- probably a good idea anyway considering you can't guarantee what will happen to them once they leave your hands. That would be the only responsible thing to do."

    Loaning doesn't mean giving them to someone and waving goodbye.

    It means going to the range with some friends and letting one of them shoot your gun for a few rounds.

    It means passing a magazine to your spouse.

    My husband and I use the same carry gun and share mags. That would be illegal under McCarthy's proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Joan said: "You will just have to be more careful, Atrius. That shouldn't be too inconvenient."

    I shouldn't have to be scared to death that my friend may pick up one of my magazines, as opposed to his/her identical one, and land us both in jail. How is that reasonable or "common sense"?

    It also leaves aside other issues. What happens when I pass on? Would I be forbidden, by law, from leaving my lawfully owned property to my children? What is to become of it? If it is to be destroyed, will the state pay my family for the loss?

    The silliness of this is at least two fold. First, if bad guys want them they would still be easy enough to just raid people's houses for. Unless this law was followed with either confiscation or draconian "safe storage" laws. Second, even if they were totally and completely banned from retail channels that doesn't kill availability to the very people that you're saying you don't want to have them. Mexico has a total ban on civilians owning pretty much anything of interest. Has that stopped anything?

    It reminds me of one of the other silly things in gun laws. The concept of "constructive intent". Say you own an AR-15 type rifle. I own a DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear), one of the parts needed to convert an AR to full/selective fire. I come over to your house with the DIAS in my pocket, drop it behind your couch and leave. A few hours later, I call the cops and give a tip that you have an unregistered full auto. They show up, find the DIAS, and you get charged with the crime. Even though you never assembled it, and didn't even known it had shown up. They were in the same room with each other. That's enough for it to be a crime. Is that logical?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joan-

    You mentioned "the Federal Judge". His name was John Roll.

    You say that we need national gun laws. Again, a national magazine restriction won't do anything significant to reduce crime. And the DEA has been waging "an all-out global war on the drug menace" since 1973. That hasn't worked out so well. Whatever items we demonize and outlaw will still make it into the country, and exactly the WRONG sort will have them. If anything, the WOD teaches us that it is far more effective to attack the demand side, rather than the supply side. That means pouring all that money spent on gun control legislation and campaigns to criminalize 33 round magazines and instead spending it on educating people and improving their lives. Two birds with one stone. Win/win.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I read ILP's comment as there being roughly 8000 armed home invasions, not 8000 home invasions in which a 10round+ magazine was used.

    And you say that we can keep our magazines, well, what about people who haven't bought them yet? I guess their rights don't matter, too high a chance they'll be a rampaging maniac or a criminal. And so few shootings are committed using more than ten rounds, that even if you magically removed all these magazines, it would have no effect on the level of gun violence. It's a complete waste of time, money, and effort. for all the resources that would be wasted on this stupid ban, they could be much better spent identifying people in need of psychiatric help and getting them that help. That alone would have a much greater impact.

    And this ban would give certain people the ability to go on crusades against law abiding gun owners. If you have to prove that you owned the magazine prior to the ban, but have no way of proving it, what's to keep an overly ambitious DA from prosecuting you? There have been people arrested in Nassau County NY for possession of an 'assault weapon', because DA Rice claims that the collapsing stock on the rifle that was pinned in a fixed position, could easily be unpinned and made collapsing again, in violation of the NYS AWB. The NYS AWB however, does not specify how the stock must be pinned, so theoretically DA Rice can say any method is illegal, and arrest people who are following the law as written. McCarthy's magazine ban allows a similar thing to happen, perhaps it's designed to allow that to happen. I certainly can't support in any way, a bill that will effectively only target law abiding people, and have no effect on gun violence.

    I cannot comprehend in any way, how this bill will prevent a mass shooting or killing. I can understand how someone could think that it would, but that line of thinking is flawed. It assumes that a person intent on mass murder is going to only try to obtain a 10+ magazine from a store, and not resort to theft, the black market, or home manufacture.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  74. Atrius- it seems to me that you have come up with all the ways in which otherwise responsible gun owners can become careless. With rights come responsibilities. Guns and ammo are inherently dangerous. Keep track of them. That's your job as a law abiding gun owner.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have an idea everyone. If gun laws don't work, let's not have any. For your side, that would mean rescinding all permit to carry laws, Tiahrt, 24 hour waiting period, guns on Amtrak, guns in national parks, etc. If it's a deal, your side will agree to drop all the laws sitting in our state houses right now. Then we can both go our merry way. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Japete: “you can own your 30 round mags if the law goes through. You just can't transfer or sell them.”

    For one, you make the assumption that every gun owner has every gun and magazine that they’ll ever want or need, thus bans (with grandfather clauses) don’t affect them so they shouldn’t care. I for one don’t own any 30 round magazines, but if this law is going to pass, I’ll probably go out and buy a bunch at inflated prices. Ironically you just created a new market as I would not have bought it otherwise.

    The second assumption you make (and this is a big one) is that we are selfishly only interested in our own personal rights. I value my children’s rights more than my own. They are not old enough to exercise or fight for their rights- so I fight for them. I am not alone in this. This is why arguments like “no one is going to physically take items that you already personally own away from you as an individual” carries exactly zero weight.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yes indeed DHS- all those poor prohibited people who have been dying to shoot people in a mass shooting will now be inconveninced by not being able to buy those 30 round mags. I suggest you go out and stock up now then as some on this blog are talking about. You never know how many times you will be in a situation where you absolutely must have your 30 round mags between now and when a law may pass. I mean, I must hear about those times you guys have used 30 round mags for self defense at least once every 5 years or so, if that.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yup - it's really too bad that your children may not have a chance to shoot 30 round mags. They will surely be deprived. Then they will just be like all of the other people who don't want them and don't have a desire for them. Everyone will be in the same boat. If they are no longer available- voila- no need to defend yourself with 30 round mags from someone with a 30 round mag.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "You will just have to be more careful, Atrius. That shouldn't be too inconvenient."

    That's cold. You demonstrate a complete lack of regard for the safety and well being of other people, even as you claim that you and what you advocate are not such a threat, and even as you claim that you are acting to stop people who are a threat to the safety and well being of other people.

    Have you spent any time in jail or prison? I'm guessing you've never been arrested. Correct me if I'm wrong. So you are willing to ignore the incredible damage you are willing to impose on other people, and if they are a victim of your "policies" then you will blame them - even though it is you who is pushing for Soviet style laws and punishments.

    "Yup - it's really too bad that your children may not have a chance to shoot 30 round mags. They will surely be deprived. "

    McCarthy's bill has about a 1 in 10000 chance of making it out of committee. The odds of it passing are near zero.

    Should it pass, myself and roughly 50 million other Americans are going to give our magazines to our kids when we die. You can throw some or even many of us into prison, you can destroy some of our lives - but you won't even get ten percent of us.

    I just watched an interesting documenting, focused on the prohibition of cannabis, called "The Union". There was a great line I will poorly quote - "When a product is in great demand it's folly to try to prohibit it". The government can't stop guns, magazines, pot, cocaine, or anything else that has been prohibited - and attempting to prohibit more things will not work.

    "Then they will just be like all of the other people who don't want them and don't have a desire for them. Everyone will be in the same boat."

    Gee, that sure worked for everything else that is prohibited, right? Oh wait, oh no, prohibition is an epic failure!!!

    "If they are no longer available- voila- no need to defend yourself with 30 round mags from someone with a 30 round mag. "

    Two tweakers/crackheads who are unarmed can easily require a 30 round magazine - not to even kill them, but just to stop them.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Yes indeed DHS- all those poor prohibited people who have been dying to shoot people in a mass shooting will now be inconveninced by not being able to buy those 30 round mags. "

    ...from some gun stores. Many gun stores, and other stores, will continue to sell them. Many more will get around the ban by a technicality I won't inform you about that already exists in areas with magazine bans. Black market dealers and manufacturers will sell to any nut. And then there will be the incredibly huge number of magazines readily available to anyone willing to steal them.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "japete254 said...

    I have an idea everyone. If gun laws don't work, let's not have any. For your side, that would mean rescinding all permit to carry laws, Tiahrt, 24 hour waiting period, guns on Amtrak, guns in national parks, etc. If it's a deal, your side will agree to drop all the laws sitting in our state houses right now. Then we can both go our merry way. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't."

    Best. Post. Ever!

    I assume you also mean machine guns and short barreled long guns will be legal, etc. That's my goal!

    Then we can take our limited finite resources and go after the criminals and the lunatics for their criminal and insane actions!

    If you really want to make a big difference eliminating gun violence, and more important, violence, then let's "legalize" all drugs! Then the gangsters will be broke and their organizations will fall apart. Then we can focus on helping people instead of hurting them.

    And if you really really to impact violence - then we should do something about our "foreign policy" which consists of 1) attacking other nations with violence that makes domestic gun violence look like nothing 2) funding, arming, training, and otherwise supporting the most nasty murderous violent evil governments on the planet!

    Of course, none of this can magically happen, but we can and should work to solve our problems.

    Or we can keep a very narrow focus on only part of the problem of violence. One of the things I find interesting is the incredible emphasis you place on guns and gun violence. People have a very long recorded history of violence, and guns are a new thing. Ever read about what people used to do before guns? I see many people say "In my dream world there wouldn't be any guns". I've read about that world, I know my history - and I prefer this one by far as imperfect as it is.

    For a modern example of violence without guns - one of our government's puppet tyrants boiled a couple of men to death in hot oil. This was only a few years ago. No guns. No magazine at all. No bullets. The people who fund and support that evil man are the same people you want to have sole possession of "high capacity" magazines, those are the people you trust to never ever attempt a genocide here.

    If they are willing to support a dictator who boils people alive - even after it is publicly known that this is the kind of man he is - are they really to be trusted in the way you trust them?

    And that is but two of the tens of millions of people killed around the world in your lifetime by your government that you trust as "the only ones" able to safely use magazines.

    As my moniker says, I Love Peace. I hate violence. I have a passionate disagreement with those unwittingly support the creators of global violence scale in a misguided attempt to stop the small scale type of violence that has directly impacted them. You are a victim of violence - but the Brady campaign and the rest of them have conned you and taken advantage of your pain and loss.

    I'm here to help you if you want help. If all you want is to repeat and expand the failed policies of a government that has killed and hurt so many - then I can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I have an idea everyone. If gun laws don't work, let's not have any. For your side, that would mean rescinding all permit to carry laws, Tiahrt, 24 hour waiting period, guns on Amtrak, guns in national parks, etc. If it's a deal, your side will agree to drop all the laws sitting in our state houses right now. Then we can both go our merry way. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.


    If I understand that, what you're suggesting is called "State's rights" and that is happening on the pro-gun side. States are deciding (rightly so) that the Federal government shouldn't decide what their gun laws are. Some gun owners were upset that the Federal Government is incorporating the 2nd, because the state's should be able to decide democratically what their own gun laws are. That way if Montana and Tennessee want to legalize full auto, they can do it. If California wants to just cut to the chase and outlaw them all, they can do it.

    I've been a big fan of "seeing what works and what doesn't" because I am confident of the result. The problem with that approach is that places like NYC, Chicago, and DC will continue to point the finger at everyone else for their crime problems, because guns WILL come in from other states, just like they would come in from other countries if we banned them completely ala the UK. That's what criminals do. So since the examples of NYC, DC, Chicago, all of NJ, and much of California don't sufficiently demonstrate what happens when only criminals have guns, our next best option is just for the Federal government to incorporate the second amendment and lay down the law.

    Sucks it comes to that.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Joan. There are a few states that have done most of this. "I have an idea everyone. If gun laws don't work, let's not have any. For your side, that would mean rescinding all permit to carry laws, Tiahrt, 24 hour waiting period, guns on Amtrak, guns in national parks, etc. If it's a deal, your side will agree to drop all the laws sitting in our state houses right now. Then we can both go our merry way. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.".

    It's worked fairly well.

    Regarding guns on Amtrak, you are aware I can fly while checking my firearms I'n my luggage, right? That's allthe Amtrak law is about. The right to travel on a train after checking a firearm into baggage.

    Minnesota hasn't had a wAiting period for long gun purchases for decades. If you get a permit to purchase or a carry permit, there is no waiting period for handguns either.

    Many states have similar rules.

    As to guns I'n national parks, this was common for most of the century and no one ever seemed to mind. Why do I have less rights to self defense in a national park. Mind you, not all national parks are park like in nature. Many are like the BWCA which has allowed firearms for decades with no problems.

    Tihart is simply the equivalent of HIPPA for gun owners.

    I argue amend Lautenberg to only apply to those convicted of a violent offense after passage. Writing a bill that changes a persons status ex post facto is quite simply unfair to all involved.

    The Law does not care about fears. And it should never be written under the color of fear. Law needs to be written under the harsh light of day, showing all implications and unintended consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joan. There are a few states that have done most of this. "I have an idea everyone. If gun laws don't work, let's not have any. For your side, that would mean rescinding all permit to carry laws, Tiahrt, 24 hour waiting period, guns on Amtrak, guns in national parks, etc. If it's a deal, your side will agree to drop all the laws sitting in our state houses right now. Then we can both go our merry way. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.".

    It's worked fairly well.

    Regarding guns on Amtrak, you are aware I can fly while checking my firearms I'n my luggage, right? That's allthe Amtrak law is about. The right to travel on a train after checking a firearm into baggage.

    Minnesota hasn't had a wAiting period for long gun purchases for decades. If you get a permit to purchase or a carry permit, there is no waiting period for handguns either.

    Many states have similar rules.

    As to guns I'n national parks, this was common for most of the century and no one ever seemed to mind. Why do I have less rights to self defense in a national park. Mind you, not all national parks are park like in nature. Many are like the BWCA which has allowed firearms for decades with no problems.

    Tihart is simply the equivalent of HIPPA for gun owners.

    I argue amend Lautenberg to only apply to those convicted of a violent offense after passage. Writing a bill that changes a persons status ex post facto is quite simply unfair to all involved.

    The Law does not care about fears. And it should never be written under the color of fear. Law needs to be written under the harsh light of day, showing all implications and unintended consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  85. And one more thing- just because something's not a priority for you doesn't mean you should poo-poo it. How many times in the last five years have you used a fire extinguisher? A seat belt? Anti lock brakes? A first aid kit? 911? If the answer is zero, we must not need those things, right?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Joan, you do realize that this would ban more than just 30 round mags, right?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Interesting questions ILP. Have you spent time in prison or jail? I certainly hope not given that you are supposedly a law abiding gun owner. Rest assured you won't spend time in prison if you follow the law of the land. That's what it's all about.Of course, as you know, we would not be prohibiting guns in this measure but you all seem to have forgotten that. The second amendment says nothing about ammo or magazines. The Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined such actually. But go ahead and believe in what you want to believe if that makes this issue so scary for you.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Yeah- great to hear that the gun dealers and gun guys are already thinking of ways to get around the laws to get the magazines anyway. I thought you were scared that only the criminals would get the magazines when you guys wouldn't. Now you are saying that you guys will get them anyway even if it's against the law!!! Way to go. You guys are such law abiding citizens. Now I am more worried than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Great ILP- for someone who loves peace so much it is a clear contradiction that you think it is perfectly fine for people to have their large capacity magazines and assault weapons. How does this make sense? My views fit better with overall peace and non violence than do yours.

    ReplyDelete
  90. " Sucks it comes to that." Sure does, anon.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Yes P. It has worked so well that 100,000 people a year are shot in our country and 30,000 of those die. I would say that has worked out just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Have you used those things in the last 5 years,anon? What's your point? Using seat belts has actually saved lives without taking any lives. A first aid kit- could save someone from being more seriously injured but not kill someone. A fire extinguisher- also hasn't killed too many people. A gun? Hmmm. Let's see. Guns have killed more people than they have saved by a great amount even if you guys think you have somehow miraculously used your guns for self defense a million times a year which no one knows about except you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Heather- " ‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--
    ‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
    ‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’."

    This is from the bill. What else do you think it means?

    ReplyDelete
  94. The founding fathers had no problem with people owning CANNONS. Sure you couldn't carry it into a post office, but you could hitch a horse to it, set it up across the street from the post office, and turn the whole thing into a smoking hole with an explosive cannonball.

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty
    to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
    deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    -Benjamin Franklin

    ReplyDelete
  95. Magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.

    There's a lot that fall in between 10 rounds and 30 rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Are cannons considered arms in the second amendment? They are weapons of war, sort of like tanks and artillery weapons. I believe you are stretching things just a teeny tiny bit here anon. Nice try, though.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Of course Heather. What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  98. My point is that the comments you've been making in this thread are disingenuous. This isn't a question about whether we need 30 round mags for self defense, or how often 30 round mags are used, and implying that people do not need 30 round mags for anything has no bearing on this ban since it is not a 30 round magazine ban.

    Replace all of your comments about 30 round mags with 11 round mags. Do they sound as reasonable now? Sure, most people probably don't use 30 round mags for self defense, but what about 11 or 12 or 15 round mags?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Use credible numbers, Joan.

    Give cites.

    The law as her handlers wrote it is incredibly naive on the surface then as one examines it it has a number of endless abyss's which could be exploited to pretty much ban any semi auto handgun.

    I know you cant see it and I am not going to give you any tips but the law has the ability to be interpreted I'n such ways that any magazine fed weapon could be banned.

    I know you are going to say I am ridiculous but I frankly don't care. This law as written has the ability to ban almost any magazine fed weapon. The reason is simple. A simple gun magazine is just some folded sheet metal and a spring. If I were inclined to circumvent a law banning these mags all I would need is the appropriate sheet steel and a bench top tool which can buy for fifty dollars anywhere. A metal brake or bender is very easy to use and a couple of spot welds or pop rivets is all it takes. So now you have not only stopped me from getting them legally, you have ceased a market for criminal enterprise to fill the gap.

    The laws of unintended consequences rises again.

    You love to slap us down on our comments and take the haughty air of moral superiority even when faced with facts which undermine the foundations of your very reason d'ĂȘtre, but the states which have the loosest firearm laws in the real world have the lowest gun crime. Vermont, Maine, Montana, are all pretty darn safe. Don't regurgitate Joyce foundation numbers trying to tie Gun ownership rates to violence because they have bad numbers. They suggest that the Iron range has less than thirty percent of homes having a gun. I doubt there are thirty homes on the range that don't have guns. (mild hyperbole, yes)

    I am going to tell you that if I get a phone survey asking me if I have guns in the house, I will deny it, just like I always do on Dr's office forms, and any other intrusive inquiries.

    Anyone who thinks that gun ownership I'n rural counties does come close to100% is living in a dream World. It may not be an Ak or a tacticool design, but there's a twenty two and a twelve gauge somewhere I'n every house outside of town. In all my travels working and hunting and being out, I have yet to meet any rural land owner who doesn't have a firearm. Your neighbors probably know about your position and chose to keep it from you, but frankly I doubt that Duluth has any less than fifty Percent gun ownership.

    Call my numbers off, but I have seen what i am talking about. Visited homes, spent time away from the city, and I stand by the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Are cannons considered arms in the second amendment? They are weapons of war, sort of like tanks and artillery weapons. I believe you are stretching things just a teeny tiny bit here anon. Nice try, though.


    Have you read your history? What was the object of the Redcoats marching on Lexington and Concord?

    Precisely the sorts of items the founding fathers were concerned with.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Yes, Heather. This bill will ban magazines over 10 rounds.

    ReplyDelete
  102. P- O.K. I'll call your numbers off. I personally know more than a few people living on the "Range" in Minnesota, who do not have guns in their homes- not even hunting guns. " they have bad numbers. They suggest that the Iron range has less than thirty percent of homes having a gun. I doubt there are thirty homes on the range that don't have guns. (mild hyperbole, yes) " Yes, anyone who does not have your numbers must have bad numbers. We are all liars and know nothings on my side, not to mention naive.

    ReplyDelete
  103. So, here we go- off on another tangent. But I'll bite. I thought you guys wanted the second amendment to be about guns for your self defense in your homes. That's what the Heller and McDonald cases were about. Now you want it to be about your right to own cannons? Whatever. I don't think that is what the founding fathers meant. Unless of course, the early Americans stored cannons in their homes to be ready as the "well regulated militia" when needed. That must explain then why you guys want your assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Some brief history

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm

    This is set prior to Lexington and Concord.

    Lord Percy's aim was to capture the cannon at concord. He failed. Luckily.
    Thus we ended up winning.

    ReplyDelete
  105. japete said...

    Are cannons considered arms in the second amendment? They are weapons of war, sort of like tanks and artillery weapons. I believe you are stretching things just a teeny tiny bit here anon. Nice try, though.

    Yep. Just like "assault rifles".
    What do they need those for? Those are weapons of war! I'm sure that sounds familiar.

    As for your superior version of nonviolence, I've already shown how it's not really nonviolent to simply avoid all conflict.

    Since we didn't really discuss this quote the last time I brought it up, I'll include more of it.

    It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.

    -Mahatma Gandhi
    Non-Violence in Peace and War (1948)

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Private citizens do not have a defensive need for large capacity magazines- they only imagine that they do."

    I'd say that private citizens have a greater need for large capacity magazines. Unlike the police, private citizens don't have the luxury of calling for backup before being confronting a criminal.

    But it's a moot point. The magazine ban more than likely won't pass and in the off chance it does, there are already millions of them in circulation and eventually people will start making their own.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Joan you really work at making this complicated when it is not.

    The founders knew of two facts of life. The individual had to be able To protect himself and his family I'n order to be able to join with his neighbors to fight and protect the community. There was no either- or, but rather an If-then.

    We as Citizens today feel the same way. We must have the right to self defense as an individual and as a community.

    To define the Second as only a personal defense clause misses what the founders were seeking to set up.

    This is not simple and concise soundbite territory. This is a nation, newly formed looking at it self and providing to its own members, it's own Citizenry, the kill switch to turn the whole thing off.

    Never before had any government given it's constituency the ability to throw a circuit breKer and shut off the machine. It's really the most impressive partof the whole Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The Governing- to-be gave the governed- to- be, the right to step out from under oppression if it so happened.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I would be interested I'n reading your response to your very own question. What were the founding fathers thinking when they included the Second Amendment?

    Secondly. Have you ever read about why some framers thought the Second was superfluous?

    ReplyDelete
  109. "This article about a Massachusetts shooting gun range points out that the noise from machine gun shooting has been bothering their right to have some peace in their neighborhood."

    If suppressors were legal in Massachusetts, that wouldn't be a problem. In fact, if we were to repeal our draconian suppressor laws at the federal level, noise would no longer be a problem at any gun range because more people would have suppressors.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Yea, actually they did store cannons, often each town had a couple cannons, and storage areas for ball and powder. Privately owned ships had cannons for defense against pirates and foreign ships. The Second Amendment says "arms", it doesn't say "rifles", "muskets", "pistols" or "small arms". Read the dictionary definition of "arms', it will cover everything from knives to battleships. At the time of the Revolutionary War, arms were small arms and cannon. Over time, we've let the government regulate the possession of all other arms. Truth be told, I don't have a problem with that. The chances of the people needing to defend themselves against our own military is incredibly slim, and our small arms should be enough deterrent to government tyranny anyway. But we certainly do need our small arms to defend ourselves against criminals, to obtain food, and we use them in the pursuit of happiness.

    Btw, civilians are still allowed to own black powder cannons today, not that it means much from a tactical point of view.

    And please do not try to hit me with the "it didn't exist back then so it doesn't apply to the Second Amendment" argument. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written for the future, not the current time only. I'm sure the Founding Fathers imagined that there would be great advances in technology, including arms, even if they couldn't imagine just what those advances would be. If the Second Amendment wasn't about the people possessing all arms, then it would have said for the people to possess muskets in order to go hunting, which it clearly doesn't.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  111. P- still doesn't prove anything. By that, you can't say that cannons are protected under the second amendment. Anyway, why are we having this ridiculous argument? It is at the end of it's usefulness and I'm done with it. When we start down these paths, we never end and you want to divert from the important issues of the day.Good night. Take a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  112. How can it not apply. And publish the rest of the post too.

    The war started over the intent of the established government to seize locally owned cannon. Well, the attempt was the end of a long series of events but it was the raid on private, locally owned cannon, powder and shot which was the tipping point.

    Japete. This is black and white history. This is not supposition or hypothetical, it's documented history that the aim of the Redcoats was to strip the Colonists of their means to wage war.

    It is plain and simple, the clearest of evidence of exactly what the Founders meant.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anon- " I came in contact with every known Indian anarchist in London. Their bravery impressed me, but I felt that their zeal was misguided. I felt that violence was no remedy for India's ills, and that her civilisation required the use of a different and higher weapon for self-protection." and- " Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." and this: " If one has no affection for a person or a system, one should feel free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite violence." and also this: " Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed." and more: " Variant: The seven blunders that human society commits and cause all the violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principles." and more yet: " I’m a lover of my own liberty, and so I would do nothing to restrict yours. I simply want to please my own conscience, which is God" This one is interesting: " The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least." and your quote with the end of it here: " It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." I also like this one from Gandhi- " We need to be the change we wish to see in the world." He said some pretty interesting things sometimes in conflict with each other. He was a complex man.

    ReplyDelete
  114. P- what are you talking about? Did I miss something? And I do remind you that this is my blog- not yours. You comment enough on here so you might think the blog is yours and for your edification and perusal. You would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Joan-

    The reason he said things that seem at odds with each other is because of what I've been trying to articulate for a while now. There is no blanket one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of violence. Gandhi recognized on numerous occassions (Afghanistan is an example, coincidentally) that violence was part of the solution. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, all things being equal, the nonviolent solution is better than the violent one. Neither does it take a prophet to foresee that violence always has repurcussions. It does take a genius to know how to effectively use both violence and non-violence on a national scale.

    If you accept that-

    1. There is violence in the world
    and
    2. You are responsible for how you deal with it should you encounter it

    then you must certainly have some idea what you will do if you ever (God forbid, and I mean it) come face to face with a violent home invader who "ain't goin' back". Is violence of any sort completely out of the question? Sincere question.

    I'll end with my new favorite Gandhi quote.

    I’m a lover of my own liberty, and so I would do nothing to restrict yours.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I had two posts about Gandhi and a half of one about the definitions of arms that went missing. I sent them. If they disappeared into the ethers well then that's life. I get frustrated when answers to your pointedly asked questions do not show up. It infers that I have no answer.

    Gandhi today would be a tea party member.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "The second amendment says nothing about ammo or magazines. The Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined such actually."

    Do you really think the founding fathers thought that you had a right to have a rifle but not the ammo to make the rifle something more than a poorly designed club?

    ReplyDelete
  118. P- or maybe Gandhi would be there in Wisconsin with the Union workers.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anthony- as you could surmise, but I didn't articulate it fully, the second amendment does not guarantee a right to large capacity magazines.

    ReplyDelete
  120. "...the second amendment does not guarantee a right to large capacity magazines."

    Nor does it have to.

    The founders clearly believed in saying what they meant, and sided with liberty. They understood that if they said "the right of the people to carry, knives, pistols and blunderbusses shall not be infringed", that anything falling outside of the list would be subject to infringement. They made this very clear, as well as their preference for personal and state liberty, when they included TWO amendments in the Bill of Rights saying that just because a right or power is not enumerated doesn't mean that it is not a right or power held by the state. The same spirit applies to the 2nd Amendment as it does to the 9th and 10th.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Period.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Interesting questions ILP. Have you spent time in prison or jail? I certainly hope not given that you are supposedly a law abiding gun owner."

    I have as a matter of fact, as I am the victim of criminal identity theft. A criminal stole my identity and I spent three days in jail last year. It was an educational expirience. Do you know what people do in prison and jail? For the most part they sleep and eat and watch television, and they learn how to commit crimes, and they become very unhappy people who are more likely to commit crimes.

    "Rest assured you won't spend time in prison if you follow the law of the land. That's what it's all about."

    That's not true. I spent three days in jail - and I am an innocent man. It took the cops three days to figure out that I wasn't the guy they were looking for. He was five inches taller and 80 pounds heavier. I also had contact info for the sheriff whom I had filed a police report with about this along with an official letter from the arresting department saying that my fingerprints didn't match and I was not the person they were looking for along with other supporting documentation.

    I have no reason to believe you or to trust the government which has shown itself to be dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt. I spent three days in jail when there was a large amount of evidence I didn't match the man they were looking for - it is easy to conclude I very well might spend three years or more in prison for magazines that look identical to the prohibited ones.

    "Of course, as you know, we would not be prohibiting guns in this measure but you all seem to have forgotten that."

    Then why are you prohibiting guns in this measure? We haven't forgotten that - we know how to read legalese and we know that some very valuable guns will indeed be banned. I've pointed this out to you and I'm sure others have too, and it's widely discussed online. Why are you lying or ignoring that?

    "The second amendment says nothing about ammo or magazines."

    Yes it does. It says "arms". That includes all of the components of arms. You either never knew this country's history or you have forgotten it or you are deliberately ignoring it. The American revolution began because the British government tried to forcibly take American magazines. Did you not know this? Or are you forgetful (that's fine, so am I) or are you deceitful (not fine)? Please answer.

    Moreover, the magazines the Founding Father had held thousands times more firepower than any modern "box" magazines. You want to prohibit miniature magazines - something they would have found to be cause for a revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  122. "The Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined such actually."

    I've read a number of the writings of the Founding Fathers. They were brilliant men who had an education superior to anything available on earth today. There is no reason to believe that they believed that all mechanical devices would remain as they were at that time, nor is there any reason to believe that they would have opposed vast improvements in their beloved arms. Not only they not oppose modern box magazines and arms - they would have bought them up in large quantities, used and carried them everywhere, and if you tried to take their precious property away from them they would have fought back using those magazines. That's the reasonable common sense conclusion based on the recorded history and their writings.

    If you push this through I fear that a great many other people who are familiar with history as I am but who are less patient will take the Founding Fathers to be their role models. Are you trying to start a revolution?

    "But go ahead and believe in what you want to believe if that makes this issue so scary for you."

    You should study the history of your country. Again, I can recommend any number of fine books on this topic. Exactly how many books on American history, arms, and violence have you read? I've read dozens on the former two subjects and perhaps half a dozen on the latter. I might be mistaken but I don't think you've read anything but brochures from the Brady campaign and their ilk. Perhaps you read one of those heavily redacted and propagandized American history textbooks as a younger person? It appears that would be the limit of your education on these areas essential to understanding what you are willing to put yourself in charge of. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  123. " Yeah- great to hear that the gun dealers and gun guys are already thinking of ways to get around the laws to get the magazines anyway."

    Those who try to wield power in an attempt to restrain liberty are always outwitted in the end by those who desire to be free.

    "I thought you were scared that only the criminals would get the magazines when you guys wouldn't."

    I'm more scared of you than the criminals. I can legally and morally shoot the criminals. With you I can't defend myself except by commenting and voting.

    "Now you are saying that you guys will get them anyway even if it's against the law!!!"

    Who said that? I didn't. If you outlaw X then people will invent Y. Outlaw Y and they will invent Z.

    "Way to go. You guys are such law abiding citizens. Now I am more worried than ever."

    So you are scared that people might be so inventive as to escape your myopic prohibition, but you aren't scared that you are doing nothing about the criminals and lunatics?

    ReplyDelete
  124. "Anthony- as you could surmise, but I didn't articulate it fully, the second amendment does not guarantee a right to large capacity magazines."

    As I explained in a previous post you may or may not censor, that is completely false. This country exists because of an attempt to seize the people's genuinely high capacity magazines.

    I'll try to explain this again, it might not make sense to you but the Founding Fathers would surely agree.

    One my favorite quotes, from Albert Jay Nock quoting Eckermann quoting Goethe quoting Niebuhr:

    "Niebuhr was right" said Goethe, "when he saw a barbarous age coming. It is already here, we are in it, for in what does barbarism consist, if not in the failure to appreciate what is excellent?" —ECKERMANN, 1831.

    Modern box magazines and arms are several orders of magnitude more excellent than those used by the Founding Fathers. They are far more accurate, more powerful, and vastly faster. They are excellent. The Founding Fathers had a keen appreciation for excellent things - they would appreciate them. They would also agree with Goethe and Niebuhr - it is barbaric to not appreciate them. What you are doing is barbaric. Not only do you not appreciate modern box magazines, you also don't appreciate the examples sacrifices words and lessons given by the Founding Fathers. You ignore them and proceed upon the path of barbarism.

    You may find that offensive - but it's defensive. I'm using my words to defend myself from your offensive use of words that will lead to the offensive use of force including the offensive use of magazines and arms.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Since you brought it up - the 2nd amendment says right to bear "arms" -- not "hunting arms", not "sporting arms", not "limited capacity arms" -- just "arms".

    Reasonable restrictions are already in place on law-abiding Americans. Put YOUR efforts into restricting the non-law abiding and you'll get more support. Continue to oppose me, restrict me, require me to jump through silly farcical security hoops, and you'll get resistance with every step. Just like you're being resisted in MN right now -- just wait for MY testimony regarding those redundant and ridiculous MN purchase permits.

    (...and NO, this doesn't constitute a threat to your personal safety.)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Sorry about your jail time ILP. On the other matters- read the bill. It does not talk about banning guns. But you could try to make it into that if you want to which clearly you do. And what exactly are "arms"? Should we include nuclear bombs in there as well? Should we include tanks? Where do you draw the line?

    ReplyDelete
  127. ILP- you are making some interesting assumptions here not based on any facts that I know. " hey were brilliant men who had an education superior to anything available on earth today. " These men were very bright and educated but to say they had an education superior to anything available on earth today? Where do you get that? There is absolutely no facts to prove that one. " Not only they not oppose modern box magazines and arms - they would have bought them up in large quantities, used and carried them everywhere, and if you tried to take their precious property away from them they would have fought back using those magazines. That's the reasonable common sense conclusion based on the recorded history and their writings. " Really? Do we know that to be a fact? Did Madison and Jefferson carry their guns around with them everywhere? Did they buy them up in large quantities? Is there proof of that one? If so, where? I have read some history but not history of guns and arms. As I said in my other post about victims, that has not been my interest in life. I was thrust into this issue by an unfortunate murder of my sister. I am learning but don't have time what with other interests in my life and family obligations, to know everything there is to know about guns. I'm glad I know a lot of people who do, though so I can turn to them with questions. Just as others turn to me for advice and knowledge about things they might not know that I do on other subjects. Thank goodness for diversity and people who know things about all different types of topics.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Well truly everyone- this is a first. I am being called barbaric. Amazing what you guys come up with given enough space to write.ILP often goes too far in explanations but this one goes way beyond reason. This one is laughable. Perhaps you would like to reconsider these words ILP. I do keep all posts and sometimes quote them in future blogs. I'm sure the gun violence community would get a big charge out of you calling me barbaric. I thought you loved peace. I can't even see a point here at all. You are trying to explain the founding fathers love of excellence in using your favorite quote to explain why you find box magazines excellent and therefore so would they and that the fact that I don't find them excellent makes me a barbarian. Wow!!! Such logic would fail in a philosophy class.

    ReplyDelete
  129. See you there, Pat. Can't wait to meet you.

    ReplyDelete
  130. The founding fathers pretty much all knew Latin, the pretty much could all discuss the classics, and they had a very strong education in what was important in the age.

    They were prolific letter writters and because there was no tv, telephone, or radio, all non face to face communication was done in writing. That is why if you get amcopy of the federalist Papers or Jefferson's books or the like, you Willkie introduced to a far superior form of language than what we all use. They do not have the ability to cut and paste, or issue a correction seconds after theyhit send. It was written, edited, rewritten and then reread again.

    This is why people who say "oh they didn't mean that" when they wrote it are full of rubbish. Yes they meant EXACTLY what they said. They said ARMS, not muskets not swords, not cannon, those are items. Jefferson and the founders used ARMS, a category. It's very astute of them. It means they understood and expected the development of the category and by naming an item which might not exist in a year, or decade, was unwise.

    Trying to say the didnt mean to include modern developments is simple untrue.

    Likewise let us look at the FIrst and the language there. They had no ideas about radio, tv,, blogs, wifi Internet, yet people have no problem accepting that the founders used speech as a category, not a description, meaning we could invoke that only oral communication heard without benefit of loud speakers can be protected because that is all the founders could have foreseen. So if we all accept that "speech" in the First covers radio, press, blogging, TV and or Internet, which are modern interpretations of the category, why is it so hard for you to accept arms as the modern interpretation as a category?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Should we include nuclear bombs in there as well? Should we include tanks? Where do you draw the line?

    Ah, now THIS is dialogue.
    This is actually an excellent question. I WANT to say that a nuclear warhead could just go off and kill innocent people, but I would sound like such a liberal! HA!

    I think you could argue that the states should have nuclear weapons, but because of the high level of expertise required to safely transport and store fissionable material and other explosive components, my opinion is that there should be some restrictions on them for individuals.

    The difference is that the modern firearm doesn't just "go off" if storage conditions aren't just right. They just "go off" when people make mistakes and they don't vaporize a city or county. Nuclear weapons are a little trickier to safely store.

    Another difference is that state held nuclear weapons COULD serve the purpose of thwarting tyranny, but individually held ones may or may not, and do not serve the purpose of self defense, or hunting (just to be a smartass).

    So you're right- a line must be drawn. But I have the feeling we'll draw the line on different ends of the spectrum. "My right to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose". If some guy has a bunch of tanks (that part is NOT a hypothetical, by the way) on 1000 acres in Wyoming and wants to shoot a couple rounds into a hillside, then go right ahead- I'll bring beer (relax, for afterwards). If you decide to unannounced drive it down main street toward a political convention, then we've got a problem.

    Obviously this sort of thing doesn't work in the cities, but that's why we can "vote with our feet". If you don't want to live in some small town where everyone has guns and black powder cannons, then there are plenty of cities that don't allow those sorts of shenanigans.

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment was that the people be a formidable force in comparison to the government, part of the "checks and balances" inherent in our government. I draw the line at nukes, and in densely populated areas, anything really explosive. Like say 105mm howitzer rounds. 40mm M203 rounds might be okay, certainly in single family dwellings in the country. You have to remember that at one point dynamite was available in hardware stores, and old dynamite is FAR more dangerous than modern munitions. So as a society we moved from "more responsible" to "less responsible". Now we're moving back again, and I say we keep moving until we prove we can't handle the responsibility.

    In the end I think it takes us back to state's rights or even localities rights. If a town wants to allow Howitzer Thursday on the edge of town and can safely pull it off, well then they ought to be able to. If safety is more important than fun, then they can go that way too.

    ReplyDelete
  132. P- Do you ever rest? I'm quite sure that most scholars, politicians, novelists, "founding fathers", Presidents, etc.mean what exactly what they say. Or- let's see now- maybe not actually. But when they commit words to writing, hopefully they mean them. We can believe them because of their wisdom and what they stand for. We can interpret them in different ways as people of different persuasions often do. We can parse them and discuss them as they have been and look for meaning. We can write about what we think they meant by what they said. And then we can look at them in the context of today's world to see how they apply in a different setting and at a different time. If the words still ring true, that makes them all the wiser. Remember that the Supreme Court just went through 2 now infamous cases about the second amendment in which 5 justices found the words of the founding fathers to mean one thing and 4 found that they meant something else. That's what it's all about. Contrary to your view, the Constitution is not black and white. Even the Founding Fathers had different musings about the Consitution and you and I can pick the ones we like: Benjamin Franklin-" “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” " George Washington:" “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon” " Thomas Jefferson: " “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” " Thomas Jefferson again: " “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” "Benjamin Franklin again: " “I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” " As sure as I am writing, you will now go and find the ones you like and make a comment with your own. To save us the trouble, you can just go do something else with your time for a while and give me a break. In fact, I intend to take a break for a while. It's a nice day where I live and I have other things to do with my day. Have a nice day yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  133. It is gorgeous outside here as well. Enjoy your afternoon, Joan. :)

    ReplyDelete
  134. "On the other matters- read the bill. It does not talk about banning guns."

    Just because it doesn't say "BAN THIS GUN," doesn't mean that it won't have the effect of banning guns"

    "Heather- " ‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--
    ‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
    ‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’.""

    Any rifle with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds would be banned by this. A fixed mag cannot be removed and replaced with a less than 10 round mag, and the exemption for attached tubular mags only applies to .22 caliber weapons.

    Here is one example of a rifle that would be banned under this law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle

    Note in the box on the right, the Henry rifle has a fixed 16 round magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  135. It bans all Enfield WWII rifles as well since they have a detachable 12 rd magazine as standard equipment -- and there aren't any mags less than that available.

    This is the law of unintended consequences and we'll oppose you at every step.

    ReplyDelete
  136. " Well truly everyone- this is a first. I am being called barbaric. Amazing what you guys come up with given enough space to write."

    You should see what I delete because of your 4k character limit! And yes, I do find your positions and thus you to be barbaric.

    "ILP often goes too far in explanations but this one goes way beyond reason."

    No, it goes way beyond your ability to reason. No offense intended.

    "This one is laughable. Perhaps you would like to reconsider these words ILP."

    I did so before I posted it.

    "I do keep all posts and sometimes quote them in future blogs."

    Please do so, especially if you include the quote from Goethe. You may not appreciate it but I'm sure others will.

    "I'm sure the gun violence community would get a big charge out of you calling me barbaric."

    It is not a healthy thing to have a community that is founded and centered on violence.

    "I thought you loved peace. I can't even see a point here at all."

    Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

    "You are trying to explain the founding fathers love of excellence in using your favorite quote to explain why you find box magazines excellent and therefore so would they and that the fact that I don't find them excellent makes me a barbarian. Wow!!! Such logic would fail in a philosophy class."

    It's complex but correct. The founding fathers love guns, they loved excellent things. Ever see any of their possessions or houses or weapons? Those men were sophisticated and cultured. Everything I said stands to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  137. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8335934/Libya-protests-140-massacred-as-Gaddafi-sends-in-snipers-to-crush-dissent.html

    Peaceful protests worked in Egypt because the Army wanted Mubarak out as much as the people did. In Libya, this is what happens when peaceful unarmed protests are met with an army that is loyal. Sure would be nice if they could defend themselves....

    ReplyDelete
  138. "This is the law of unintended consequences and we'll oppose you at every step."

    I am convinced that these are not unintended consequences.

    Every one of their "common sense" bills has always been written so as to entrap ordinary gun owners with significant criminal penalties in areas far beyond those mentioned in the bill summary - and that its this that is there real intent.

    I mean, think about it. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that a ban on 30-round magazines would make any difference whatsoever to levels of violent crime. Which means that either its proponents are insane, or they are advocating the bill for reasons other than those they are claiming.

    Now that most of the supporters of gun control are functionally insane, with respect to the gun control issue, I could accept. It's not called hoplophobia for nothing - and that it's as widespread as it is does not make it sane.

    But I find it hard to believe that the leadership of these groups could be effective enough to keep their organizations running, while sharing in that insanity, seems unlikely to me. Which means that they have motives other than those openly stated.

    I can see only two - they need the issue and the publicity in order to maintain their fund-raising, and to support their own salaries, or that they believe that the unpublicized and "unintended" consequences are of value.

    Now I know that the first is true. They are feeding off the hysteria they are engendering in those who share the hoplophobia disease. But that doesn't mean that the second isn't true, as well. They are, after all, the ones who craft the language. It can't be an accident that they always choose language that would have impacts extending so far beyond their purported goal.

    ReplyDelete