So throughout the Obama years in particular, gun control proponents (primarily the political Left but some on the establishment political Right) have mocked the idea that a tyranny could ever form in this country (in reference to when gun rights people talk about right to resist tyranny via arms). Yet then Donald Trump gets elected and one would think Adolf Hitler himself was now in the White House. If anything, for those on the Left who really do truly see Trump as a potential tyrant, it would be an example of why the right to arms is so important, because we know from history that seriously big things and extreme events can happen in relatively short periods of time. There is a joke that goes that in the late 19th century, Germany began the process of modernizing and within only sixty years was a modern country.
While I do not see Trump as any tyrant, real tyrants very much could be elected into power by the people in the same way. That is how Hitler got into power. He was elected into office, then the German people voted and approved to give him dictatorial powers. Such history is a prime example of why the right to arms is so important to protect, as we never know if a true tyrant could somehow come to power in the future.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Possibilities for a More Conservative Court
Hopefully, President-elect Trump will be able to further change the balance of the Supreme Court to being more conservative. This will ensure the protection of political speech against so-called "campaign finance reform" and thus prevent the Left from hamstringing groups like the NRA speech-wise, but also, will thus allow the Court to hopefully be able to strike down gun control legislation such as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans. Wouldn't it be awesome if the Supreme Court was to strike down all state-level and local assault weapons bans and "high-capacity" magazine bans throughout the country in one swoop? The Left would hem and holler and scream and rage, but the Court would be on extremely firm ground to do so, both from a historical standpoint and from a logical standpoint.
Gun Control Myth #6: "We don't allow people to cry fire in a crowded theater."
Yes, but we also do not muzzle their mouth when they go into a theater on the off-chance that they might do so either. Similarly, people should not be disarmed just because of the off-chance that someone might be a killer. As such, the above quote in the title is not a legitimate basis for much of the so-called "reasonable gun control" that the gun control proponents demand.
Gun Control Myth #5: "Fondling of Guns"
One of the ways that gun controllers love to mock gun rights proponents is to make out as if the only reason people (usually though of as men, and by that they mean white men) own guns is as penis extensions. Basically, such men are never viewed as adults, but rather as scared little boys who are afraid of the world and who need to compensate for something as well. This is of course an ironic view as more often it is the gun controllers who seem to be fearful of their fellow humans, hence why they want to ban guns. Gun rights proponents, by contrast, do not have any such fear of their fellow humans, which is why they want all of them to be armed. If you are known as the local gun guy in your neighborhood, and the neighbors then come inquiring about buying a gun, said gun guy will have the whole neighborhood armed by the end of the day if he can.
All of that said though, one of the oft-used sayings with regards to gun people is that they "fondle" guns. Basically, this is a very snide, condescending view taken towards gun people, that they are intellectually and emotionally immature, having such admiration for something like a gun. While it is true that many people will admiring hold, or even fondle, a firearm, it has nothing to do with it being a penis extension or lack of emotional maturity. Rather, it just has to do with an admiration for the craftsmanship and manufacturing quality of the weapon.
One will find people, both men and women, who will fondle all sorts of things that are examples of fine workmanship. For example, women who fondle high-quality shoes and handbags, men who fondle good tools and machines (and guns are a form of tool).
All of that said though, one of the oft-used sayings with regards to gun people is that they "fondle" guns. Basically, this is a very snide, condescending view taken towards gun people, that they are intellectually and emotionally immature, having such admiration for something like a gun. While it is true that many people will admiring hold, or even fondle, a firearm, it has nothing to do with it being a penis extension or lack of emotional maturity. Rather, it just has to do with an admiration for the craftsmanship and manufacturing quality of the weapon.
One will find people, both men and women, who will fondle all sorts of things that are examples of fine workmanship. For example, women who fondle high-quality shoes and handbags, men who fondle good tools and machines (and guns are a form of tool).
Gun Control Myth #4: "High-Capacity" Magazines
Just like the term "assault weapon," yet another major myth here is on the so-called "high-capacity magazine." This again, however, is a term that was made up by the gun control proponents. Generally, it is defined as any magazine that is over ten rounds. The problem however is that no where in the world of firearms was it ever considered that a gun of over ten rounds was high-capacity. For many hand guns, and rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s, 17-30 rounds is the standard-capacity magazine ("standard capacity" being the actual term for these magazines). A ten round magazine is a reduced-capacity magazine generally-speaking.
One of the common refrains heard is that, "If you can't hit the target with ten rounds or less, you shouldn't have a gun." But this ignores a few things that can happen in self-defense scenarios:
1) How you shoot when in a self-defense situation can be very different than how you shoot when relaxed and shooting at a range. At a range, the target is fixed and is not moving towards you with the intent of doing severe physical harm. Different people can react in different ways to such situations, but oftentimes, in any such situation where one's life is at stake, the brain reverts to a more primitive state. Fine motor skills literally break down. This is why if for example a person who is panicking might try ramming down a door instead of taking the time to just pull it open and then go through it. The same thing can happen in terms of shooting.
Some examples could be if you are out hunting and see a deer and shoot at it multiple times and miss. Well then you might come to the conclusion that your shooting skills need some work. On the other hand, let's say you're out hunting and suddenly, a grizzly bear comes charging at you from the bushes. You open fire and miss a few times, but then manage to take out the bear before it gets you (this has happened). Well the fact that you missed multiple times before hitting it no one would attribute to your being a bad shot, it is that your shooting skills can to a good degree go out the window when you have a bear charging you and you are trying to focus to take it out before it takes you out.
Another example could be if you place a foot wide plank of wood that is ten feet long on the ground and tell the average person to walk across it. Most people could probably do so. Now place that same plank one-hundred feet up in the air and tell the same people to walk across it, where if they fall off, they fall to their death. A lot of people either wouldn't be able to cross it or would end up falling off. Why? Because in such a life-or-death situation, the fine motor control that they need to maintain balance, which is fully intact while on the ground, goes out the window while they are up in the air.
The same problems can happen with regards to self-defense. How you shoot when relaxed at a range can be totally different than how you shoot when in a combat situation. So the idea that one should be limited to only ten rounds because some gun control proponents arbitrarily declare that that is all you "need" has no basis.
2) You might be dealing with a drugged-up opponent. Sometimes what makes people break into people's homes is that they get high on drugs. Being high on drugs can inhibit a person's reasoning, to the point where the sight of a gun being pointed at them in a sober state would make them stop coming and run away even, whereas in their drugged up state, they continue to try and attack. Drugs also can reduce any sense of pain and thus if you shoot the attacker, they can still keep coming.
This also leads to another misconception, which is that a person just drops with one shot. That is not the case, especially with handguns. Whether a person will drop or not can depend on a multitude of factors ranging from their level of adrenaline to where they have been shot (adrenaline can keep them coming). Being drugged-up can also increase things like anger and rage which can keep the attacker coming. Technically, the only things that will stop a person from coming when shot is that too much oxygen (i.e. blood) stops flowing to the brain and thus the person goes unconscious, or a direct severing of the nervous system from the brain (via taking out the spinal cord right at the neck). How fast the shooting of a person will cause the blood flow to their brain to stop depends on the gun, the ammunition, the distance, where the person is shot, and so forth.
There was for example the woman who was defending her children with a 6-shot revolver from a man who had broken into her home. She fired all six shots, missed once, and hit him five times. He did not drop, but instead decided he had had enough and ran out of the house. But what if he had decided to keep coming, say due to being high? She would have been defenseless at that point. What if he had a partner who broke in via a side window who came in? What if the partner was armed?
3) You might be dealing with multiple opponents, or even multiple drugged-up opponents
The above reasons are all examples of why police officers carry standard-capacity magazines. There is also the arbitrariness of the term, just like with the "assault weapon" term. After the Newtown slaughter, for example, some politicians in New York state (where I live), wanted to make it where a person could only possess two five round magazines (they were probably seeing it that that would not infringe on a person's ability to hunt, thinking the right is only about hunting). Instead, the law was made where now anything over seven rounds would be considered "high-capacity." It then quickly was made apparent to the state government that very few companies actually make seven round magazines, and so the law was changed to saying that you could continue to have ten round magazines, but could only load the full ten rounds while at a range shooting. While at home, you could only load the magazine with seven rounds.
Yes, apparently telling law-abiding citizens that they could only load a ten round magazine with seven rounds was somehow supposed to have an effect on criminals. Obviously, a criminal who is about the break the law by breaking into your home and then further break the law by stealing something and/or maiming or killing you and your family, is not going to dutifully abide by the law and only load a ten round magazine with seven rounds, and that is assuming that said criminal is even using a ten round magazine in the first place.
Luckily, at least this part of the law was struck down eventually by a court, as the judge found it "arbitrary and capricious."
One of the common refrains heard is that, "If you can't hit the target with ten rounds or less, you shouldn't have a gun." But this ignores a few things that can happen in self-defense scenarios:
1) How you shoot when in a self-defense situation can be very different than how you shoot when relaxed and shooting at a range. At a range, the target is fixed and is not moving towards you with the intent of doing severe physical harm. Different people can react in different ways to such situations, but oftentimes, in any such situation where one's life is at stake, the brain reverts to a more primitive state. Fine motor skills literally break down. This is why if for example a person who is panicking might try ramming down a door instead of taking the time to just pull it open and then go through it. The same thing can happen in terms of shooting.
Some examples could be if you are out hunting and see a deer and shoot at it multiple times and miss. Well then you might come to the conclusion that your shooting skills need some work. On the other hand, let's say you're out hunting and suddenly, a grizzly bear comes charging at you from the bushes. You open fire and miss a few times, but then manage to take out the bear before it gets you (this has happened). Well the fact that you missed multiple times before hitting it no one would attribute to your being a bad shot, it is that your shooting skills can to a good degree go out the window when you have a bear charging you and you are trying to focus to take it out before it takes you out.
Another example could be if you place a foot wide plank of wood that is ten feet long on the ground and tell the average person to walk across it. Most people could probably do so. Now place that same plank one-hundred feet up in the air and tell the same people to walk across it, where if they fall off, they fall to their death. A lot of people either wouldn't be able to cross it or would end up falling off. Why? Because in such a life-or-death situation, the fine motor control that they need to maintain balance, which is fully intact while on the ground, goes out the window while they are up in the air.
The same problems can happen with regards to self-defense. How you shoot when relaxed at a range can be totally different than how you shoot when in a combat situation. So the idea that one should be limited to only ten rounds because some gun control proponents arbitrarily declare that that is all you "need" has no basis.
2) You might be dealing with a drugged-up opponent. Sometimes what makes people break into people's homes is that they get high on drugs. Being high on drugs can inhibit a person's reasoning, to the point where the sight of a gun being pointed at them in a sober state would make them stop coming and run away even, whereas in their drugged up state, they continue to try and attack. Drugs also can reduce any sense of pain and thus if you shoot the attacker, they can still keep coming.
This also leads to another misconception, which is that a person just drops with one shot. That is not the case, especially with handguns. Whether a person will drop or not can depend on a multitude of factors ranging from their level of adrenaline to where they have been shot (adrenaline can keep them coming). Being drugged-up can also increase things like anger and rage which can keep the attacker coming. Technically, the only things that will stop a person from coming when shot is that too much oxygen (i.e. blood) stops flowing to the brain and thus the person goes unconscious, or a direct severing of the nervous system from the brain (via taking out the spinal cord right at the neck). How fast the shooting of a person will cause the blood flow to their brain to stop depends on the gun, the ammunition, the distance, where the person is shot, and so forth.
There was for example the woman who was defending her children with a 6-shot revolver from a man who had broken into her home. She fired all six shots, missed once, and hit him five times. He did not drop, but instead decided he had had enough and ran out of the house. But what if he had decided to keep coming, say due to being high? She would have been defenseless at that point. What if he had a partner who broke in via a side window who came in? What if the partner was armed?
3) You might be dealing with multiple opponents, or even multiple drugged-up opponents
The above reasons are all examples of why police officers carry standard-capacity magazines. There is also the arbitrariness of the term, just like with the "assault weapon" term. After the Newtown slaughter, for example, some politicians in New York state (where I live), wanted to make it where a person could only possess two five round magazines (they were probably seeing it that that would not infringe on a person's ability to hunt, thinking the right is only about hunting). Instead, the law was made where now anything over seven rounds would be considered "high-capacity." It then quickly was made apparent to the state government that very few companies actually make seven round magazines, and so the law was changed to saying that you could continue to have ten round magazines, but could only load the full ten rounds while at a range shooting. While at home, you could only load the magazine with seven rounds.
Yes, apparently telling law-abiding citizens that they could only load a ten round magazine with seven rounds was somehow supposed to have an effect on criminals. Obviously, a criminal who is about the break the law by breaking into your home and then further break the law by stealing something and/or maiming or killing you and your family, is not going to dutifully abide by the law and only load a ten round magazine with seven rounds, and that is assuming that said criminal is even using a ten round magazine in the first place.
Luckily, at least this part of the law was struck down eventually by a court, as the judge found it "arbitrary and capricious."
Gun Control Myth #3: "Assault Weapons"
One of the most common lies told by the Gun Control Complex is the myth about so-called "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines." President Obama makes speeches saying, "Weapons of war have no place on our streets," Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York State says, "No one hunts with an assault weapon, no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer, stop the madness..." and similar refrains such as these can be heard and read from all manner of media, pundits, and politicians. Another common one is, "No one 'needs' an assault weapon!"
What such people are unaware of is the nonsense of the term assault weapon, the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting (hunting is most certainly included, but included in the way that writing romance or science-fiction novels is included in the First Amendment, i.e. it's not the main reason for writing an explicit protection of the right), or that fact that it is one's right and not one's "need."
So what are the problems with the term "assault weapon?" Well, "assault weapon," as a legal-term, is something that was made up by politicians and gun control proponents. It has no actual technical meaning, and its meaning can be constantly changed by said gun controllers depending on if they want to expand its scope so as to ban more guns by labeling them as assault weapons (usually the refrain here is referred to as "closing loopholes"). In the late 1980s, the gun control community saw an ample opportunity to ban whole groups of guns simply by labeling them as "assault weapons" and taking advantage of the ignorance of much of the public about the subject, who would think that they are machine guns that are being banned.
California pioneered the first assault weapons ban, then a federal level one was passed in 1994, which is widely-believed (including by Bill Clinton himself) to have played a major role in why the Democrats lost control of the Congress for the first time in forty years in the 1994 elections. The federal assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a "semiautomatic weapon containing at least two Evil Features" (yes they really called them that---later state-level bans got rid of the term due to how ridiculous it sounded; saying one wants to ban guns with evil features won't win the public the way saying one wants to ban guns with special military features that increase their deadliness can win people). The "Evil Features" consisted of a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, grenade launcher (a specific type of grenade launcher), pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, and may have included another feature I am not thinking of, but that was the basic gist of it.
Now, the logic here was flawed for multiple reasons:
1) The right to keep and bear arms is about the right of the people to possess, at the very least, the same basic types of weapons utilized by soldiers. It is not about a right to possess weapons that the government "approves of," no more than the right to free speech or a free press is about speech or media coverage that the government approves of. The debate on this goes all the way back to ancient times, when Aristotle wrote in his work "Politics" about the importance, as he saw it, of the people possessing arms so as to prevent tyranny from forming, and also for protecting against criminals.
By claiming that "military-style" guns can be banned, one might as well do away with the concept of the right to keep and bears arms altogether. This is an ancient concept and has been a fundamental debate throughout history, in that do the people have the right to be armed, or should only the State have the ultimate authority and power over weapons.
2) How exactly these features listed as military-style features (or "evil features" as the federal ban referred to them) is never explained by said bans. How said features make the weapon supposedly more dangerous or deadly is never explained, although pretty much any ergonomic feature that makes a weapon easier for a person to utilize can be claimed as some kind of feature that increases the weapon's deadliness.
3) What can be labeled as a military-style or evil feature can be anything the gun control proponents want it to be.
So even if one wanted to claim that people did not have a right to guns with military features on them, a lot of these features are not actual military features. In reality, almost all are just ergonomic features which make the weapon easier, (and thus SAFER for people to handle. It is not a good idea for someone to have to use awkward and difficult-to-handle weapons for self-defense).
Another common refrain heard is that these are weapons that are "designed to kill people." A common claim is that "assault weapons" are weapons "explicitly designed" to "kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible." How this definition ever came about I have no idea, but it is total nonsense. A semiautomatic rifle does not suddenly become a weapon designed to let you kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible because you attach a bayonet lug to it or a retractable stock for example. As for being designed to kill people, well the problem with this claim is that it gives the impression that guns not labeled as "assault weapons" are not designed to kill people. This is flawed for two reasons:
1) Since the difference between an assault weapon and a non-assault weapon can be a simple ergonomic feature, it's a pretty baseless claim to make that by somehow adding said feature, that the gun now becomes explicitly designed to kill people
2) People are animals, namely the great ape known as Homo Sapien Sapien. If the gun can be used to kill a multitude of other non-human animals, so long as they are within the same size and weight range of humans or moreso, the gun can be used to kill a human.
In addition to the above, technically, almost all guns that are commonly owned by American civilians are military, or functionally identical to military guns or grounded in military designs:
AR-15: Semiautomatic version of the M-16 (actual assault rifle, capable of automatic fire); as such is not technically a "military-grade" weapon.
12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun: Extremely common gun among civilians, law enforcement, and the military. Has been used in every military conflict since World War I, where the Germans nicknamed it the "Trench Broom" and wanted its use banned, and wanted to try American soldiers captured using it for war crimes. Design dates to 1885.
Remington 700: Bolt-action hunting rifle. Design grounded in original military bolt-action rifles, which consequently also themselves make excellent hunting rifles. Used by the military and law enforcement in the form of the M24 and M40 sniper rifles. Bolt-actions date back to the 19th century.
9mm handgun: Very popular among civilians, also carried by law enforcement and standard sidearm of the military for many years
.45 caliber handgun: Design dates to 1911 (Colt 1911, hence the name). Very powerful handgun and standard military sidearm for many decades.
Lever-action rifles: Straight-up military firearm, design dates back to mid-19th century. First used by the North in the Civil War. Still extremely popular for self-defense, law enforcement use, and hunting.
And then of course, going back to the Revolution, muskets were military arms, built to be rugged. Many civilians at the time had hunting long guns that were rifled, and thus significantly more accurate than muskets, which were used for volley fire. Muskets tended to be more rugged and were cheaper and simpler to produce.
Yet another baseless claim often made is that so-called "assault weapons" are weapons that one can "fire from the hip." This claim in particular is made by Senator Barbara Boxer. Now for one thing, nobody who is skilled with a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is going to fire it from the hip. Firing from the hip is a Hollywood type of thing. Two, the pistol grip, one of the features to makes such a gun be labeled as an assault weapon, actually makes it more difficult to fire from the hip, and thus makes a person less able to fire it from the hip, not more. So if you want to stop people from having guns that they can fire form the hip, so-called assault weapons would be made the only guns available, not banned!
What such people are unaware of is the nonsense of the term assault weapon, the fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting (hunting is most certainly included, but included in the way that writing romance or science-fiction novels is included in the First Amendment, i.e. it's not the main reason for writing an explicit protection of the right), or that fact that it is one's right and not one's "need."
So what are the problems with the term "assault weapon?" Well, "assault weapon," as a legal-term, is something that was made up by politicians and gun control proponents. It has no actual technical meaning, and its meaning can be constantly changed by said gun controllers depending on if they want to expand its scope so as to ban more guns by labeling them as assault weapons (usually the refrain here is referred to as "closing loopholes"). In the late 1980s, the gun control community saw an ample opportunity to ban whole groups of guns simply by labeling them as "assault weapons" and taking advantage of the ignorance of much of the public about the subject, who would think that they are machine guns that are being banned.
California pioneered the first assault weapons ban, then a federal level one was passed in 1994, which is widely-believed (including by Bill Clinton himself) to have played a major role in why the Democrats lost control of the Congress for the first time in forty years in the 1994 elections. The federal assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a "semiautomatic weapon containing at least two Evil Features" (yes they really called them that---later state-level bans got rid of the term due to how ridiculous it sounded; saying one wants to ban guns with evil features won't win the public the way saying one wants to ban guns with special military features that increase their deadliness can win people). The "Evil Features" consisted of a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, grenade launcher (a specific type of grenade launcher), pistol grip, folding or retractable stock, and may have included another feature I am not thinking of, but that was the basic gist of it.
Now, the logic here was flawed for multiple reasons:
1) The right to keep and bear arms is about the right of the people to possess, at the very least, the same basic types of weapons utilized by soldiers. It is not about a right to possess weapons that the government "approves of," no more than the right to free speech or a free press is about speech or media coverage that the government approves of. The debate on this goes all the way back to ancient times, when Aristotle wrote in his work "Politics" about the importance, as he saw it, of the people possessing arms so as to prevent tyranny from forming, and also for protecting against criminals.
By claiming that "military-style" guns can be banned, one might as well do away with the concept of the right to keep and bears arms altogether. This is an ancient concept and has been a fundamental debate throughout history, in that do the people have the right to be armed, or should only the State have the ultimate authority and power over weapons.
2) How exactly these features listed as military-style features (or "evil features" as the federal ban referred to them) is never explained by said bans. How said features make the weapon supposedly more dangerous or deadly is never explained, although pretty much any ergonomic feature that makes a weapon easier for a person to utilize can be claimed as some kind of feature that increases the weapon's deadliness.
3) What can be labeled as a military-style or evil feature can be anything the gun control proponents want it to be.
So even if one wanted to claim that people did not have a right to guns with military features on them, a lot of these features are not actual military features. In reality, almost all are just ergonomic features which make the weapon easier, (and thus SAFER for people to handle. It is not a good idea for someone to have to use awkward and difficult-to-handle weapons for self-defense).
Another common refrain heard is that these are weapons that are "designed to kill people." A common claim is that "assault weapons" are weapons "explicitly designed" to "kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible." How this definition ever came about I have no idea, but it is total nonsense. A semiautomatic rifle does not suddenly become a weapon designed to let you kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible because you attach a bayonet lug to it or a retractable stock for example. As for being designed to kill people, well the problem with this claim is that it gives the impression that guns not labeled as "assault weapons" are not designed to kill people. This is flawed for two reasons:
1) Since the difference between an assault weapon and a non-assault weapon can be a simple ergonomic feature, it's a pretty baseless claim to make that by somehow adding said feature, that the gun now becomes explicitly designed to kill people
2) People are animals, namely the great ape known as Homo Sapien Sapien. If the gun can be used to kill a multitude of other non-human animals, so long as they are within the same size and weight range of humans or moreso, the gun can be used to kill a human.
In addition to the above, technically, almost all guns that are commonly owned by American civilians are military, or functionally identical to military guns or grounded in military designs:
AR-15: Semiautomatic version of the M-16 (actual assault rifle, capable of automatic fire); as such is not technically a "military-grade" weapon.
12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun: Extremely common gun among civilians, law enforcement, and the military. Has been used in every military conflict since World War I, where the Germans nicknamed it the "Trench Broom" and wanted its use banned, and wanted to try American soldiers captured using it for war crimes. Design dates to 1885.
Remington 700: Bolt-action hunting rifle. Design grounded in original military bolt-action rifles, which consequently also themselves make excellent hunting rifles. Used by the military and law enforcement in the form of the M24 and M40 sniper rifles. Bolt-actions date back to the 19th century.
9mm handgun: Very popular among civilians, also carried by law enforcement and standard sidearm of the military for many years
.45 caliber handgun: Design dates to 1911 (Colt 1911, hence the name). Very powerful handgun and standard military sidearm for many decades.
Lever-action rifles: Straight-up military firearm, design dates back to mid-19th century. First used by the North in the Civil War. Still extremely popular for self-defense, law enforcement use, and hunting.
And then of course, going back to the Revolution, muskets were military arms, built to be rugged. Many civilians at the time had hunting long guns that were rifled, and thus significantly more accurate than muskets, which were used for volley fire. Muskets tended to be more rugged and were cheaper and simpler to produce.
Yet another baseless claim often made is that so-called "assault weapons" are weapons that one can "fire from the hip." This claim in particular is made by Senator Barbara Boxer. Now for one thing, nobody who is skilled with a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is going to fire it from the hip. Firing from the hip is a Hollywood type of thing. Two, the pistol grip, one of the features to makes such a gun be labeled as an assault weapon, actually makes it more difficult to fire from the hip, and thus makes a person less able to fire it from the hip, not more. So if you want to stop people from having guns that they can fire form the hip, so-called assault weapons would be made the only guns available, not banned!
Gun Control Argument #2: The Heller Decision allows for "reasonable regulation"
One of the primary gun control arguments made is that the 2008 Supreme Court decision of D.C. vs Heller allows for "reasonable regulation" and that "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be outlawed. Justice Scalia does say this in the ruling, but it was not written with the meaning that the gun control proponents seem to think it means. The problem with the Gun Control Complex is that they themselves like to be the arbiters of what constitutes "reasonable" gun control and what constitute "dangerous and unusual" weapons. Generally, this means any and all gun control that they wish for, and so long as they leave you with one gun that you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to obtain, with one round, then they are protecting your right to keep and bear arms. Of course, this mindset applied to any of the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights would never hold up in a court. No one would claim with a straight face that the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, for example, means that the government can conduct any and all search and seizure that it pleases, and so long as it doesn't completely search and seize every single thing that you own, that this thus fits the definition of reasonable search and seizure.
No, to infringe on any of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, the government has to have a really severe reason to do so, and then can only do so within a very narrow scope. The same should apply with regards to the Second Amendment. So what constitutes reasonable regulation under the Second? Well the Second Amendment I do not believe prohibits the government from implementing restrictions on for example violent criminals and the mentally ill from legally possessing arms (rapists, murderers, actual terrorists, mentally ill (as in found mentally ill in a court of law), etc...). But it does not at all mean that the government has the authority to engage in things like magazine capacity restrictions, so-called "assault weapons" bans, and so forth.
No, to infringe on any of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, the government has to have a really severe reason to do so, and then can only do so within a very narrow scope. The same should apply with regards to the Second Amendment. So what constitutes reasonable regulation under the Second? Well the Second Amendment I do not believe prohibits the government from implementing restrictions on for example violent criminals and the mentally ill from legally possessing arms (rapists, murderers, actual terrorists, mentally ill (as in found mentally ill in a court of law), etc...). But it does not at all mean that the government has the authority to engage in things like magazine capacity restrictions, so-called "assault weapons" bans, and so forth.
Let's Hope
While I do not want to get my hopes up, I really do hope that Donald Trump undoes all of the anti-gun executive orders of President Obama and including going all the way back to the first Bush Administration of 1988 to 1992, in which then President George H. W. Bush signed an order banning the import of "military-style weapons."
Executive orders for President Trump to get rid of from Obama would include the order requiring gunsmiths to have to get a gun manufacturer license, the order that makes it where if you are disabled and need help doing things like mailing letters or with your finances or whatnot, that the government can declare you mentally unfit to possess firearms, and the order that bans the import of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines into the United States. There are others too, but I am not remembering them off of the top of my head right now.
Executive orders for President Trump to get rid of from Obama would include the order requiring gunsmiths to have to get a gun manufacturer license, the order that makes it where if you are disabled and need help doing things like mailing letters or with your finances or whatnot, that the government can declare you mentally unfit to possess firearms, and the order that bans the import of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines into the United States. There are others too, but I am not remembering them off of the top of my head right now.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Charles Cooke Nails It
Excellent synopsis of the situation in Massachusetts (I would recommend reading all of Cooke's gun rights articles BTW): LINK
Massachusetts Attorney General Bans Sales of All "Assault Weapons"
According to Attorney General Maura Healey (LINK):
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
I wonder if this means that even say bolt-action or pump-action rifles that say take AR-15 magazines are now considered "assault weapons" because the AR magazine is an "interchangeable component." Also, how does one define "interchangeable component?" Does that include things like screws? A sad day for civil rights in Massachusetts.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
I wonder if this means that even say bolt-action or pump-action rifles that say take AR-15 magazines are now considered "assault weapons" because the AR magazine is an "interchangeable component." Also, how does one define "interchangeable component?" Does that include things like screws? A sad day for civil rights in Massachusetts.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Gun Control Argument #1: Regulate Guns Like Cars
One of the most common calls one sees and hears are to "regulate gun ownership like car ownership." Gun owners should be licensed, registered, have to buy insurance, take a test, etc...just like we do with cars. Now a common refrain from many a gun owner to this is, "Driving a car is not a Constitutionally-protected right. Owning a gun is." While that is true, it is incomplete and a wrong form of logic I think.
For one, the idea that if something is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, that it is not a pre-existing natural right that the government has no right to infringe upon, is a mistaken view, one that the Federalists of the Founding Fathers feared. During the debates over the Constitution, there were two sides, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution that we currently have today, while the anti-Federalists were strongly against it. The Federalists won out in the end, but the anti-Federalists had enough influence to demand ratification of a Bill of Rights if the Federalists wanted their support. The Federalists were opposed to this. As they saw it, bills of rights were redundant, saying that the government couldn't do things that it already had no authority or power to do in the first place, and if anything, could then be construed to claim that the government did actually have the authority to infringe on some degree on those rights.
To quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist Paper #84:
For one, the idea that if something is not explicitly protected by the Constitution, that it is not a pre-existing natural right that the government has no right to infringe upon, is a mistaken view, one that the Federalists of the Founding Fathers feared. During the debates over the Constitution, there were two sides, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution that we currently have today, while the anti-Federalists were strongly against it. The Federalists won out in the end, but the anti-Federalists had enough influence to demand ratification of a Bill of Rights if the Federalists wanted their support. The Federalists were opposed to this. As they saw it, bills of rights were redundant, saying that the government couldn't do things that it already had no authority or power to do in the first place, and if anything, could then be construed to claim that the government did actually have the authority to infringe on some degree on those rights.
To quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist Paper #84:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
Now an important thing to remember about Hamilton is that he was a man who believed in the creation of a Constitution that allowed for a government far more powerful than the one the Constitution was supposed to allow for. Yet, even he sees it that the Constitution as written grants no powers to the government to infringe on natural rights, and as such, a bill of rights was unnecessary in his view.
In hindsight, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were right I think. The Federalists were correct in that the Bill of Rights gives many the impression that if something is not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, then it is something the government can infringe on as it pleases. At the same time, the anti-Federalists were also correct in that without a bill of rights, the government would run roughshod over a variety of rights. Note how so many free speech violations have been shut down as violating the First Amendment, as opposed to the courts reasoning that the government has no authority granted anywhere in the Constitution to infringe on free speech in the first place. As it is, right to travel is very much a natural right as well. Travel is as natural to the human condition as is self-defense. Indeed, two things the human body is designed to do better than any other animal are distance run and throw projectiles. We are the best distance runners on Earth. We also are the only primate capable of performing an overhand throw (other apes can do a side throw, and thus can throw rocks, but none could do an overhand throw to say throw a spear). Travel and use of projectile weapons are thus what humans were specifically evolved to do.
Okay, that aside, let's go back to the issue with cars. Saying that it's okay for the government to require driver's licenses, insurance, registration, etc...because driving is not Constitutionally-protected, is thus logically wrong. By this logic, if there was no Second Amendment, then the government could infringe on gun rights as it pleases. But the reality is that it would have no more authority by the Constitution to infringe on gun rights with no Second Amendment then it does now.
Now I will list the numerous problems with trying to compare guns to cars:
Regulate Guns Like Cars: The gun controller argument is the government heavily regulates cars and driving in the name of public safety, so we should do the same for guns too. are perfectly fine, just as we have them for cars. The problem is that, we actually do not regulate cars in the ways that gun controllers want to regulate guns. Once you get your license, you can go and buy anything from a high-powered sports car capable of completely illegal speeds to a big tank SUV or pickup truck that you have no actual need for. If you want to drive a Ram 3500 pickup truck to an office job everyday, you are perfectly within your right to. If we were to regulate cars like the gun controllers want to regulate guns, we would see the following types of laws:
1) All cars limited to fifty horsepower four-cylinder engines at most (no one "needs" more than that)
2) All cars limited to a 0-60 acceleration of no less than twelve seconds (no one "needs" to accelerate than that)
3) All cars limited to a top speed of 65 mph (no one "needs" to go faster than that)
4) SUVs and pickup trucks banned, unless one can show a "justifiable need" for the vehicle
5) Sports cars outlawed, only permitted on race tracks
Now as it is, we do not have any laws like these. So if we were to truly regulate guns like cars, you'd be able to go out and buy any gun you want in any state with no restrictions. if you want a 6-shot revolver, fine. Want an AR-15 with a thirty-round magazine, fine.
Drivers Must Be Licensed, So Do The Same With Guns: The problem with this argument is that automotive licensing is nothing like gun licensing:
1) Automotive licenses are not required to own or drive a car. They are only required to operate a car on public roads. So long as you keep the car on private property, like say a farm, you can drive it as you please with no license, registration, or insurance. Some areas are more strict on this and do not allow driving it on private property, but rather by "private property" mean in your garage, but so long as you keep it in there, no license, registration, or insurance needed.
2) Automotive licensing is done at the state level, not the Federal level. There is no Federal government requirement for driver's licenses.
3) Automotive licenses are Shall Issue, not May Issue, meaning that if you want one, you just go to the government and say you'd like to get one and so long as you can pass the requirements, you get the license. By comparison, the gun controllers want gun licensing to be what's call May Issue, meaning that you have to go and justify to the government why you should be "allowed" a gun license. One finds such laws in the most gun control heavy states.
4) There is 100% reciprocity between all the states on automotive licenses. If you get your driver's license in some small town in rural Texas, it applies just fine in New York City. Whereas with gun licenses, there is no such thing. If you get a gun license in Texas, it will not apply in New York state. And if you get a New York state gun license, it will not apply outside of the county that you are in. New York City has its own licensing scheme, and that is May Issue and requires one to hire a lawyer just to navigate through. Even then, one may still be denied unless one has political connections.
5) The main idea of automotive licenses is for driver safety, as the vast majority of deaths by automobile as due to accidents. With firearms, the amount of accidental deaths each year is very small. The vast majority of gun deaths are due to suicides and homicides, something that licensing for gun ownership will do little to prevent. No one calls justifies driver's licenses because of the occasional person who runs over their spouse with their car out of revenge.
Drivers Must Buy Insurance, So Do The Same With Guns: This again is a requirement at the state level, not the Federal level. And again, it has to do with the frequency of automotive accidents, not because of automotive homicides. As it is, there are no insurance companies that would supply insurance to people owning guns at the moment. Also, unlike with guns, automobiles for the most part are not something a sizeable segment of society are hellbent on outlawing. Guns are. The idea of requiring insurance for gun owners would be to help make gun ownership so financially prohibitive that it is mostly banned without directly being banned to most people.
Cars Must Be Registered, So Why Not Guns: Again, such registration happens at the state level, not the Federal level, and people are not bent on outlawing cars like guns. No one worries about the state government deciding to just outlaw their SUV or pickup truck or sports car and send law enforcement out to come take it away by force because the government just "decided" that such vehicles were too dangerous for the public to own (or for the environment). In addition, gun registration has historically been used for gun confiscation purposes, and not just in other countries, but in this country as well, New York City and California being two notable examples. And then of course there's the fact that it is pretty intrusive of the government, at any level, to require registration of what is a fundamental tool of freedom. Imagine if the government demanded people register certain books they own. For example, if one owns books on chemistry, yet is not a chemist, does that make them a potential terrorist?
To conclude, if guns were actually to be regulated like cars, there would be licensing, registration, and insurance only for carrying of guns in public in all fifty states, and it would be Shall Issue in all the states, meaning all one need do is say they want a license, and so long as they can pass the tests, they get it. Then there would be 100% reciprocity between all the states, so you get your license to carry in Texas and it applies just fine in New York City. Insurance would not be a huge financial burden and would be supplied by numerous companies, and again only would apply to carrying a gun in public. And neither insurance nor registration would be designed as tools to prohibit gun ownership. Such a thing is a fantasy of course, and thus is why gun rights proponents could never support such proposals.
Personally, I question why they are even really needed for driving either. Let's face it, most driver license testing is an utter joke, because society could not function without people being able to drive (what will become a threat to driving, IMO, is when self-driving cars start to become prevalent, and then control-happy politicians start questioning why do people need to drive their vehicle in the first place). If we really required people to acquire the proper skill level to drive safely on the road, we'd probably have to fail 70% of the drivers out there.
Then of course a lot of the speed limits are bogus too, being just a way for the government to levy a tax in the form of tickets for people who break the speed limit. Yes, some speed limits are proper, such as ones in school zones, but on the freeway, they are just a tax. For example, here in Upstate New York where I live, the state highway speed limit is 65 mph. So everyone just goes happily mosying along at 65 mph right? Nope, people routinely do 80+ on the freeway. Basically the highway drivers set their own speed, ignoring the state, but it is at the risk that a cop could nail you.
Welcome to all Gun Nuts
So the title of this blog is in reference to a derogatory description I once read from a gun control proponent with regards to America and of course its protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Apparently we are a "gun nut nation," and that is why we have been having the problems with mass shootings as we have been as of late.
My main goal with this blog will be commenting on various issues relating to gun rights. Now I am actually an amateur myself with regards to firearms, however I have been following the subject of gun rights extensively for the past three years now, ever since Newtown, so I do not consider myself an amateur on the subject of gun rights. As for who I am, I am a thirty-two year-old man struggling to get his life together, albeit I am getting there, but I mean I am no expert on anything right now.
I feel there are a great many misconceptions regarding firearms and gun rights and a great many lies told by the media and Gun Control Complex, so I have decided to write articles addressing these various issues in this blog. I do not expect this blog to be an alternative at all to the great blog The Truth About Guns by Robert Farago. That is an excellent blog that if you don't read, I suggest you do.
My main goal with this blog will be commenting on various issues relating to gun rights. Now I am actually an amateur myself with regards to firearms, however I have been following the subject of gun rights extensively for the past three years now, ever since Newtown, so I do not consider myself an amateur on the subject of gun rights. As for who I am, I am a thirty-two year-old man struggling to get his life together, albeit I am getting there, but I mean I am no expert on anything right now.
I feel there are a great many misconceptions regarding firearms and gun rights and a great many lies told by the media and Gun Control Complex, so I have decided to write articles addressing these various issues in this blog. I do not expect this blog to be an alternative at all to the great blog The Truth About Guns by Robert Farago. That is an excellent blog that if you don't read, I suggest you do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)