Journal pudge's Journal: Give a Gun for Christmas (While You Still Can) 31
In Seattle Democrats' latest assault on the Constitution, several state legislators are attempting to ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons and force current owners to submit to background checks.
Why? Because "there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state." Why? Because, according to Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire, "These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."
All types of guns are weapons of war. All guns can kill. And no, these guns cannot shoot 200 bullets a minute, not with accuracy, and not at a sustained rate before they break down.
(I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns. You'd think being informed would be a prerequisite for a position like that.)
So really, why? Rep. Ross Hunter and Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are proposing to ban semi-automatics "designed for military use" (which would be determined, no doubt, by subjecting the gun designers to Vulcan mind melds) that are "capable of rapid fire" (which is likely a synonym for either "automatic," or "semi-automatic") and "can hold more than 10 rounds," motivated in part by the slaying in October of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton, with a
The "10 rounds" thing is a dumb ploy: it's meant simply to exclude hunting rifles, which are ballistically equivalent to "military" rifles (the
Of course, Brenton could have been killed with a rifle not covered under this ban: witnesses heard eight to 10 shots. But facts don't matter when people are dying!
Now, the text of the bill isn't up, but this would probably ban the sale of some hunting rifles, and certainly would ban the sale most semi-automatic handguns, because most of them can accept clips of more than 10 rounds, and were designed with military use in mind (for example, the classic 1911 was designed explicitly for use in war, and you could easily make the argument that all semi-automatic weapons were designed for military use, given that they all use concepts designed for military weapons).
My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.
While the first repeating rifle as we know it today didn't come along for 100 years, it was not for lack of trying: the problems of reloading quickly were well-considered by The Framers, and many people of the time wondered what it would take to be able to just pull the trigger multiple times without having to reload. (Indeed, in 1780, Bartolomeo Girandoni developed his first repeater, an air rifle.) And there can be no doubt whatsoever that if they could have had such practical weapons, they would have loved for the citizens to have them, that they might be used against the British.
Maybe Kohl-Welles and her colleagues can join Fascitelli in taking a gun education class.
The guy sounds reallly ignorant (Score:2)
"These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."
It would have to be fully auto to do that, and iinm they're already illegal. They shouldn't be; the 2nd amendment is for if we ever need another revolution.
I want someone to explain why the board president of a gun control group doesn't know much about guns
Because if he knew anything about guns he wouldn't be against them. These bans are senseless; McVeigh blew up a federal building with fertilizer. You could kill someone with a kitchen k
Re: (Score:2)
"These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute."
It would have to be fully auto to do that
Not necessarily; I could fire semiauto at more than three rounds a second, which is 200 a minute. But I'd have to reload (which can be done quickly, but wastes a lot of seconds over the course of a minute), cannot be done with accuracy, and will break the gun quickly.
So if I can do say 4 rounds a second, and I can swap mags in one second, and have 20-round mags ... that works out to about 200 rounds. It's conceivable. But even if I could do that (I can't), I would still have no accuracy and the gun would
Re: (Score:2)
So if I can do say 4 rounds a second, and I can swap mags in one second, and have 20-round mags ... that works out to about 200 rounds. It's conceivable. But even if I could do that (I can't), I would still have no accuracy and the gun would break.
And that's why I'd rather go with a portable needlegun. Everyone listens to Reason ;)
Re: (Score:2)
These anti-gun people know nothing about guns, or how to shoot them.
They don't want to know. The long term goal is a complete prohibition against civilian gun ownership. The only reason that they exclude "hunting" weapons is because they know that going after them would result in too much public outcry, even in the blue states. Much easier if you are only going after those scary people with evil looking black rifles designed for "accurate spray firing from the hip".
It works too. I've talked to hunting buddies that refuse to join the NRA because "They want to legalize c
Re: (Score:1)
"It would have to be fully auto to do that, and iinm they're already illegal. They shouldn't be; the 2nd amendment is for if we ever need another revolution."
Since 1934, full-auto has been heavily restricted by the Federal gov't (and in some states, they're not allowed at all, it's true), but not illegal per se. Just pay a huge amount of money for a tax stamp, as well as undergo a background investigation, and only buy guns made before 1986 (because of another stupid law). Artificial restrictions have put t
Try living in the People's Republic of New York (Score:2)
In no particular order:
stupid people (Score:2)
My favorite quote in all this is from Kohl-Welles: "Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" Actually, yes, they almost surely did.
There's another response you could make to that: Yes they did. That's what Article V [wikipedia.org] is for. The framers were smart enough to know that the document would need to be updated with the times. I doubt they would have condoned the practice of ignoring the plain language just because it's hard to amend the document. Isn't it supposed to be hard?
Of course I doubt the founders would have had any problem with repeating firearms (as you pointed out) but this argument of non-anticipation really pisses me off. I
Re: (Score:2)
There's another response you could make to that: Yes they did. That's what Article V [wikipedia.org] is for. The framers were smart enough to know that the document would need to be updated with the times.
Her response would be, "yes, if you want semi-autos, you can amend the Constitution to get them."
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, yeah, that sounds like some of our politicians. Gotta love it.
Re: (Score:1)
"Stupid people" is actually why I think Liberals may not pursue disarming the populace on a national level anymore. There may be local poppings up of the gun control issue from time to time, as Dem politicians take it as an opportunity to suck up to their base. But the test is underway -- if govt. and our representatives blatantly do that which we strongly do not want them to do, and we let them get away with it, then there's no need for Liberals to fight that fight. There's no need to disarm a people with
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like them to try and take up gun control on the Federal level. It would only help in building the tidal wave that's coming their way in 2010. For better or worse though it seems that not even Nancy Pelosi is this stupid. Guess she isn't into losing floor votes and looking like an idiot.....
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like them to try and take up gun control on the Federal level. It would only help in building the tidal wave that's coming their way in 2010. For better or worse though it seems that not even Nancy Pelosi is this stupid. Guess she isn't into losing floor votes and looking like an idiot.....
Indeed, it would help us in 2010 a ton. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to see the GOP get back the House. The Senate is probably out of reach, although I'm guessing the "filibuster proof" majority will come to an abrupt end.
Here at home I wish the GOP could find someone viable to take on Paterson, Gillibrand and Schemer. Doubt it's going to happen though. The GOP bench in this state is empty. They haven't fielded a good statewide candidate in any election that I've ever been able to participate in.
Re: (Score:1)
Political commentator Dick Morris said on one of the talk shows tonight something along the lines of this is the first time that all this crass bribing of senators is being done out in the open in full view, instead of in secret in closed-door meetings. I'm paraphrasing and might not have it exactly correct, but it reinforces my belief that they're not too worried about any big wave coming in 2010. And generally these (i.e. United States senators) are extremely savvy kinds of people.
(And after giving that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the threat is exclusively from the Demoncrats you need to open your eyes a little wider. Victim disarmament is a bipartisan effort.
Really? I can't recall any significant number of Republicans trying to disarm anyone recently. Examples?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
George Pataki. Rudolph Giuliani. Michael Bloomberg (though he's calling himself an independent these days, whatever that means). Gun control is a bipartisan issue here in New York State I'm afraid.
Luger and Voinovich also voted against the concealed carry reciprocity [senate.gov] amendment in the US Senate. It failed 58-39. If they had voted on the correct side of the issue it would have passed.....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Bloomberg was never really a Republican. But a handful of Republicans does not a bipartisan effort make.
As to reciprocity, I am undecided on that, as I see it as a state issue ... as much as I would like its effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an issue with states regulating the where and when of carry within their borders (just as they get to set their own speed limits and traffic laws) but they shouldn't get to ignore a valid permit from another state. They have to accept my out of state drivers license. I have to obey their traffic laws. Don't see why carry permits can't be handled in the same manner.
Merry Christmas btw :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the feds have the right to interfere with the states and mandate they recognize driver's licenses for the sake of interstate commerce. That's a pretty clearly acceptable federal action. I see less rationale for this.
Merry Christmas!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as interference as long as the states are still allowed to regulate the manner of carrying. In some states you can't carry in restaurants that serve alcohol for example. In others you can. That wouldn't change if they had to recognize an out of state permit. It would still be the responsibility of the person crossing state lines to obey the local laws.
Have you been following the McDonald v. Chicago case? Any thoughts about it?
Re: (Score:2)
It would still be the responsibility of the person crossing state lines to obey the local laws.
But why shouldn't the state should be allowed to force conforming to whatever requirements to GET the permit in the first place?
Have you been following the McDonald v. Chicago case? Any thoughts about it?
I have written many times on incorporation, [google.com] and have several times predicted that the doctrine of selective incorporation -- which says that each part of the Bill of Rights must be incorporated to the states by the court -- is going to die. I think this case may do it, but even if it doesn't, I can't see how the Court could possibly not incorporate this particular right.
Re: (Score:2)
But why shouldn't the state should be allowed to force conforming to whatever requirements to GET the permit in the first place?
Because we don't let them do the same for drivers licenses? New York State requires a six hour course for all first time drivers before you are eligible to take your road test. In spite of that the state still has to recognize drivers licenses from states without that requirement.
Besides, it's not just about conforming to different requirements. Many states just plain refuse to issue permits to non-residents. You can't get one, don't even bother asking. It seems to me that one should be able to exerci
Re: (Score:2)
But why shouldn't the state should be allowed to force conforming to whatever requirements to GET the permit in the first place?
Because we don't let them do the same for drivers licenses?
Again, that's directly justifiable as an interstate commerce regulation: transportation in other states.
Many states just plain refuse to issue permits to non-residents.
That can be addressed separately (and indeed, once the Second Amendment is incorporated, I suspect it will be).
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that's directly justifiable as an interstate commerce regulation: transportation in other states.
What about full faith and credit?
Re: (Score:2)
What about full faith and credit?
What about it? Should it apply to hunting licenses? To business licenses? To licenses for practicing law? All of these licenses are state-specific.
What makes gun licenses different?
Full Faith and Credit means that other states have to respect "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." Full Faith and Credit is mostly about recognizing, as evidence, public documents from another state. So a state is required to recognize that two people are married because it is required to recognize that the mar
Re: (Score:2)
What about it? Should it apply to hunting licenses? To business licenses? To licenses for practicing law? All of these licenses are state-specific.
What makes gun licenses different?
The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected one that will in all likelihood soon be incorporated against the states? Why should someone who wishes to exercise this right need to obtain permission to do so from 50 different governments? Isn't that a pretty burdensome requirement for the exercise of a fundamental right?
or b. to effect federal legislation that would grant certain rights to the people regardless of state laws.
Something like the 14th amendment?
So I gotta say I still can't see a justification for it.
I do but no doubt part of that is my frustration with my own state. On this one issue I'm glad that we have Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected one that will in all likelihood soon be incorporated against the states?
It hasn't yet been, and even if it were, that simple fact doesn't tell us what form that right takes: to wit, the Second Amendment is absolutely silent on concealed carry.
If the feds wanted to legislate specific rights (e.g., all people have a right to carry a concealed handgun on their person or any private place with the owner's/resident's permission, or any public place [with some exceptions]), that may be a valid power of Congress (assuming incorporation), but ... it's a little bit of a stretch in the c
Re: (Score:2)
to wit, the Second Amendment is absolutely silent on concealed carry.
The right is to keep and bear arms. What good is the 'bear' part if you can't carry them? Can the state also outlaw open carry? Can they prohibit me from leaving the house with them altogether? What limitations would you place on the power of the states as regards the 2nd amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
The right is to keep and bear arms. What good is the 'bear' part if you can't carry them?
I don't see the word "concealed" in there. Do you see it in the text, history, assumptions of the Second Amendment? I don't, but am willing to be convinced by a good argument.
Re: (Score:1)
As I tried to convey in my comment, it's not as much that I think it's a uni-partisan issue as I think it's a uni-idealogical issue -- it is exclusively Liberals who want to disarm the populace. Which of course means a handful of Republicans, plus essentially the entire Democrat party less a (dwindling*) handful of holdouts for their own independence and integrity of principles.
*I say "dwindling" because the handful sticking to their principles on things like spending/deficits and abortion have been comprom