A Gun-Crime Proposal (That Might Actually Help)
The murders in Newtown, Connecticut, will, without question, result in calls for greater “gun control.” As William S. Burroughs pointed out: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” I say “will, without question,” because hell, they already have. In fact, there have already been a whole pile of proposals, and they all uniformly have one thing in common: they wouldn’t have prevented the killings in Newtown.
Consider some of them:
– Ban “assault weapons.”
Beyond the fact that “assault weapon,” in the Clinton-era assault weapon ban, was a hifalutin’ way of saying “that looks scary!”, the gun the shooter used wasn’t an “assault weapon” under that expired law.
– Ban large clips.
The shooter killed 26 people, and according to the most recent press reports, he shot each one multiple times — as many as 11 times, in fact. He may have had 30-round magazines, but the fact is that he had to reload. Many times.
– Make schools (theaters, ice cream parlors, college campuses) gun-free zones.
Of course, this one was already in effect. So it’s pretty obvious that this one was useless.
In fact, it turns out that only one of the mass shootings since 1950 has been in an area in which guns could be carried — the shootings in Tucson in which Gabby Giffords was wounded and six were killed.
The Aurora, Colorado shootings happened in the only theater within a 20-minute drive that actually banned handguns — and one of the furthest local theaters from the shooter’s apartment.
– Don’t sell guns to mental patients.
Of course, the problem here is that the shooter didn’t buy the guns.
You could extend that to taking away the guns from anyone who is related to a mental patient, but that has a bunch of problems. First, it’s pretty certainly unconstitutional over and above the Second Amendment issues.
Second: let’s say someone goes to their family doctor and gets a prescription for Prozac, or Xanax, or Paxil, or some other antidepressant or anti-anxiety drug. Does the doctor then have to report the prescription to the police, who will come to search the house for guns?
The houses of all the patient’s relatives?
– Institute background checks on all gun sales.
Same point. And ditto for waiting periods — the shooter’s mother had owned these guns for years.
——————
In fact, every one of these suggestions has a serious issue: none of them have ever demonstrated any positive results.
Draconian gun bans have been enacted in Great Britain and Australia in the last several years, and violent gun crimes have increased, not decreased.
On the other hand, following the Supreme Court’s Heller decision striking down a gun ban, gun violence in Washington, D.C., has gone down — while gun violence in Chicago, another place with draconian gun laws, has gone up.
What we do know: mass shootings in places where guns are widely available tend not to become “mass.”
The Clackamas Mall shooter shot himself as soon as he was confronted by an armed person. Glenn Reynolds observed three more examples in his NY Post op-ed; the Gunwatch blog has a number of other examples.
If we really want to stop mass killings, the only thing we know is effective is having an armed populace.
An armed populace, of course, is exactly the purpose of the Second Amendment. At the beginning of the American Revolution, the British governor locked up the militia armory in Williamsburg, Virginia, leaving the townspeople unarmed. Jefferson and Madison were entirely aware of that. In fact, the whole Revolution was fought largely with the guns that soldiers could bring from home. This recognition was behind the Second Amendment, and later the first of the Militia Acts, which defined the militia as every male citizen between 18 and 45.
Well said, sir. The 2nd amendment needs some attention considering the change in the socio-economic political age since it was written. If teary eyed people fret over the danger to the stupid… wait, “uninformed”, then I say, those genes need to be out of the pool anyway. Adult Swim. For the children.
Well Comrad Sally what’s wrong with this? “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” If ever there were a time in history that this was needed it’s NOW.
Wow, did you read the comment you’re replying to?
Read, maybe, but not grasped. Too busy searching for the caps lock key and inserting his own commas, apparently.
It pains me to so often see the second amendment ‘misquoted”:
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections
Watch your commas. Might do away with much of the debate on the second amendment if people actually understood that little factoid.
…my right to ‘keep and bear arms’ has never been infringed, nor will it ever be infringed…I will never register my firearms, nor will I ever ask ‘permission’ to keep or bear (carry)….the recent issue of the newpaper in NY abusing the Freedom of Information Act to acquire, compile, and publish the names and addresses of people who have a license for handguns is example of why my name shall not appear on any list….
“You have the right to an attorney.” If that means that we pay for a lawyer for someone who can’t afford one, why don’t we supply a firearm for those who can’t afford them? We have tons (literally) of surplus weapons left over from all those wars we seem to find ourselves in. Put them to use!
I totally agree with NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre that we should have armed officers at every school but I want to add this further – they must all be armed with military style assault rifles because ONLY THEN can they counter the maniacs with these same types of weapons. Also, we must have these officers with military style assault rifles in malls, plazas, daycare centers, preschools, elementaries, high schools, colleges, churches, movie theaters, recreational parks, zoos, beaches, and any other soft spots all across America. This would really keep America safe. Having our youngest of children in schools seeing officers with military style assault weapons everyday would definitely ease their minds, knowing that a maniac would now have to contend against a professional with equal firepower. I’m sure it would help all Americans to see this in all of the soft spots that I have mentioned. This would make America the safest place on Earth. Can you imagine this utopia? Oh, I just can’t wait long enough for this type of America. It can’t come soon enough.
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Schools are fertile grounds for killings due to their gun free zones! And the last place Islamic terrorists attempt to kill is in Israel’s schools, as there are ARMED guards (IDF trained) ready to shoot to kill – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/pa-prez-abbas-commiserates-with-islamist-in-chief-obama-over-slaughter-of-innocents-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/…and this why they go after women riding in cars with their kiddies, as well as targeting school buses, places where a driver may be armed, or not.
Time to arm them too.
Moreover, those who gutted the funding for school safety measures-not once, but twice-have much explaining to do. And to think they will disarm an entire population, well, that is whistling past many more graveyards to boot.
The open question is:will patriots let them?
Typical liberal exhibiting cognitive dissonance regarding the distinction between “concealed carry” and “open carry”.
Disregard.
HISD (Houston Independent School District) struggles with many things, but they do have their own police force, and they do keep order in the schools here.
part of the charm of concealed carry is that a shooter has no idea who is armed. Were you to have a designated officer, with, you know, an office. A toxic dyad of teenagers- Klebold could be my code name, Harris could be yours- one teen would go for the officer with and IED, the other could then mow down students unimpeded.
I live in Texas. I literally have no idea who has guns. I know the next door neighbors, one side, and possibly the other, and two or three houses past that, and and and. We live next to a housing project. Every few years a criminal moves in, and starts ransacking houses and cars until he runs into a neighbor with a shot-gun. We all have those odd security systems that are great after the fact. The neighbor coming out of a house loading a shotgun is a fantastic crime-deterrent.
FWIW, there’s at least one women’s bible study at the local, in-town, shooting range.
I agree we should have an armed policeman in every school. No one has mentiioned how much it will cost so I ran the numbers, and it turns out not to be that much money at all. There are roughly 100,000 public schools in the U.S. That would mean 100,000 extra new hires to either fill the slot, or replace the experienced policeman from the force assigned to fill that slot. At a rough cost of $60,000 per cop, that comes to about $6,000,000,000 (six billion dollars) per year. This amount can easily be funded and dispursed to the states by the federal government. If Obama can fund failed green energy companies (Soylandra) and lose five hundred billion dollars in the process, then six billion dollars is chump change. I’m all for it. If you want to include private schools too, plus the overhead of administrative costs, then round it out to ten billion dollars annually. Still chump change!
Imagine you are a dingbat who wants to kill some kids at a school; doesn’t matter why. You know that now there is a cop at each and every school. A cop. So, you pop him first, then gun down the rest. Or, maybe we train several volunteer teachers at each school to carry concealed handguns. Then the prospective shooter has an insurmountable problem, no? At the school he knows he will not find helpless victims, rather he will find several who are ready, willing and able to protect the children by sending the shooter straight to Hell.
And, if we all came to believe that Hell is for murderers, IJn.3.15, that might slow down the shootings some, too; no?
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of this idea, but exceptions need to be made for the various members of the militia who are unfit or unable to serve in this way. Not every person has attained the maturity or emotional stability to take on the responsibility for safe gun handling and/or preparedness to use said weapon in a crisis situation. Forcing weapons into unready hands will only increase those mishaps that are currently rare but always noted in the press. Some sort of alternative service of use to militia work should be available for these people. Everyone should contribute- not all in the same way. There is precedent, I believe, in the military handling of conscientious objectors. Meanwhile, by all means make the training universal!
What about Airplanes? Or would carrying a weapon onto an aircraft require a different sort of permit? Maybe we could have CLASSES of gun license like we have different classes of driver licenses.
Class A Gun Permit: gives the possessor the right to legally own a gun, but not carry concealed.
Class B Gun Permit: gives the possessor the right to legally carry a concealed weapon.
Class C Gun Permit: would be issued to those with advanced weapons training such as cops, former or active duty military, and, using the idea above, possibly teachers.
Class C1 Gun Permit: would be issued to those with advanced weapons training and would allow the user to carry a weapon into more dangerous areas, such as airplanes, around chemicals, explosives, etc….
The Bill of Rights does not grant “the right to fly airplanes shall not be infringrd”
Much too complicated. Here’s a simpler approach…
Many suggestions here but I think that we are addressing the issue from the wrong direction. I propose that we pass federal legislation that requires universal registration of all non-gun owners. Further, this legislation should include the demand that all non-gunners place a sign or symbol at the front entrance to their home and business as an indication that such is a gun-free zone. Non-gunners should also be required to pay a special annual tax (ala ObamaCare) directed at off-setting the cost of medical care for non-gunner medical treatment.
Further, legislation should include stiff penalties (fines and imprisonment) for declared non-gunners who lie about their ownership status and an automatic charge of attempted or actual murder, as appropriate, in the event that a declared non-gunner uses a gun to defend his/her person at any time or location or circumstance. Also, the legislation should empower authorities to enter the home and/or business to search for possible gun ownership by non-gunner registrants. And how about schools that are not protected by gun-bearing staff exclusively for non-gunner parents?
That’s a good start. Liberals, I am sure, will rally to support this legislation. Let’s reach across the aisle and join them as a show of good will.
The above is offered as obvious sarcasm. However, try this sometime as I have. The next time you are confronted with an anti-gun zealot ask him/her if they would be willing to publicly identify their home as a gun-free household. Then listen for the irrational and inconsistent reply. Remember those sappy “Baby On Board” signs people used to place in their car windows years ago? Why not “No Guns Inside” signs in front windows? Personally, I’m tired of indirectly offering free protective cover, by keeping the would-be miscreants guessing as to who is a soft target for rape and robbery, for my anti-gun neighbors and then being criticized for it.
Heh. When I wrote this I was considering suggesting unarmed people wear a sign.
“What about Airplanes? Or would carrying a weapon onto an aircraft require a different sort of permit? Maybe we could have CLASSES of gun license like we have different classes of driver licenses.”
I hold a valid CCW permit issued by my County, a US Merchant Mariner’s Document, and a DHS-issued TWIC,(Transportation Worker Identity Credential), having passed the background checks,the TWIC allows me unescorted access to “Secure Areas” in airports, seaports and so forth.
I got the training for my CCW through myy service both in the Marines and from sailing on Military Sealift Command vessels.
I would have no problem with a Federal CCW that would, like a US Marshal, entitle me to carry concealed ANYWHERE.
Not only would this help with anti-hijacking of aircraft, but would greatly lessen the threat of piracy against US flag vessels on the high seas.
I should point out that it is two years after the pirate attacks on the M/V Maersk Alabama, and STILL American merchant mariners are not allowed to keep and bear arms for their own protection.
It might be wise to have all “regular types” of ammo locked in baggage on an airplane, but allow frangible bullets to be carried by those with guns. Frangible bullets are designed to break up into dust when they hit a solid like an airplane window. They create a ugly wound if they hit flesh.
You seem to be proposing a type of “Swiss Army” model for US gun culture (minus the conscription?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
Damn right.
Even older than that, actually. You’ve described the “trained bands” that formed the army in England until the creation of the Parliamentary “New Model Army” of the English Civil War (1642-51).
The trained bands supplied their own weapons and equipment, at their own expense, starting with the longbow and finishing up with full “jack” (brigandine-type body armor plus helmet). When gunpowder superseded bowstrings, they supplied their own muskets, powder, and ball. However, due to Crown law regarding manufacture of guns, powder, and etc., the main source of the equipment then was the King- whom the trained bands had to purchase their ordnance from.
Renaissance English monarchy was into “gun control”, too. History shows that it bit them on the backside rather badly.
Fun fact; While the longbow was officially “obsoleted” in favor of the arquebus as the required weapon for the trained bands in 1585, some such militia units were still using them in the 1642-51 civil war, for several reasons. First of all, due to a lack of production capacity (i.e., production restricted to government-owned arsenals for the most part), there were barely enough “military-type” guns to arm the new (conscript) standing armies on both sides. And second, there were men coming in from the back country of Cornwall, Yorkshire, and such who had never used anything but a longbow in their lives.
A similar situation occurred in the American Civil War, in both North and South. Except that time, the volunteers from up in the hills either brought, or were issued, flintlock muskets at the musters. Again, shortage of “modern arms”, plus men who had never used a percussion-fired, rifled musket before. Why? Because only government-owned-and-operated arsenals made them, here or abroad.
When you see a Civil War Springfield 1861, .58 caliber rifle musket today, marked with the name of some private gunmaker, you’re looking at one produced during the war. All the ones made before it started came from government arsenals, like Springfield, Harper’s Ferry, or Rock Island. The resulting shortage was why so many soldiers on both sides carried imported weapons right through the war. And even those could be hard to come by- they, too, generally came from government-owned arsenals. Other countries’ government-owned arsenals.
Moral; never let arms production become a State monopoly. Because when you need a lot of arms, you’re liable to come up short.
cheers
eon
Good luck widdat, Charlie.
In WW2 mmost medics and doctors were unarmed, and hospitals were guarded by other specialties (infantry). In Vietnam, medics became armed, usually with a handgun. Now, especially in Afghanistan, most medics have an M-16 on them and Doc’s and Nurses carry M9 pistols, even whilst providing patient care in the hospital.
As you can see, medics came from being soft targets to fully capable of fending off or neutralising most threats. It’s time for the schools to do the same.
In the Pacific, Army and Navy medics learned fast that they needed to be fully armed as well. Those medics shot back. When your enemy gives no quarter, you must be prepared to react appropriately.
George Orwell taught us “The Great Enemy of Clear Language is Insincerity” .
Machiavelli taught us in “The Prince” that “the Prince must maintain a monopoly on the use of power”
In an early article on Newton :
http://washingtonexaminer.com/police-world-wonder-about-conn.-shooting-motive/article/2516042#.UNWlWdGYO91
I found this:
At least three guns were found — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said.
notice now the media is going ape over ‘assault rifles’ –again . what a surprise
This story is turning into another “terror attack over youtube video” scam. At first 2 guns, a Glock and a Sig, were recovered at the scene. Later police “found” a Bushmaster in the trunk of a car. Then there were 4 handguns taken from the school. Then for some reason, the feds raided the gunshop where the Bushmaster was sold (we will never know who REALLY bought the AR). Then someone claiming to be a state medical examiner gave a press conference making a strangely parsed statement seeming to indicate all the victims died of wound inflicted by an assault rifle. Watch the video of the cops pulling the rifle from the trunk and then ask yourself how the shooter put it there after committing suicide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo&lc=pRJKdme0EGZJKLbP8oUsurf0hBzCOrjQNAQuSVNjCw4&lch=email_reply&feature=em-comment_reply_received&lcor=1
Then there is the James O’keefe style backstage video of a person claiming to be the father of one of the victims laughing and joking before stepping up to the podium to make a somber address to the news cameras about his loss and the need for new gun laws.
Finally, watch the CNN footage of a spokesman for the state police issuing a stern warning that anyone posting accounts contrary to the official police narrative will be hunted down and imprisioned by state and federal authorities (the Gestapo AND the SS). There is clearly no longer a first amendment in Obama’s new america.
Rick there’s no conspiracy here. Early reporting was scrambled up, what’s new about that? We live among many who abhor guns and don’t want to know about them. Even many policemen are unfamiliar with guns other than their own. Certainly reporters and spokespeople can’t be relied on to get the story straight right away. Your linked video shows police clearing what looks to me like a semi-auto shotgun from the trunk. So, the kid goes in with 2(?) handguns and the bushmaster, does his terrible thing, and kills himself. He left a shotgun (and maybe another rifle) in the trunk.
Sure! All this from the same Propaganda Ministry that assured us Obama WOULDN’T push for new gun control laws after the election and that the Benghazi terror attack was all over a youtube video.
Seems to me that gun-free zones are the domestic counterpart of Fast & Furious. The whole purpose is to make guns look bad so that the public will capitulate to antigun legislation.
Here’s the Dems’ game plan:
Step 1: Set up gun-free zones and tell everybody “it’s for the children.” The real purpose is to tempt unstable individuals to commit gun crimes against innocent victims, knowing that they won’t be stopped until they’ve racked up a huge body count.
Step 2: Allow (or pay!) some Internet trolls to egg on and incite any seriously unstable and criminally-minded person they can find.
Step 3: Some creepazoid takes the bait, goes to the gun-free zone, and kills a lot of kids.
Step 4: Cry some crocodile tears in public, and start pushing for antigun legislation.
Here’s the antidote.
It has no been a week since a CT police spokeperson named Vance said they had found “very good evidence” that might help explain his motive. This has been buttoned up. Why is that? Seems to me the only reason not to publicize what they’ve discovered would be if a perp was still at large and you didn’t want to tip him off, or you didn’t want to release anything that would compromise a jury or trial. Neither apply here. I want to know what that “very good evidence” is, and if they won’t say, I want an explanation why. If they won’t give one, then, yes, there is a conspiracy to hide soemthing. Remember, even though it was in FL, nobody balked for even one second from releasing all sorts of stuff about George Zimmerman. And he was going to be tried. Yet we can’t hear one word about what has been discovered about Lanza. Sorry, very fishy.
I’ve heard guys that consider themselves “gun savvy” who get all kinds of things confused when they try to talk guns.
How different are the bullets and the spent cartridges from the pistols and the Bushmaster? Shouldn’t there be a record of the specific bullets removed from the deceased individuals? Isn’t the lab report public property? By what authority can the local police involved claim the ability to shut up any potentially contradictory information? Why are the Feds involved in this case? Is anyone working to free from jail the maker of the “movie” that almost no one saw yet that purportedly caused the Benghazi attack of 9/11/2012? What is going on here?
There also 2 reports that say that from the time of the first 911 call,when all police and firefighters were alerted to the shooting to the arrival of first responders was 10 minutes in 1 report and 20 minutes in another report.
Not only is it a small town, which should shorten response time,there is a fire department next door.
I don’t think fire departments usually respond to shooter calls.
We care more about Money that we do our Children. This is self evident each time we go to a Bank and think nothing of an Armed guard protecting the security of the our most holy place, the Bank.
If we cared half as much about our Children we would not only have armed guards at our schools, but demand they be cathedrals of learning.
Yes, that has been bothering me for some time. I wonder what the real, deep-seated reasons are for not wanting to protect our children and other people in public places going about their business, like malls, churches, Sikh Temples, movie theaters, campuses, etc. What type of denial are we really in? What is it that we don’t want to face?
What we don’t like to face, is the fact that in our grandparents’ time, we didn’t have to turn our schools into armed camps with security guards and magnetic detector checkpoints. (Willie Sutton robbed banks at gunpoint, which is why we put security guards in banks. He didn’t shoot up elementary schools.)
Schools aren’t the only soft targets, you know. So are day care centers, nurseries, restaurants, strip malls, theaters, highway rest stops, etc. We’ve already had shootings take place in some of those.
So the upshot of this proposal is to put security guards in every public accommodation.
That such a thing is deemed necessary is a sad commentary on the world we live in today. And we still haven’t explained why we are forced into this.
I think that, perhaps without intending to, you have made the case for widespread concealed carry, even in day care facilities and the like. We cannot staff them all with professionals, but any that remain “guns free” will be targets eventually.
At the moment the problem is the deranged who are able get a gun; next week it may be the jihadists again.
Somebody points out on one of these gun threads that since 1950 only the Giffords mass shooting in Phoenix took place in a location that was not “Gun Free.” They didn’t source it, but it is certainly believable. I know in this state that the odds are pretty good at any given time someone within your field of vision is armed unless you’re in one of the expressly prohibited areas, courthouses, schools, bars, etc. We have a fair amount of gun violence but the most common characteristics are young men and alcohol and/or drugs. Probably the single most common characteristic is a dispute that starts in a bar and somebody goes out to get a gun and either ambushes the guy as he leaves or calls him out. I don’t recal a gun incident in a bar because while the establishment is gun free and having a gun while drinking will make you a guest of the State for a very long time, the bouncers and bar tenders are definitely not gun free. I carry a bit, but I know as long as I stay away from the popular bar areas and certain neighborhoods with lots of darkly tinted car windows and 22 inch wheels I really don’t need to. It’s a good general rule here that if you try to be a tough guy towards somebody, you’ll wind up with a gun in your face. Makes people peaceful unless they’re overdosed on testosterone and alcohol or drugs.
What you’re describing is called a ‘police state.’ America is much closer to being one than you think – about three and a half years…
If it’s civilians CCW’ing, then that’s no police state.
That phrase “police state” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
It’s all about the culture of death.
I pretty much agree with the provisions of your Act, except the penalties. It’s unconstitutional, even though they do it, for the Federal Gov to withhold funding to a state in order to comply with Federal regulations. This gives the power for the Fed to coerce the states into doing whatever the fed wants. Plus the money already belongs to the states, not the Feds.
It may be your view that it’s unconstitutional to withhold funds from states that do not comply with Federal regs, but seat belts laws were instituted in many states as a result of this type of coercion. The drinking age of 21 is also under this restriction. “In 1984, the United States Congress passed legislation, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, withholding 5% of Federal-Aid Highway Act funds from states that did not adopt a minimum legal age of 21 for the purchase and possession of alcohol. South Dakota, a state that had allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol, sued to challenge the law, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant because her office was responsible for enforcing the legislation.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment.
The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a “pressure” on the State to comply, not a “compulsion” to do so, because the State’s failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5% of the highway funds it may obtain. Therefore, Congress has not run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendments.
Justices O’Connor and Brennan each filed dissents. O’Connor agreed that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds.” From this article:
http://blog.wisconsingrandsonsofliberty.com/2010/04/24/federal-control-from-highway-funds.aspx
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein…
Unfortunately, the current Progressive politic isn’t concerned with actual change for the betterment of society. Rather, it constantly moves toward repeating any failed action, as long as the failure will result in an increase of and in government controls. Precisely why the Second Amendment is a fundamental right.
Instead of banning weapons, I believe that a modified Swiss Model and in particular the routine training is an effective way to reduce mass shootings (rare in Switzerland). If we were to follow the current “ban the GUN” hysterical outcry, then we should also ban cars, trucks, and especially school buses- as they each contribute to the death and injury of children. NHTSA reported 129 fatalities in 2010, ( this may be under reported) so by the same logic used by the anti Second Amendment groups all large, yellow, motorized, conveyances; that are capable of containing more than 5 children must not be imported, built, sold, owned in the United States. Wheeeeew….
As usual YMMV, and these are just my opinions.
Merry Christmas to all and a Prosperous New Year.
I understand the spirit of the proposal, including the twist of using the contorted logic mandating health insurance against the Left.
But I don’t think the government should mandate firearm ownership (or require a “tax” for opting out). There are lots of things that would be good for adults to voluntarily choose, such as eating a healthy diet, owning a first aid kit, being a a responsible firearm owner, or purchasing health insurance. But it’s not the government’s place to mandate such things.
But I don’t think the government should mandate firearm ownership (or require a “tax” for opting out). There are lots of things that would be good for adults to voluntarily choose, such as eating But it’s not the government’s place to mandate such things.
What makes you think that they won’t try to mandate “a healthy diet, owning a first aid kit, being a a responsible firearm owner, or purchasing health insurance?” You’re already wrong about the health insurance. What’s to stop them from doing the other things? They could also add parachuting, mountain climbing, riding a motorcycle, and a whole host of measures to ensure our “safety” and a reduction in spending to save us from ourselves. California has mandated that every occupied building have a CO detector. It’s the same thing; the governmemt can do whatever it wants to protect the citizens from themselves.
Slow getting back to this, Paul, but I think the counter-argument is to note that a “well-regulated milita” is one of the few things positively required in the Bill of Rights. Now I could see a case to be made that the Officially Required Guns should be bought for the populace, since national defense and policing are appropriate use of government powers; I’m just somewhat seriously arguing that we should read the Second Amendment as imposing a positive requirement as well as a negative right.
Great idea! But liberals and the majority of the public don’t want something effective. They want something quick and easy that will “feel good,” like banning “assault weapons.” Amending the Constitution to impose duties of citizenship that require people to pass a test will never fly in Obama’s America.
Also, progressives seek to empower government over the citizenry, not the other way around.
Mainly because they believe that they, themselves, will always be the “government”. And they are determined that the “citizenry” not be able to talk back when they mandate their definition of Utopia.
Opposition being considered a capital crime, naturally.
clear ether
eon
You do remember that Congress has taken the teeth out of many mandates because they were “discriminatory’.
One reason this atrocity was enabled was failure to address mental illness in an effective manner with effective measures.
This shooter had rights LEGISLATED by OUR GOVERNMENT.
Insofar as liberal coastal states like Connecticut are never going to modify their own gun laws to accommodate your proposal, and insofar as the nearly all liberal teachers in Connecticut will never agree to carry weapons, you’ve basically said that you have no proposal that they will accept.
The GOP is never going to win any Blue States that way. It’s going to end up a regional party limited to the South and Mountain states.
Of course, if it were a federal law it would supersede this state laws.
“a. Prove ownership of one long gun chambered for 5.56 or 7.62 NATO ammunition, and 500 rounds of ammunition.
b. Prove ownership of one handgun chambered for at least 9mmx19 Parabellum ammunition and 500 rounds of ammunition.”
Strongly suggest the requirement not be of certain or of minimum calibers, but instead in ft/lbs and or the delivered joule equivalent thereof. Surely you can see individually carried weapon developments that would make such a definition attractive. We don’t want to write this thing for “printing presses” and then have the Internet come along.
There are those of us who prefer scatterguns…
Actually, commonality of ammunition is a necessity from a logistics standpoint. In event of needing a lot of armed people very quickly, the arms will be much more useful if they do not require eight to a dozen different cartridges.
We, and others, have fallen off that bridge in the past. In the American Civil War, we had one caliber of rifle musket, the .58 aka .577. It was called a .58 if it were an American-made Springfield, and a .577 if it were a British-made Enfield. It was actually the same caliber, either way; The American barrel caliber was measured from the bottom of one rifling groove to the opposite groove bottom, while the British spec measured across the tops of the lands in-between the grooves. They all used a .575-inch Minie’ bullet, that was muzzle-loaded and expanded into the rifling by the powder gasses, so no problem either way.
Percussion revolvers, from Colt, Remington, or whoever, were either .36 (Navy) or .44 (Army) “bore”, so no problem there, either.
Then there were breech-loading carbines using metallic or combustible cartridges, used by the cavalry.
Uh-oh.
Every single manufacturer had his own idea of the exact “right” caliber, and cartridge type. Rimfire, centerfire, separate-primed, loading into a chamber in the barrel, a chamber in the standing breech (rear-end first- look up “Burnside Carbine”), or half in each (look up “Gallagher Carbine”), calibers ranging from .40 on up to .58- there were over twenty different carbines and cartridges, most of which were not even close to interchangeable. And they were issued to the cavalry, the most highly-mobile, fastest-moving units in the Army.
I’ve often wondered how many ordnance and supply officers had nervous breakdowns as a result. Or how many units lost engagements when they ran out of ammo at the wrongest possible moment. (Murphy’s Third Law of Combat; If anything can go disastrously wrong, it will do so at the moment that it can do the most damage- to you.)
We learned our lesson from that. By the end of the Civil War, designers and manufacturers were told by Ordnance, “If your super-weapon doesn’t chamber the .52-56 Spencer rimfire round or the .44 Henry round, forget it”. Since then, we’ve made sure that one, or at most two, rounds are standard in any given class of weapons.
Some people didn’t learn the lesson. The Italians went to war in 1940 with two rifle calibers (6.5mm and 7.7mm), and four machine gun calibers (6.5, 7.7, and two different 8mms). Japan had no less than seven different calibers in rifles and machine guns, including two different (and non-interchangeable) 7.7mm rounds for their heavy machine guns, used by the Army and the Navy. Their supply officers must have had hysterics at some points.
And oh yes, the Italians and the Japanese lost. Supply (or rather, the lack of it) being one big reason why.
Today, we have a “feast and famine” situation. One pistol caliber (9x19mm), one infantry rifle caliber (5.56 x 45mm), one support machine gun caliber (7.62 x 51mm), and one heavy machine-gun caliber (12.7 x 99mm; unlike other armies, we reserve the term “heavy machine gun” for one that doesn’t fire a rifle round). Both the machine gun calibers are also used in sharpshooters’(M40A1 7.62) and anti-material (Barrett 12.7) rifles.
We also have 40mm grenade launchers. Oops. Three different rounds (one for the under-barrel M203 on the M-16, one for the Army auto-grenade launcher, one for the Navy/Marine auto grenade launcher), only two of which (auto GL type) are more-or-less interchangeable. We have to work on that.
Let’s not get into 20mm and 30mm automatic cannon ammunition, OK? It gives supply officers a headache.
As the old saying goes, “Amateurs study strategy; professionals study logistics”.
If you want to win, make sure everybody is using the same ammunition.
cheers
eon
“Actually, commonality of ammunition is a necessity from a logistics standpoint.”
If the government wants the unorganized militia to standardize on a caliber, then it can buy my rifle and ammo for me. If an unorganized militia outfit I decide to drill with privately decides to standardize on a caliber, then I can join another one, or go pound sand, or stick with what they go with. And they may well standardize on the intermediate caliber I like, in theory*. Remington .26 or 6.6mm Grendel (or the like) have been favorably received. I’d like mine with a pushrod operated otherwise M-16 receiver, chrome interior throughout, with a belt feed attachment available and quick change barrel, and 5 or 6 of 30rd mags, and one or two of 5 to 10 rds, and I’d like to be able to fire with the bolt locked–provided that increases the accuracy noticeably.
*I don’t have anything chambered for those yet, but I’m working on it.
In short, I’d like a weapon that doesn’t exist yet…
…where’d I put that engine lathe and vertical mill?
The thing is, if we ever needed the unorganized militia overseas, then it is overwhelmingly likely we would need them on a time frame that permits standardization with the regular military. If we need them here, it is overwhelmingly likely the unorganized militia can self supply. You might note the AWRM.org standards clearly request each unit be able to self supply with a caliber standard among units, and they strongly suggest that they be in one of two or three common calibers.
Did you see the part about joule equivalent? Part of the idea is to legalize and encourage experimentation.
1 joule = 0.737562149 foot pound, therefore the ME of a typical 5.56mm NATO 63-grain load (roughly 1,300 FPE) = 1760J.
BTW, during the development of the 7.62 x 39mm M43 cartridge for the SKS and AK rifles, the Red Army determined that it only took 450J, or about 330 FPE, to inflict a debilitating or lethal wound on a man assuming a hit somewhere in the center torso area. (That’s about the muzzle-energy of a 7.62 Tokarev, 9mm Parabellum, or .45 ACP service hardball load, BTW.)
The 7.62 round was designed to deliver at least this much energy at its practical maximum range in “suppressive fire”, which is about 400 meters. (I.e., everybody elevates rear sight to the 400 mark, and on command fires five-shot bursts in unison until their magazines are empty.)
In short, at its practical maximum range (about 300 meters) the 5.56 still has enough energy (about 850 FPE/1150J) to hurt.
Anyone who wants to come up with some other round that can do that is more than welcome to. On their own nickel. (Keep in mind, there are a lot out there that can do it already, the old .22-250 to name only one.)
The trick is to have the result standardized. And make sure it works through the action of the chosen platform.
Fun fact; AR-15 type actions aren’t too reliable with the 7.62 x39mm cartridge, due to the sharp taper of the case. Ironically, the AK action tends to sulk when chambered for the 5.56mm, due to its more straight-walled case.
Experimentation is a good thing. As long as it doesn’t take the place of having effective, standardized arms and ammunition in worthwhile quantities when the balloon goes up, and everybody on the other side starts firing for effect.
cheers
eon
Didn’t take long to reach the banging d**ks on the table stage of this argument, did it?
I like my Mini-14 in 5.56; it is a great varmint gun with a few little tweaks whether the varmint has two or four legs. A good shot will drop most anything at any reasonable range. If it has liabilities, it requires far better training and good maintenance. An AK is designed to be built by drunks and used by idiots and it does pretty well at that, though you’ll go through a lot of non-functional guns; we who have the Russian versions of AK platform weapons call them “vodka guns.”
That said, I’m looking for a .3n caliber hard-hitting rifle; something that will penetrate light works and which has knock-down power even with a bad shot. Gettin’ old and don’t have those steely eyes anymore. I actually don’t think of rifles at all as personal defense weapons so long as the World is peaceful if a bit crime-ridden; shotguns are the weapon for personal defense at home.
Hello Eon,
Do you know of an available rifle meeting this description?
1) Remington .26 or 6.6mm Grendel (or something close to them)
2) pushrod operated otherwise M-16 receiver, chromed action and barrel
3) belt feed attachment available and quick change barrel,
4) can be fired from locked bolt and then operated manually, for best single shot, low rat accuracy
Tom;
The only AR-type rifle on the market I’m aware of with a gas-piston upper is the Sig-Sauer SIG516. But it only comes in .223 at this time, and has no bolt-lock provision. That, plus a change to .26Rem. or 6.5 Grendel, could be done by a custom smith who knows the AR-15.
As for a belt-feed, the only belt-fed AR variant I’ve ever heard of was a light machine gun variant of the Colt CAR-15 Weapon System family in the late 1960s. It never passed the experimental stage, due to the fact that the AR upper and lower receivers really aren’t tough enough for that sort of sustained-fire stress. Cracking around the bolt lock recesses and the forward (lower) receiver pivot pin boss were serious problems.
I’m not sure anyone even makes a belt-fed AR-15 upper today, or ever did on a production basis.
A belt-fed version of the earlier AR-10 was made by Artillerie Inrichtingen, Hembrug, Netherlands for the Dutch government in the early Sixties. It also had receiver durability problems, and didn’t last long.
Personally, I’d consider belt feed and a bolt-lock to be trying to use one platform to accomplish two entirely different tasks. Belt-feeding isn’t really compatible with the consistency of cartridge insertion into the chamber I’d want in a weapon intended for precise single-shot placement.
It also would probably give ATF violent hysterics, even if it’s strictly semi-automatic.
As for shooting rats, I’d use an air rifle. Quiet, cheap, and much less chance of a stray ricochet clipping somebody’s cow in the next township.
cheers
eon
Hello Eon,
I didn’t figure my dream rifle existed, which is why I made the crack about where did I leave my engine lathe and vertical mill…
The unavoidable drawback to such is it would be heavier than any rifle of a more dedicated purpose would be, but I think not more than a pound’s worth in the most portable rig.
I don’t suppose the ATF is handing out SOT-2′s like candy these days?
Oh well.
Best Regards, Tom Perkins
Oh, just to be clear, I would never contemplate attempting belt feed and locked bolt firing simultaneously. For most applications of a locked bolt being advantageous, I’d want a low round count magazine for a lower profile.
What I’m looking for is for the same lower/upper combo to be quickly adaptable to either sort of task, via single bolt, finger tightenable attachments.
Eon, the HK416 and its civilian H&K MR556 variant are gas piston uppers.
Hi Tom,
If I were looking for a rifle to achieve precise placement in single-shot mode with the .223 round, I wouldn’t even bother with any AR platform. I’d get a good bolt-action like a Remington 700, Ruger 77, or Weatherby, with a varmint weight heavy barrel, and put a good 4-12X scope on top of it and a bipod under it.
I’m a moderately good shot with a rifle (scope or irons), and I find that (all other things being equal- sights, etc.) I can outshoot myself with a bolt gun vs. almost any semi-auto, even if the latter has a bolt lock. The bolt rifle is just inherently more accurate, assuming both are equally well built. (And yes, I have shot both types quite a bit.)
Furthermore, an AR with a bolt-lock is another way of saying “manually-operated repeating rifle”. It gives up the advantage of the self-loading rifle (i.e., being “self-loading”) for benefits that are at best questionable.
Also, consider that you can buy a Remington 700, put a high-end varmint scope on it and a folding bipod under it, and still have less money invested than the AR, with no sights or anything else. And having an AR with two or more uppers means you probably pay as much for each upper as you would for a complete bolt-action with all the bells and whistles. I prefer having one rifle for each job; the “Stoner 63″ aka “Erector Set” method never turned me any sort of “on”.
BTW, the reason I say “Weatherby” is that AFAIK (Rik) Winchester doesn’t make a Model 70 in .223 these days. I wish they did; I’d buy it, especially if it was a Classic with the pre-’64, Mauser-type extractor. Give me controlled-feed over push-feed any day of the week.
cheers
eon
Just for the sake of clarity, the bolt lock would be optionally and not continually operative. Ideally, insertion of a belt feed device would disable the bolt lock.
Yes, such an all purpose rifle in a military caliber might be impossible.
But I’d like one.
I would suggest 3 calibers, two rifle and one pistol:
5.56mm/.223inch
7.62mm/.308inch
.45inch ACP
And maybe 12gauge 00 should be included.
I have some guns with other calibers and gauges, but for a militia or army, there needs to be the ability to share ammunition.
Early in the Civil War there were large numbers of .69 caliber smoothbore 1842 Springfields, many of them having been converted from the original flintlock configuration. Some men chose to use the .69 even after their units were equipped with .58 Springfields and Enfields or in the Confederate Western armies, the .54 caliber Austrian Lorenz rifled musket. The ’42 was often loaded with “buck and ball” for close quarters use. “Home Guard” and other militia units or “state army” units continued to use the ’42 throughout The War.
There is enough confusion about what units and men had what that even someone like PA’s State Historian Coddington in his magisterial work on Gettysburg writes that the Union troops at the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge had armed themselves with multiple .69s “left behind by Wright’s Georgians” as they withdrew from Cemetery Ridge the evening before. Well, Wright’s Georgia Brigade had been equipped with Enfields during its initial organization in the spring of ’62, three-bands for the men, and two-bands for the NCOs, fresh from Provisional Army of the Confederate States stores. Any men whose weapon was lost or broken was likely to have been replaced by another Enfield or by a captured Springfield. After the Yankees were driven from Virginia in ’62, the Army of Northern Virginia had thousands of captured US Springfields stacked in their camps. The .69s were most likely left behind by the 106th PA that participated in the US counterattack that drove Wright off the hill.
I guess the point of this ramble is that things weren’t that standardized in the CW and logistics were nightmarish for both armies. The primary reason Meade couldn’t immediately pursue Lee after Gettysburg was that his men in addition to being tired, ragged, and shoeless after a three day battle on the heels of a 100 mile march were desperately hungry because almost all US transportation had been devoted to bringing ammunition forward. The primary reason the Quartermasters resisted repeating rifles was that they could barely supply enough ammunition for the single-shot muzzleloaders. The real military revolution begun in the US Civil War and completed by the European Powers in the late-19th and early 20th Centuries was bringing the military railroad to bear for logistic support of field armies. However until WWII, and for some armies even during WWII, the ammunition and supplies moved from the railhead to the lines by muscle-power. Many think the most significant machine in the European Theater was the US two and a half ton truck.
Rather than a new federal mandate, how about just seriously adhering to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment states clearly and unambiguously that as regards the National Government, ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’
I know it’s always fun to want to do something, and nowhere is it more fun to do something than in Washington D.C., but, if one were to actually consider the implications of making any gun policy in D.C., they need to look at the history of legislation, including those relating to firearms, and ask themselves if the likely outcome will more closely resemble the type of laws you’d find in Illinois or Wyoming? I know that many people like to make proposals for what the politicians in D.C. ought to do, but I wonder how many of them consider the work product that those same politicians, consistently, turn out.
For myself, I’d rather take the risk with my state’s legislature, secure that the federal model will allow me, should the state in which I reside elects truly irresponsible leadership, to change my jurisdiction to a more rational and same climate.
“The Second Amendment states clearly and unambiguously that as regards the National Government, ‘…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’”
The constitution also says the states and local government can’t interfere with it either. 14th amendment. The 2nd establishes and “immunity” from government interference in the private possession of arms, the 14th extends that right as one the states and local government cannot interfere with.
Honorable attempt, Mr. Martin.
I stated the same thing a few days ago here at PJM with a comment to another article regarding this shooting; That the only thing that could have mitigated or terminated this atrocity was another gun used against the perpetrator.
The last time I passed through an airport in Germany, there were armed female troopers, in pairs, patrolling the passenger areas with AK-47′s. In fact, they were so attractive, that I did not notice the AK at first, as they were slung over their shoulder and pointed at the floor, which made them less obvious. (You can’t conceal a good looking woman even in baggy fatigues).
I’d like to add to your ideas something that has been in use for years at most U.S. Post offices and other government buildings; An elevated and enclosed gallery, where classrooms can be observed without intrusion.
The local police departments have mobile pods that are parked in busy parking lots, and elevated to give 360 degree unobstructed view of the entire area.
And also, as you pointed out, with recent Supreme Court convulsions, any appeals to the certain illogical and illegal “laws” sure to emanate from the Obama Cartel, will most assuredly result in additional taxes upon We the Sheeple.
If only Congress would read PJM.
The article, and the replies contain information, far better than is available in the national press. The expertise, and experience shows, so I leave this to other better qualified people.
But one aspect of the recent disasters does not get much attention, other than from the much maligned NRA spokesman. Over the last week, I have read numerous, agonizing writings from people who knew their adult son, husband, brother, etc. was insane, had weapons, and was a danger (Most insane people are only dangerous to themselves, e.g. suicidal) but there was no effective societal professional who could, or would help.
I, am amateur, have intervened with some one who was deeply troubled. An intervention is a preplanned meeting which might include a doctor, minister/priest/holy man, loved ones, a cop, and an waiting institution. Maybe a lawyer, and/or financial type. All evasions, defenses (including weapons) are confronted, and overcome. The purpose is to force some one to see, and accept reality. They are sick and need help.
From reports, the Newtown guy snapped, without this help. One huge lethal error was that his mom tried to do it alone. Had it been handled differently, he would be in a hospital today, 20 kids would be dreaming about Santa, and infuriated terrified, but ignorant millions would not be screaming about guns.
A poster at Jerry Pournelle’s web site says that there are more guns per capita in Canada than the US and they have fewer shootings of this nature. He says that the reason is that the press is disallowed from reporting who the shooter is; there is no blaze of final glory with names written into the books. The shooter is not a part of history.
I don’t know how true his contentions are but if he’s right then similar constraint of reporting (regarding only the shooter’s name) would probably be simpler and far more effective than anything else.
Canada is a good case study in that Canadians are also subject to violence in music, film and video games (standard excuse of those wanting to ban same) and their society seems to be more stable in some aspects.
I view calls for armed school guards and everyone carrying weapons as over-reaction and not particularly productive. Schools were not “max security lockdown” zones or “wild west bristling with guns by all” zones when I was young and ought not to be so now.
That’s B.S.
Here as there, the shooter gets his name in the papers.
Ever hear of Marc Lepine? (École polytechnique shooter) or Kimveer Gil? (Dawson College shooter)
They were also places that had rifle/pistol teams if they were high schools, or even if grade schools, places where one or more adults likely were armed.
Not so now.
And not turning out too well at that.
I view calls for armed school guards and everyone carrying weapons as over-reaction and not particularly productive. Schools were not “max security lockdown” zones or “wild west bristling with guns by all”
You didn’t go to my high school. I regularly carried my target rifle and pistol to high school, where I usually left them in the armory with the school team target rifles, about 200 M-14s, and 30,000 rounds of ammunition.
Back in the mid-80s I would often walk across my university campus carrying my AR. I would go over to the ROTC firing range and use their .22cal conversion kits and blow off a few hundred rounds for relaxation. Then, walk back to the parking lot with AR in full view. No case… Not a peep from anybody.
Not sure what would happen now days… probably come to a bad end from a drone strike.
Revelation, chapter 11 tells exactly what’s going to happen to u.s. and it will be carried out by the two-witnesses identified in this chapter 11! As proven by marxist in ideology England for the last 100 yearsi.e., the sun never sets upon the British Empire(Gen. 48:16), America too is Israel by the seed of Joseph, NOT JUDAH, ONLY PROMISED MESSIAH(GEN. 49:10) & NOTHING ELSE! So we have Israel & Judah BOTH NOT KNOWING EITHER “WHO” or “WHAT” they really are! PREDICTION: NEXT GREAT EVENT IS THE TWO-WITNESSES REVEALED OF REVELATION, CHAPTER 11, WHO WILL WITNESS AGAINST U.S. for 3 1/2 years, leaving ONLY 144,000 Israelites(anglo-saxons) alive with the tribe of Joseph replacing the tribe of DAN as being protected during this coming period of time. Just saying what’s really written…
Could you possibly be more incomprehensible?
Probably.
Could you possibly be a little more incomprehensible?
Whoops! sorry for the careless double post.
Being comprehensible means you never have to say you’re sorry, Jerry.
You Victor are the perfect example of the sort of person who should be allowed near a weapon of any description.
Whoops! sorry forgot the NOT you all know where it goes.
No mental Health to prevent this sort of thing either. Drive-by nonsense.
We need to organize citizen militias in every state, with wide participation. The Tea Party Brigades.
That will put the fear of “the well regulated militia” in them.
The owners of the Aurora movie theatre were sued for not providing adequate security. Given that they made it a gun free zone, it’s fair to say they chose to make their patrons defenseless so they had the responsibility to provide extra security. I think the same is true of schools. Maybe the families of the victims in Newtown have grounds to sue the school or school district.
And I hope they lose in court. Predicating the provision of goods and services to the general public on their abandoning basic human rights to access them should expose the provider to a tort suit, should a tort result in part from that requirement. Liability law will quickly eliminate “gun free zones”.
I suppose private clubs could still have such foolish restrictions.
randomengineer
I am a Canadian resident/citizen….I live in an old farm house…no need for a firearm…Hell I haven’t had an armed home invasion for…let’s see…about 6 years…I’m on a roll…..
Snapped? …a leftie favourite….
Don’t happen….these people plot and prepare for at time months which does not logicaly fit any “snap” scenario.
“Snapped” is just as stupid as CO2AGW or 2012-12-21 being the end of the world.
Lets get something straight here – gun control advocates aren’t really interested in gun control – they are interested in people control. Removing guns from ALL Americans is their priority. Well – other than for their own security – and piss on the average American. They can’t control the American population if they have guns. Stating that would cause a huge disruption in American politics so don’t expect any Republican or Democrat to outright proclaim their aims. And yes – there are many Republicans who also desire total banning of guns of all make and model. The so-called ‘assault rifle’ is the flavor of the week.
Charlie,
Your proposal probably would reduce violent crime, and it is irrelevant. Gun control is about dis-empowering the individual and transferring that power to the State, not reducing crime.
This is true of most left wing politics. Welfare, affirmative action, school choice; conservatives think these policies are failures because they hurt individuals. Liberals know they are successful because they empower the State.
We should stop trying to persuade the left that we have better ways of helping people. Helping people has always been a subterfuge.
i agree w/ paleo. this administration has a sinister agenda.
fast & furious, the selling of thousands of untagged guns to murderous mexican drug dealers by this administration, resulting in hundreds if not thousands of innocent deaths here and in mexico, was an attempt to pump up the number of guns from the u.s. involved in the border war/killings. nothing else makes sense.
our punk in charge has his orders to remove our guns. look at all the things being done to facilitate our inability to respond to his ‘plans’ for us. special e.o.’s stripping away our rights, and ability to respond to an armed takeover, hidden among the hundres/thousands issued already. hundreds of millions of non-target shooting rounds purchased for his gov. agencies. and by all means, let’s not forget the u.n small arms treaty hitlery has been working on for years. i’m sure there are many more moves/plans our gunrunning prez. has in the works. we only hear about the stupid ones that get Americans killed.
i also agree that the militias need to be more organized, and trained, asap. however, be careful. infiltrators/spies will be sent out to find out such info. as mustering areas, size of contingent, capabilities, names, weapons, codes, etc. there are a lot of weaponized drones on order as well by our demon-chief, possibly to be used as a potential first strike tool against organized resistance.
looking more and more like we are about to have a ‘Jefferson’ moment in history. suits me. simply put, sometimes the trash must be taken out to make the place livable again.
one more thing: i know guys/gals/vet’s/hunters/etc. well past 45 y.o. that might be handy in a scrape.
I watched a couple of media types debate the “armed guard” proposal put forward by the NRA. The only objections the lefty could come up with was that it would “cost too much” to implement and that teachers wouldn’t want to carry a firearm.
People may call me crazy, but I am sure that given the fact that the NRA has over 8 million members that more than a few highly qualified individuals would be willing to donate a few hours each week (or work for very little) to help safeguard our children – myself included. Though I’m recently retired, I’m also a competitive shooter with over 50 years of firearms experience – and as a bonus, I happen to be “grandfatherly” as well – kids like me and I look harmless.
You wouldn’t even have to provide coverage in all of the schools. Just publicize that “some” schools will be having some additional “help” on a rotating basis. That alone would probably give the next creep pause about selecting easy targets.
Yes, I think asking for NRA volunteers to be occasional armed guards in schools would be an excellent idea. However for legal purposes I expect each would have to be sworn in as a deputy, or a police-auxiliary, after having a background check and weapons proficiency check. I would be glad to serve as such a volunteer; I am an old retired tech-nerd, but I was also a US Army Ordnance officer during Vietnam, so I know a lot more about weapons than just which end the bullet comes from.
I would also like to address a point that TV anchors repeatedly mentioned concerning the school shooting – namely that some of the children were shot multiple times. Well, I doubt that the maniac doing the shooting actually deliberately aimed at and shot each child multiple times – especially the one child who reportedly had 11 bullet holes.
No, I wasn’t there, so I am only guessing, but I would guess that when the shooting started, the terrified children mostly huddled together and the maniac shot repeatedly into the huddle as the largest target. Apparently the official police line still has not determined which type weapon (.223 Rem, 10mm, 9mm) did most or all the killing, but those fragile little bodies would not have provided much stopping power to any of these rounds, especially to the .223 Rem, so each bullet probably passed through multiple bodies which resulted in so many wounds in some of them. Of course this does not lesson the horror of what happened, but maybe some of the parents might take a bit of solace in knowing the maniac did not deliberately pick out and target their child for multiple shots.
I’ve heard a few stories of young criminals seeing an old man as easy prey for robbery. What the criminals failed to realize is that many old men used to be young men who did things like fight in wars and such. They may not be able to run 5 miles or carry 80 lbs. on their backs anymore, but they can be more than some young criminal can handle for a minute or two.
Yes, sonny, it has been many years since I last raised my saber and galloped into battle against the redskins to the rousing strains of “GerryOwen”.
However this old soldier does not plan to go ten rounds with a 20-yr old shooter, but to eliminate him within a few seconds of the beginning of his rampage. The first indication he will have that I am present would be when he turns around and looks down the muzzle of my weapon, as I take a second or two to check that downrange is clear of friendlies. A bright flash at the end of my gun muzzle will be the last thing he will ever see, and the last thing he will ever hear is my yelling “Surprise Mother******”, as I blow his &$%#*& head off. I think even this old soldier can handle that.
Anyone reading this might think that my action could result in more dead kids, but could anything I do in their defense be worse than what happened at that school?
I remember right after the Twin Towers crash on 9-11, some “what-if” people disagreed with proposals that parachutes be provided for workers at skyscrapers in case another airplane crashed into an upper floor. They said that it was too dangerous for an untrained person to jump out of a skyscraper window with a parachute. But then would that be more dangerous than jumping out of a skyscraper window without a parachute! Same for defending kids.
Parents create murderers.
Let’s ban parents.
/sarc
Perhaps it is time to approach the ‘problem’ from the other direction.
How about we require all people who support gun-grabbing, gun-control, gun-restrictions to post very large notices on all of their doors that they live in a gun free zone.
Similarly, they must post similar notices on their vehicles.
Of course, all elected and appointed officials who support these polices must at all times be unarmed and no one in their employ is allowed to be armed either.
Sen. Rand Paul Objects To Indefinite Detention Language In NDAA – 12/21/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvuhVu0z9p4
Academy Sporting Goods advertises perfectly cute pink and pink-accented guns for women.
My proposal is to put more crazy people in jail or what ever is necessary to keep them off the streets. Most of the mass murderers are nuts and people around them knew they were nuts and dangerous, yet they never rose enough in the consciousness of the authorities to merit incarceration or be denied weapons.
Absent that as a solution, I say we do nothing until the emotion is wrung out of this event.
“Draconian gun bans have been enacted in Great Britain and Australia in the last several years, and violent gun crimes have increased, not decreased.”
True, but just to show you that facts don’t matter, in both nations people claim to be and feel safer for their nations’ total disarmament (except for criminals) policy. Go figure. I’ve tried to arm myself with statistics to prove to liberals/Dems/Progs that they are ignorant and need to conform their beliefs with facts. Guess what. They don’t care about facts. Facts are dismissed unless they conform to one’s preconceived ideas. That’s your human nature for you: ignorant and determinedly so.
All great suggestions except the part about involving the Department of the Army. The Army would turn it into an irredeemable clusterf*&k. One of the many dirty little secrets out there right now is that the upper crust of the Army is now a bunch of soft-bellied rear echelon types – not combat arms men. Don’t believe the lie that anyone who wears a uniform is a warrior. The Army is currently awash in political correctness run amok.
Given the state of health in the US today, you might want to reconsider the “able bodied” statement. Such a standard would see a lot of law abiding people disarmed. Perhaps changing that to non-felons and/or habitual offenders. After all, someone might not be physically able to run around in the field but would be perfectly capable of doing static work like garrison duty, manning the barricades, or overwatch from fixed positions, or simply carry concealed as the rest of the article states.
Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good. On the other hand, an amendment such as the Second Amendment can be further ammended and even **repealed** as Article 18 was done by Article 27. (The latter repeal information submited by Tom Perkins)
Acts of gun violence inflaming the conscience of a constitutionally required majority in the states and the Second Amendment could be left found only in history books! So all you people who think you know the constitution so well and think its some absolute grant of God had better get far more educated pretty quick and learn how to compromise when and if needed!
Just wait until pictures of all those most recent dead babies and others to come begin to surface — they will! In the meantime, data on gun violence with military style and class weapons will continue to stack up. The ‘common’ class guns are slowly but surely being relegated to the obsolete dust bin.
Irresponsiblity enacts laws regardless of any irresponsible defense.
You have a point. That is why in the Confederate Constitution the “Bill of Rights” were made part of the Constitution and not merely tacked on afterward. That is Section 9.13. The other basic rights are in that same section.
If one reads the both documents and compares them, you can see that the Confederate Framers applied many lessons learned to their work, many of which answer problems we are facing today. Most people won’t do this, however, because of the slavery issue, neatly ignoring that slavery was also legal in the US Constitution.
Thane since I know you’ve followed along on these topics, thought I’d share something with. Note the conversations advocating constitutionality of armed ‘unregulated malitia’s’ as their legitmacy. Then note what these people intend/define as their purpose — policing communities and tyranical governments, well beyond the scope of hunting, sports shooting, defending ones home and well beyond the term “lawful use” as codified.
Now imagine all the different gangs of East LA declaring themselves as constitutionally protected ‘unregulated malitia’s’ granting themselves unregulated policing powers over the community and government. Using the logic of most responders on here, how could they be denied? The few states who have the new ‘stand-your-ground’ laws is bringing this matter in-part to surface though that law only grants to an individual fearing ‘for his own’ life or safety.
Imagine if you will, an armed confrontation taking place between undercover DEA agents or other undercover police in a drug deal, in a public location. Now, imagine some of the PJM advocates driving by with their AR15 by their side and a shot rings out. If they are as nuts as their comments indicate, who are they going to wipe out? They wouldn’t have a clue who is the good guy vs. the bad guy. The same potential situation could occur in many senarios. Next, who is going to declare a government as tyrannical? By what or whose standard(s) and definition(s)?
The comments by many on PJM on this subject would indicate the Second Amendment is headed for ‘real’ trouble at some point without a shot being fired. Especially, if these kinds of people try to mount some kind of movement across the country based on the kinds of comments made here on this subject. I supose they don’t have a clue these kinds of site are well monitored for bait and other….lets just say other things.
“Now imagine all the different gangs of East LA declaring themselves as constitutionally protected ‘unregulated malitia’s’ granting themselves unregulated policing powers over the community and government. Using the logic of most responders on here, how could they be denied?”
Wouldn’t matter if they did Zeke, if they continued to commit crimes.
Try imagining a real problem.
Also, I haven’t heard anyone claiming that the unorganized militias are unregulated or are possessed of more policing power than are any other individual citizen. I have read and have myself written your opinions about the 2nd Amendment are BS, that’s because they are.
“The same potential situation could occur in many senarios.”
Except it keeps on not happening, although more and more people CCW.
Try imagining a real problem.
“The comments by many on PJM on this subject would indicate the Second Amendment is headed for ‘real’ trouble at some point without a shot being fired.”
If we don’t stand up for it’s true purpose, it’s already gone.
Try imagining a real problem.
“I supose they don’t have a clue these kinds of site are well monitored for bait and other….lets just say other things.”
With regard to that concern, I have already observed this…
“Sure, many there are feds. Pay attention, don’t be stupid, and even if the whole admin there get alphabet soup paychecks…it’ll will do far more good than harm.”
Zeke, your problem is, you think you are actually smarter than the average bear.
Now imagine all the different gangs of East LA declaring themselves as constitutionally protected ‘unregulated malitia’s’ granting themselves unregulated policing powers over the community and government. Using the logic of most responders on here, how could they be denied? The few states who have the new ‘stand-your-ground’ laws is bringing this matter in-part to surface though that law only grants to an individual fearing ‘for his own’ life or safety.
You imagine it, you ninny. The rest of us note that you give the game away by saying the gangs would form “unregulated militias.” It was settled back about the time of the Whiskey Rebellion that random private militias weren’t what a “well-regulated militia” means.
“It was settled back about the time of the Whiskey Rebellion that random private militias weren’t what a “well-regulated militia” means.”
Precisely correct! Haven’t you been following all the responses to other posted topics on this subject? By the way, name calling didn’t add a single thing of value to your comment! You should know better as 1) a contributor represent PJM and 2) as a suposed mature adult.
But back to the point. Regulated malitia’s are well defined and statutorily regulated and simply has no basis for many of the comments made on this subjet and malitia’s. That said, their is one legitimate argument for unregulated maltitia’s and only a few states have wandered into that territory of more recent times. However, that option too is well regulated and only a small minority of gun owners would submit to those regulations.
The argument of several that a purely unregulated malitia of indiviuals is what the constitutions Second Amendment grants to them to defend against some potential tyrannical government and police/defend citizens from assaults and who knows what else, is pure idiocy. Sure, every citizen has a right to intervene with reasonable force to stop what is known to be a serious felony being committed. That however, is overwhelming not advised by law enforcement since an untrained individual or group can easily create an even potentially greater threat to public safety. My point was made soley upon many comments posted on this subject. To many are representing extremes which simply are not grounded in the constitution, the Second Amendment or statutory law.
Read what the federal courts and supreme court has to say about about public safety, defense and guns. The bottomline is rather simple. A continued increase in violent crimes and deaths with guns, will most certainly be followed with more severe regulatory laws being enacted, albeit the Second Amendment, will not allow for removing all guns or all uses from private owmnership.
“Precisely correct! Haven’t you been following all the responses to other posted topics on this subject?”
Haven’t you noticed that they only thing well regulated meant was well equipped and practiced? Haven’t you notices most gun owners are netter practiced than the police? That they shoot bystanders less often and respond quicker to emergencies? That the body count when they show up to an active shooter is far lower? That the fact they are illegal in some location attracts shooters to those location?
Mr. Martin gets it drastically wrong by implication, although I see where his train of thought left the tracks. The militia groups loooking at AWRM.org are exactly what that 2nd amendment is intended to foster, and while they are random assemblages in keeping with the free association right recognized in the first amendment, they are not engages in violating the laws of society or of opposing the government by violence–as were those engage in the Whiskey rebellion. There never was a law against the militia which was intended to be called up when required, practicing so as to be well drilled and “regular” when called.
Regular here no more means regulated into being a military and political nullity any more than it means Metamucil. There was never any requirement for the government to call the militia into regular drill to keep the 2nd amendment relevant, than there is for us to write a letter to the editor annually to preserve our right to free speech. The operative words restricting government power are “shall not be infringed”, quite categorical ones.
“The argument of several that a purely unregulated malitia of indiviuals is what the constitutions Second Amendment grants to them to defend against some potential tyrannical government and police/defend citizens from assaults and who knows what else, is pure idiocy.”
Actually, the prospect of exactly that has prevented enemy action on our soil in WWII, and it’s not like drastically less well equipped and far less practiced opponents haven’t recently given several quite well equipped and modern militaries fits in recent years, and against the then and likely future Democrat Party disloyal opposition, those opponents very nearly inspired those fools to strike our tents. In the future conflict you presume is an impossible victory for the “militia”, the “militia” without doubt would be augmented by millions of ex-servicemen. The impossible task belongs to the tyrant.
“That however, is overwhelming not advised by law enforcement since an untrained individual or group can easily create an even potentially greater threat to public safety.”
Except that keeps on not happening, not even once. Well there was that one guy in a superhero costume in Seattle, but somehow I don’t think that’s what either of us is talking about, and that’s one guy in the whole country’s history.
“Read what the federal courts and supreme court has to say about about public safety, defense and guns.”
With respect to the 2nd amendment, it doesn’t matter one whit what they’ve said, when most of what has been said conflicts with either Miller, Heller, or MacDonald.
“A continued increase in violent crimes and deaths with guns, will most certainly be followed with more severe regulatory laws being enacted, albeit the Second Amendment, will not allow for removing all guns or all uses from private owmnership.”
Actually, it may well lead to nationwide CCW and no “gun free zones”. And there is no point in either the ’34 or ’68 federal gun laws, or Hughes amendment. All of these being feelgood measure having no good effect not better had by other, constitutional means, they may well all go away as they should.
By the way, name calling didn’t add a single thing of value to your comment!
Nonsense. It made me feel better, and it identified a nincompoop.
WTF are you going on about Zeke? I was talking explicitly about the alcohol amendments, which are the 18th and 21st. Do you actually know anything about what you are talking about?
“Article I, Section 8 gives broad authority to the congress to enact laws for the common good.”
None of which can conflict with later amendments. They must be interpreted in a manner which brings the whole text into harmony, and there is no way to do that which authorizes the prevention of the private ownership of items of military utility, because the language of the 2nd, like the 1st, is categorical. No law can be made which restricts the freedom to speak your mind, no law may ban guns, or radios, or armor. Their storage and use can be restricted to keep the risk they pose minimal, but a path to private ownership must be open, and training in in their use allowed. If the states and congress neglect their duty to have the militia trained and equipped, the militia is free to do it on their own as they please–the people may not be disarmed by institutional disinterest on the part of government.
“Just wait until pictures of all those most recent dead babies and others to come begin to surface — they will!”
They already do, in places like Chicago, but no liberal actually cares about black babies, Zeke, they just pretend they do.
“Irresponsiblity enacts laws regardless of any irresponsible defense.”
Just keep your gun-grabbing pointed at people who actually abuse their liberties Zeke, and we won’t ever have to go troll hunting.
Bless your heart.
Welcome back your honor! Ooops! I think I may have inadvertantly promoted you.
Until you provide legitmate citations to support your claim that the second amendment cannot be disturbed in-part you’re offering only opinion.
Other legal adversaries equal to or supassing your own legal qualification might suggest in opinion that all gun owners be required to become members of a state broadly construed malitia, thus, they would be obliged by law to keep their guns in a locked, steel safe to which only the registered owner has access. They could also be obliged to undergo certain testing and evaluation before being permitted to own certain kinds of guns—or, depending on the state, barred from owning certain types of guns at all, or barred from keeping them at home (that is, they could buy and own them, but they would have to keep those guns at the firing range, which after all is the only place where they can be legitimately used). States have many of these powers even now. This opinion also suggests ‘hunting’ rifles to be exempt.
What are your citations to defend against this opinion?
Then of course another well known member of the juris prudence made this claim: “Additionally, of course the right was not unlimited.” “Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
Present your best citations and argument for this if you will.
Court found that “outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense. There is a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.”
Do you have legal opinions or citations to the contrary?
Seventh Circuit most recently: “…is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Judge Posner does remark that he is at odds with the Second Circuit opinion as to some of its historical analysis, but also with its “suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction.”
Okay, I could continue on for some time but hopefully, you are pondering some glaring points.
It seems what so many of you on here like to present as constitutional settled points of law concerning the Second Amendment are not quite so settled. In fact, maybe you have taken note of issues such the weight of the Second Amendment relative to guns inside the home vs in the general public and ‘sensitive’ locations. Also consistant, is the inference to self defense. Likewise, you find no inferences to the Second Amendments malitia language. Next, comes the issue of “pulic safety” factored into the legal analysis and thus, most decisions.
As for the circumstance with ‘repealing’ the second amendment, you threw me an absolute, 18th/27th, and I threw another one back to you. Surely you learned there are NO absolutes in law. regardless, I’m most interested in your reply to: “Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose” as I cited up above.
“Other legal adversaries equal to or supassing your own legal qualification might suggest in opinion that all gun owners be required to become members of a state broadly construed malitia, thus, they would be obliged by law to keep their guns in a locked, steel safe to which only the registered owner has access.”
As has already been shown, all males between 17 and 45 are already members of the unorganized militia whether the states organizes them or not.
It might be required they hold government issued weapons so, but not their privately held arms–although large collections of black gunpowder could be required to be held in locked strongboxes made of wood, anti-static plastics and non-sparking metals. Smokeless propellant has no such inflammable properties.
“They could also be obliged to undergo certain testing and evaluation before being permitted to own certain kinds of guns—or, depending on the state, barred from owning certain types of guns at all, or barred from keeping them at home (that is, they could buy and own them, but they would have to keep those guns at the firing range, which after all is the only place where they can be legitimately used). States have many of these powers even now.”
If by certain kinds of guns you mean weapons of a range permitting or anticipating their use in indirect fire, or weapons having an other than point area of effect, or weapons above some energy level associated with single pieces of artillery–recall that privately held cannon were not unknown, but they could generally not be fired in town–then you might as a matter of public safety be correct. Yet if it were required such be held in a local public magazine, then it could not be in the hands of the local or federal government, such that the militia is prevented from training as they choose, if the government chooses to never call them to train.
“What are your citations to defend against this opinion?”
That DC vs. Heller holds that laws preventing firearms from being ready to hand and as such available for immediate defensive use, are impermissible infringement of the right to be armed.
“Present your best citations and argument for this if you will.”
I’ve never said it is unlimited, for example, it does not protect the private ownership of weapons of no militia utility, such as nuclear or biological weapons. A case can be made that small chemical weapons of the non-persistent type are consistent with militia and regular military use, however their use is proscribed by ratified treaty.
“Do you have legal opinions or citations to the contrary?”
Yes, open carry is the law of the land throughout the United States, however harassed its practicers may be by local law enforcement. I cite the “keep and bear” phrase of the 2nd amendment in protecting the right to open carry any firearm weapon you can in public, hoplophobes be damned.
” There is a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.”
Laws against brandishing and making threats do in fact promote the public safety, however, given the dearth of poor outcomes with respect to liberalized CCW, laws preventing the public carriage of arms are increasingly failing the “rational basis” test. You may note that Chicago will now be forced to issue CCW on a “shall issue” basis as a result of Michael Moore, et al. v. Lisa Madigan. Of course the “use” of firearms, if by that you mean firing them, can be legislated against, however such regulations cannot prevent their being fired in cases of self defense, or presented to discourage crime either.
“suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction”
It is correct there is no historical or rational basis for believing the 2nd amendment is of greater effect inside as opposed to outside the home, the language of the amendment makes no such distinction, and “bear” clearly implies walking around with guns, and with that openly of course with respect to long arms.
“Okay, I could continue on for some time but hopefully, you are pondering some glaring points.”
You’ve said nothing which justifies any past or present infringements of the right protected the 2nd amendment yet.
“It seems what so many of you on here like to present as constitutional settled points of law concerning the Second Amendment are not quite so settled.”
The laws passed by legislatures and decisions made by lesser courts, have frequently denigrated the 2nd amendment, however, the decisions made by the Supreme Court have alluded to an expressly insurrectionist purpose to the amendment, and one categorically in favor of the private possession of what arms the public chooses to have, provided they have a connection to putative service in the militia, and that without regard to the level of militia activity which governments involved choose to sponsor–you should be awareof US v. Miller, DC v. Heller, MacDonald, etc. before you spout off about the 2nd amendment, and how it doesn’t mean much in this day and age.
“18th/27th, and I threw another one back to you. ”
As you have already been corrected, the 21st repealed the 18th, you dolt! not the 27th.
“Surely you learned there are NO absolutes in law.”
The 2nd amendment is a absolute as the 1st, and the manufacture, transport, sale, purchase, carriage, repair of, and training with, and supply of ammunition for weapons held privately is legal in fact, no law to the contrary is enforceable, but is “null and void” as per Marbury. Derogations of and infringements upon the 2nd amendment right of person in this country are violation human rights and lead to attempted atrocities such as the Newton shooting working out very well for the perpetrators. On such as Pelosi and Feinstein, and Bloomberg’s head be whatever onus is is not the shooters.
Very interesting given the fact that the constitutional premise of broad gun ownership and a qualifying of types of weapons have not come before the high court — not even the ban of “assualt” weapons when enacted nor when enacting statutory laws prohibiting certain class types of military weapons for sales to the general public.
As for your theory of constitutional absolutes. Everything that goes up comes down. Everything born into life – dies. Those bits of fact does not exclude governments and constitutions.
Be what it may, you and yours have a great Christmas.
“Very interesting given the fact that the constitutional premise of broad gun ownership and a qualifying of types of weapons have not come before the high court”
How ignorant and stupid do you have to be, to spout off here about that, when US v. Miller hinged on that very point–were short barrel shotguns associated with normal militia functions?
Well, I suppose you have to be “Zeke”.
Remember, I’m not advocating anything the equivelent to repealing the Second Amendment. I am however, suggesting that prominent legal minds in the realm of the constitution and its amendments do not view it in the manner you do and as such, lend great creedence to the possibility of amending to further regulate the issues of firearms, their ownership and uses.
“Remember, I’m not advocating anything the equivelent to repealing the Second Amendment.”
Holding its exact words to be a legal nullity, as you have, is exactly that–a de facto repeal. It is no less a tragedy and atrocity.
“I am however, suggesting that prominent legal minds in the realm of the constitution and its amendments do not view it in the manner you do”
I cite Miller, Heller, and MacDonald as holding that there are no controlling legal opinions which oppose an insurrectionist view of the amendment, Miller as expressly supporting such, and that Heller and MacDonald demand that privately held armaments must be legally available on the person and in the home of those who choose to have them for defensive purposes.
“and as such, lend great creedence to the possibility of amending to further regulate the issues of firearms, their ownership and uses.”
Such regulation, if it in fact increases the public safety without in any way burdening the “keep and bear” and “shall not infringe” wording of the 2nd amendment is fine.
Which leaves damn little of it to be done.
Hm. Of course, someone could attempt to amend the Constitution. I remember when the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed.
Of course, you don’t answer the most substantive point of the article, which is that in fact none of the things the gun-banners have proposed will actually work. If you think you can get three-fifths of the states to go for an Amendment, you’re welcome to, but I think counting on your fingers might suggest you’ve got no appreciable chance.
Charlie — I am only addressing the process for which the constitution and its amendments can be amended or futher amended. There is a general attitude by responders on this subject that the constition and its language is set in stone espceially, the Second Amendment. As you will note in my reply to Mr. Perkins up above after your post, the issues of the Second Ammendment and its language, are not matters of either absolute nor settled law. As you and I well know, guns and their ownership have been regulated for a very long time and continue to be re-regulated with pending court decisions as we speak.
I’m not an advocate of banning gun ownership — quite the contrary! I am however, for the very reason you you framed a question around “…that in fact none of the things the gun-banners have proposed will actually work” an advocate of regulating the types of weapons one can own that can and is used to create such human carnage of innocent people as witnessed with increase over the past few years. I am also not offended with the idea of further regulating the use of private owned weapons. Where I live ones military ID is automatically granted as a license to carry a concealed weapon. Throughout any given night and any part of town we hear gun shots ring out. Now consider also that most of these people also own military style and classes of weapons. And of course, living in the South full auto military and military style weapons are most commonplace. Many returning soldiers across all the service branches line up hoping to be diagnosed as having PTSD to claim disability benefits. As I stated in another previous posting, there are NO means by which to pre-diagnose a person that has not be adjudicated or is voluntarily in some level of mental health services. Should those owning or attempting to buy a weapon be forced violate protected medical information?
The only thing that can be done ‘reasonably’ in the interest of public safety is regulate ownership and use by some means that ‘lessens’ the odds of irresponsible gun ownership.
The children of our society should not have to be educated inside secure prison like facilities. Our citizens should not have to attend a movie in secure prison like theater and on down the line. That kind of thing hardly portrays a free and secure society! The idea portrayed by many responders here on this subject that more guns and unregulated malitia’s policing communities is pure idiocy.
The children of our society should not have to be educated inside secure prison like facilities. Our citizens should not have to attend a movie in secure prison like theater and on down the line. That kind of thing hardly portrays a free and secure society!
Oh, I agree. If you’ll notice, prison populations are usually characterized by not having guns.
The idea portrayed by many responders here on this subject that more guns and unregulated malitia’s policing communities is pure idiocy.
Because, after all, why would someone want to do more of what has proven effective to replace gun bans, which have proven ineffective>
“Oh, I agree. If you’ll notice, prison populations are usually characterized by not having guns.”
Although it should give the hoplophobes pause, the number of smuggled in and expediently manufactured “zip” guns should point out the abject futility of confiscation.
“Because, after all, why would someone want to do more of what has proven effective to replace gun bans, which have proven ineffective”
Zeke is clearly unable to pass muster by the “rational basis” test, and I mean him personally.
There is a significant lack of understanding here regarding the function, regulation and practical operations of the militia. This is unsurprising since the militia model of shared governance between the states and the feds produced poor combat results as early as before the 1860′s. The Dick Act of 1903 federalized all the state militias, btw. A couple of facts for your consideration…
The constitutional missions of the militia are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Specifically the militia is to defend against invasion and rebellion and to enforce the law.
The original scope and intent of the founding generation regarding the militia is pretty clearly laid out in The Militia Act of 1792. You can read that for your selves, but I’ll point out a couple of relevant facts and hopefully clear up some misconceptions above.
1) Militia officers have commissions from the state government, they are not self-appointed.
2) The government can require you to own a gun. It did in 1792. And other supplies like ammunition, packs, etc.
3) The government can require you to show up with said equipment and drill and not pay you. And fine or imprison you if you fail to follow orders.
4) A gang of drunks with guns is not a militia.
5) Militias even operate at sea (naval militia). And so on…
While the Militia Act is no longer in force there are plenty of modern laws which are now operative. 10 USC 311 to name one (last amended in 1956). And there are plenty of state laws which are now in effect as well. Even on the left coast in Kali, we have a state militia – the California State Military Reserve. Many other states have similar. It would be helpful is some here did their homework before they opined.
That said, it’s well within our legal tradition to use local forces like militias for a variety of security functions. We have some of the framework in place now (and more in some states than others) and what’s missing could certainly be dealt with. But, be careful what you wish for. Historically state governors used state militia forces as their private armies (for example during strikes).
Overall, I’m in favor of something like the Swiss model here in the US – including a much smaller professional military (hey, Europe can pay for its own defense).
“1) Militia officers have commissions from the state government, they are not self-appointed.”
That was de jeure. What happened in fact was the militia elected it’s own officers, and tended to stay home if the officers they elected didn’t get state commissions.
“2) The government can require you to own a gun. It did in 1792. And other supplies like ammunition, packs, etc.”
Yes it can. This does not however, obversely, permit the government to prohibit the possession of other weapons or their use, training, and supply for the same.
“3) The government can require you to show up with said equipment and drill and not pay you. And fine or imprison you if you fail to follow orders.”
Yes it could, however, juries are required to convict for same unless in service for a war, and the failure of juries to convict for such crimes led to the collapse of the government organized “unorganized” militia. That result might not obtain today.
“4) A gang of drunks with guns is not a militia.”
No one has argued to the contrary, to my knowledge.
“5) Militias even operate at sea (naval militia). And so on…”
Yes, privately armed vessels are plainly authorized by the constitution, and the government is not empowered to prevent such. They may, however, find few ports open to them internationally.
“Even on the left coast in Kali, we have a state militia – the California State Military Reserve. Many other states have similar. ”
The existence of such is laudable, but cannot constitutionally disparage or dis-empower the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment, which is the common populace with or without governmental support, leave, assistance, or neglect either benign or malign.
While the Militia Act is no longer in force there are plenty of modern laws which are now operative. 10 USC 311 to name one (last amended in 1956).
Okay, now tell me the truth — did you read the second page of this article?
i agree 100%, problem is that liberals can care less about the truth, they twist facts to fit their objectives
Unfortunately the politicians are not looking for solutions. They are looking for reasons to disarm the American public.
You can add safe storage laws to the list since we are talking about a 20 year old who was apparently quite intelligent, but unstable. Sounds a lot like the Aurora shooter.
CHINESE JOIN DEMOCRATS IN CALLING FOR GUN CONFISCATION
If you’re reading this, I’m not dead and neither are you. That means Doomsday didn’t … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/12/chinese-join-democrats-in-calling-for-gun-confiscation/
**Charlie Martin**
By the way, name calling didn’t add a single thing of value to your comment!
“Nonsense. It made me feel better…”
Charlie, theres an appropriate clinical psychological diagnosis for such people. Them thar sheep skins don’t warranty against mental defect.
Be what it may Charlie, you and yours have a Merry Christmas.
**Tom Perkins**
“How ignorant and stupid do you have to be, to spout off here about that, when US v. Miller hinged on that very point–were short barrel shotguns associated with normal militia functions?”
Tom, you self servingly ignored the central point of my comment. Gee, according to you the Miller case is some all encompassing etched in stone gun rights decision. I can just picture you standing before the high court presenting your brief and citations – your honor, Miller said….your honor miller said…your honor, Miller said….your honor, Miller said…your honor, Miller said… ignoring their nodding off and snickering. The fact is, that by precedent, guns and gun types can be regulated! Join the world of reality and the 21st century!
Zeke, you’re an obnoxious lefty prick. I don’t know whether you’re a lawyer or not, but you’ve adopted all the lefty defense lawyer prick tactics – you yell louder and appear certain. Fortunately, there are many of us for whom this isn’t the first appearance and we know that most self-respecting judges know BS artists like you at first sight. Anybody half-assed smart can make an argument; only some of them actually work. Now, it really is time for you to stop yelling, sit down, and, really, go away. You’re not welcome here, your tactics aren’t welcome, and your BS isn’t welcome.
**Tom Perkins**
Re: What federal courts and Supreme court have said.
“With respect to the 2nd amendment, it doesn’t matter one whit what they’ve said, when most of what has been said conflicts with either Miller, Heller, or MacDonald.
I’m to assume that the quote I included by Justice Rehnquist is just spittle in the wind. When the high court says that a literal reading of say the 1st and 2nd amendment allows for exceptions in their view, then you — say what to them to correct their err? By the very fact that guns, the manufacturing, sales and ownership of them have been long regulated (controlled) by the government and not distured by any case on appeal, that would indicate that the literal reading of the Second Amendment indeed allows for exception(s).
For example. Statutorily, a felon cannot own a weapon, with an exception allowed. Statutorily, persons with mental defect cannot own a weapon. Statutorily, weapons and munitions have been classified and their sales to the public regulated. And on down the line. So most anybody, can see that ownership has been regulated through exceptions to the Second Amenedment.
After having followed all the responses on the two similar topics here on PJM, I’m convinced more than ever, that far to many guns are ‘legally’ in the hands of those with clinical mental defect. No state has any shortage of radicalized minds like Army Major Nidal Hasan or Timothy McVeigh who legally own weapons. No state has any shortage of mental defect such as Army Sergeant Robert Bales, who owns weapons. No state has any shortage of mental defect like medical student james Holmes, who own weapons and we haven’t even gotten to the drunks, dopers and hotheads, etc. Most disturbing, after having followed endless numbers of online activist sites that mostly inflame and engrage the minds of their followers, the amount of displayed extreme radicalism and hate generated. For so many others it creates abnormal fear, anxiety, dilusion, etc., for whom most are probably gun owners across all socio-economic and educational lines.
I’m most familiar with a MD, a judge and a minister whom all got involved with radicalism in their reading and online to the point it destroyed their professional practices. Of course they were exceptional from the norm and were able to see they were on an even more destructive path and sought professional help. Thus, I’m now and advocate of gun owners and prospective gun owners having to take appropriate psychological testing on a reoccuring basis.
“When the high court says that a literal reading of say the 1st and 2nd amendment allows for exceptions in their view, then you — say what to them to correct their err?”
When someone on the SCOTUS say nothing which contradicts what the SCOTUS has earlier said, and what the SCOTUS has said does not support you, then you still have no quote from the SCOTUS which supports you.
Of course there are reasonable and constitutional gun safety laws, but there are none which involve waiting periods, prohibitions, ammunition quotas, banned ammunition types, maximum collection sizes, etc.–none which can constitutionally have any effect on individual adult citizens who are not criminals or insane.
“By the very fact that guns, the manufacturing, sales and ownership of them have been long regulated (controlled) by the government and not distured by any case on appeal, that would indicate that the literal reading of the Second Amendment indeed allows for exception(s).”
If the SCOTUS does not want to overturn tens of thousands of cases wholesale, despite the fact those convictions are in contradiction with there recent ruling s in Heller or MacDonald, or there earlier Miller decision, you’ll have to take that injustice and lack of consistency with them. And in fact, such civil rights violations as Jim Crow laws were long enforced and held valid although obviously contradictory tot he constitution. An evil of long standing does not become less evil by it’s duration.
” Statutorily, weapons and munitions have been classified and their sales to the public regulated.”
The first two are ok, this one is unconstitutional, because it prevents individual people from acquiring the weapons they would need for militia service, as per Miller.
“After having followed…and educational lines.”
And the proper response is to try locate the vanishingly small percentage of people who are deranged–and it seems clear in hindsight all the shooters you mentioned had obvious mental deficiencies, or were adhering to the enemies of the United States in time of war–and they should have been locked in a mental ward or Guantanamo. There is no response of confiscation or prohibition or restriction with respect to the private ownership of firearms, which could be expected to improve the outcome of any of those shooters or like shooters crimes. Instead, the more ubiquitous CCW and de-stigmatization of open carry is the best answer to the inevitable existence of such persons who slip through the mental health system, and easier involuntary commitment is the best approach within the mental health system.
“I’m most familiar with a MD, a judge and a minister whom all got involved with radicalism…testing on a reoccuring basis.
Uh-huh. You start saying the same thing about people who bother to keep their smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, medicines and first aid kit in date, and a) then I’ll take you seriously and b) I’ll know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you need the professional help.
ATF raid on the business where the guns used in a murder were purchased.
You might say the government response was fast and furious. Wonder what kind of firearms they will discover.
Actually there is a better way to “regulate” the militia. Here is how you do it:
(1) Require all gun owners to register for militia service. Require they must register those guns that they own (which they must make available for service). They must pass a psych screen to qualify for service.
(2) Require all militia members to muster for drill once a month. Officers to be provided by the state. NCO’s to be elected among militia members.
(3) Require all militia members to muster for two weeks of drill during the summer.
(4) Militia service required of all gun owners irrespective of age or gender.
(5) Require all militia members to maintain physical conditioning per current US Army standards (by age of member). Give all militia members PT tests and require additional drill for those members who fail to pass the test. Militia members who fail to pass the PT test may be required to drill as frequently as every weekend until they comply with PT standards.
(6) Failure to comply with militia service obligations shall constitute a felony. One may satisfy militia service obligations by giving up all of their guns.
(7) After 7 years of militia service, militia members may seek authorization from militia officers and cadre for a “concealed carry permit” that would allow them to cary weapons concealed when acting in service of the militia.
(8) State governors would be able to mobilize the militia to support the national guard.
(9) State governors could call out the militia at their discretion for other state needs.
(10) All militia members would be required to purchase their own uniforms which they must wear when on their way to or from drill, or when they are in service. Uniforms would be bright red coveralls. There would be bright red winter jackets. There would be bright red boots.
(11) Militia members would be required to supply their own ammunition for drill. At drill, members would be required to show proficiency on all of their weapons.
(12) At any time, at the discretion of the militia officers, militia members would be required to produce their weapons for inspection to show that they were in good order and properly stored.
In sum, that is the way to use the militia. Do not, as Mr. Martin suggests, make everyone join the militia. Instead, make all people who want to own guns join the militia. And make the militia actually drill.
Unfortunately for your plan Harry, the founders were pretty explicit that your proposal was a non-starter. You’re suggesting what their generation would have called a “select” militia. They pretty well said no to that – I tend to agree with them, not you. Especially regarding the red uniforms. Ugh. I could go on, but, then, keeping and bearing arms is a right of the people per our Constitution, not a right of the militia. You seem to have missed that part, too.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…” — “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
Uh ohhhh.
We’d better ban Geely Sedans and Kitchen Knives.
Or…. Maybe not.
It’s not the tools, it’s the person. Bad people will always find a way to murder if their heart desires it, they will find a way regardless of banning the weapon of choice. Are we to ban pens and pencils? I’m sure someone has used these tools to murder before! Are they now called “Assault Pens and Pencils”? Come on!!!! Give your head a serious shake.
@DRUDGE_REPORT: Man distraught over daughter’s murder mows down 23 middle-school students… http://t.co/2KKIEg47