Beyond the gun show loophole
Wikimedia Commons
Gun advocates who fought limits on firearms shows have only themselves to blame for a national push to require background checks on all sales.
For years, gun rights advocates have scoffed at efforts in Virginia to close the gun show loophole, arguing that the loophole does not exist. Their intent was to obfuscate rather than educate.
They have only themselves to blame now that narrowly tailored bills routinely dispatched each winter in Richmond are being replaced with a national push to institute universal background checks on all firearm sales, not just those at gun shows.
January 16, 2013 - 6:22 AM
I find it ironic that a group of people (the RTEB) who continually perpetuate the myth of a “gunshow loophole” claim that the intent of others is to “obfuscate rather than educate.”
Everyone knows what is meant by the term “gun show loophole” Michael. I think you’re just being pedantic.
For what it’s worth, when I called the legal counsel for the State Police to ask about the gun buy-back, etc., he referred to the gun show loop hole explicitly when he described situation where people meet at a gun show but rather than buying a gun through a licensed seller, will meet in the parking lot to make the exchange. So selling between private individuals without a background check is what is meant by the phrase gun show loop hole.
Perhaps if the phrase “gun show loop hole” bothers you so much, you could suggest a more appropriate expression?
The premise of this editorial is that the federal government would not initiate more restrictive gun laws had Virginians beat the feds to the punch. Who really believes anymore, that this administration is going to wait for the states to provide leadership on anything? Right or left, I think the vast majority of Americans understand that this administration prefers federal action on EVERY issue. This is central to “progressive” politics: social engineering for the benefit of the general welfare, designed by the smartest people in the room, and universally implemented at the federal level.
Roanoke Times, you can’t have it both ways. It’s these kinds of snarky, “neener-neener” editorials that allow readers to see its political bias–a bias that certainly is not limited to the editorial pages. We already have enough of this in our federal congress–a congress that this newspaper routinely blasts for its lack of maturity, by the way.
Still, I thank you for maintaining an online presence; I would never actually purchase a subscription to this rag.
I’m with Bill Van Velzer.
“So selling between private individuals without a background check is what is meant by the phrase gun show loop hole.” How are you Scott M….it’s been awhile. However, you are incorrect. The gunshow loophole is exactly what the editorial describes: private sellers sitting at tables beside licensed dealers. What you describe going on in the parking lot is not a gunshow loop hole, but a private sale loop hole. There will be no fix, IMO, for those sales.
#2 – “Perhaps if the phrase “gun show loop hole” bothers you so much, you could suggest a more appropriate expression?”
No need to suggest one at all, Scott. It’s called a face-to-face transaction. It’s perfectly legal and can take place anywhere…no gun show necessary.
It’s a made-up, hyped-up term used by the left and gungrabbers to make it sound as if gun buyers are skirting the law…which they are not.
Perhaps instead of making such transactions illegal, they should make it possible for private sellers to conduct background checks on buyers. But no, we can’t have that…how else would we have knowledge of who’s buying guns?
#5 – Oops. Third paragraph should have said “Gun show loop hole is a made up term…”
It sure would be nice if we could edit posts.
Perhaps instead of making such transactions illegal, they should make it possible for private sellers to conduct background checks on buyers. But no, we can’t have that…how else would we have knowledge of who’s buying guns?
Comment by Michael — January 16, 2013 @ 11:27 am
And there is where the true motives are revealed. It’s more about registration, which is exactly what you’d end up with. Registration is step 1.
By the way, I have no guns. I knew all of this was coming, didn’t want to deal with it, so I put them all in the trash can last week and the garbage truck picked them up and I assume they are all in a landfill now.
How is this going to be enforced. If local and state police can not enforce federal laws, such as immigration, then they DO NOT have to enforce these federal laws. The govt does not have enough manpower to enforce this.
So basically it falls back on local and state no matter what Obama decides to do.
Phil, I’m fine. Thanks for asking.
I’ll accept the correction. So what do you think? We start calling it the ‘private sale loop hole’?
Michael, I realize it’s legal but what do you think about the new phrase?
#8 – “Registration is step 1.”
Which leads to Step 2: Confiscation.
I do however agree with back ground check on any purchase of a firearm and also if they can install a device that will only fire if it recognizes the onwers finger print or his family.
Whatever you want to call it, President Obama wants to end the loophole by requiring universal background checks. I agree it will be hard to enforce, but it will be difficult for organizers of gun shows to look the other way if the law clearly requires checks for all sales.
13 – well, it will just result in an expanded black market for guns.
but it will be difficult for organizers of gun shows to look the other way if the law clearly requires checks for all sales.
Comment by Christina Nuckols — January 16, 2013 @ 12:06 pm
If he does this through Executive Order, then the law would still not require it. President Obama, despite what he actually thinks, does not make laws.
…they can install a device that will only fire if it recognizes the onwers finger print or his family.
Comment by Herb — January 16, 2013 @ 12:01 pm
They’ve tried things like this before, but it was within proximity to a wristwatch-like device that a police officer would wear. It was supposed to prevent the gun from firing if it was taken from the officer. It was not too reliable, though.
Your fingerprint idea is probably one of the only ideas I’ve heard that is more silly than microstamping firing pins.
Jack, I have weapons and just ideas here.
I believe in the 2nd ammendment to the fullest but also I am sure with all the technology we have these days, there has got to be someway for the weapon not to fire unless it is done by the owner.
15..Why dont they have places at gun shows on entry that will do background checks. Once you pass you will be given a arm band or something that allows you to purchase. In the meantime you can browse will waiting for the instant check to come back.
15 – that is correct re Executive Orders. Only Congress makes laws.
With an EO, a President can order those that work directly for him (the Executive Branch) to circumvent laws; i.e., enforce things that are not law.
Ok Obama has laid out his plan. First good luck getting it passed. Second, he is in charge of the FTC, why doesnt he go after T.V shows that glorify gun violence. Maybe because that would hurt him with hollywood.
18..not enough manpower in the whole country to enforce that.Except the U.S military
#10 – “We start calling it the ‘private sale loop hole’?
No, thanks, Scott. Since there really isn’t a loophole of any kind, why would you insist on saying there is?
How can there be a loophole when one is complying with the law?
18..not enough manpower in the whole country to enforce that.Except the U.S military
Comment by Herb — January 16, 2013 @ 12:48 pm
Three words: Posse Comitatus Act
21 – well, totalitarian states have used their militaries to confiscate freedoms before.
15..Why dont they have places at gun shows on entry that will do background checks. Once you pass you will be given a arm band or something that allows you to purchase. In the meantime you can browse will waiting for the instant check to come back.
Comment by Herb — January 16, 2013 @ 12:36 pm
First, that only applies to gun shows, but the goal is to prevent all privates sales without a background check.
Second, it doesn’t tell them what you bought, which is more important to them than the background check itself. Registration is what they want.
17 – that’s a reasonable approach.
22..That act was repealed in 2008…
23.. more states agree with gun owners then totalitarian states exist.
This will lead to another division of the states.
This will not be enforced except in states like Mass, and calif.
Does anyone here really believe that Texas is going to enforce this.
For gosh sakes they gave up federal funds over abortion clinics.
25 and on the way out they must show a bill of sale for weapons purchased and record it that way.
#19 – “Second, he is in charge of the FTC, why doesnt he go after T.V shows that glorify gun violence.”
Because doing so doesn’t fit in with his plan to grab guns, which, despite his lie about not wanting to take away guns, has been his desire all along.
@Jack #22 & #24. I agree, and well said.
26 – by ‘states’ I was not referring to US states of the union, but to such totalitarian paradises as USSR, Nazi Germany, etc. They confiscated private property too.
27 – on they way in, if they came in to sell a gun, they’d have to tag any weapon they came in with, with a bill of sale showing they sold it (and to whom).
What about a knife that can only slice in the the hands of the original, registered purchaser?
How about a baseball bat that can only be swung by the original, registered purchaser? (That’s going to be a neat trick with all sorts of gravity and physics defying technology!)
How about a car? You’re probably more likely to die in a car ‘accident’ than at the hands of a mad gunner. Maybe they should only operate for their owner… oh, wait… we’ve already got that with keys and such… but those dang cars just keep on killing and killing!
I was reading an article on CNN earlier today. The article quoted Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesperson, saying that “approximately 250,000 people have joined the NRA’s existing 4.25 million memers…adding that if anyone is wondering if the American people cared about the 2nd Amendment…those numbers give a very clear answer.”
Now correct me if I am wrong, but according to 2011 information, there were 237.6 adults in the United States ages 18 and above (adults). If I do some simple math, 4.25 divided by 237.6 equals 1.79%.
Are they truly trying to say that a majority of the population of the United States is overwhelmingly against any type of gun control? I would have certainly expected the numbers of NRA members to have been in at least the 10′s of millions to be weilding the kind of clout they seem to carry. There must be some mighty rich money within that membership.
I find it ironic that that small a group seems to want to control the nation…while at the same time similar sized groups are scoffed at. I’m not nearly as impressed with the group as I once was…not that it matters to them one way or the other.
@21…Michael
Let’s not call it a loop hole then my friend…let’s call it a void. The void allows unintended consequences to take place. It’s time to fill the void with background checks at gun shows and private sales.
Of course, I still believe that limiting the ammunition is the way to go. I don’t care if you own an arsenal of AK-47′s, so long as you can’t get the ammo to go in them, I don’t really care.
29.. apparently u didn’t read my post 26 that Act was repealed in 2008
Jack I agree with you on USSR and Nazi Germany that’s how hitler became so powerful nobody could defend themselves and believe it or not I believe that’s what Obama wants
I’ve got a question about so-called face-to-face or private sales of guns. I’ve never owned a gun, so I just don’t know how gun transactions work. As I understand it (which maybe I don’t), if I buy a car from someone, I have to license the vehicle, and at that point I’m required to pay Virginia sales tax. Guns are not registered, I gather, but doesn’t sales tax still accrue to the transaction?
35 – I’m guessing (also not a gun owner) that you pay sales tax when you purchase it from a licensed dealer. I would equate a private sale to simply signing the title on the car over to someone else and them handing you cash.
One of the arguments for ownership of firearms is that it helps protect us against the evolution of a totalitarian government. I just can’t imagine how a semi-automatic rifle is going to protect me from a tank sitting in my driveway with its cannon pointed at my living room, or an armed drone flying over my rooftop. Everyone talks about how Hitler disarmed the Germans. Frankly I wonder whether, if the German people had kept their guns (and it would be interesting to know what kinds of guns those typically were), whether it would have slowed down the Nazi regime at all, or whether the mayhem would have made it even easier for them or given them justification to do even more evil things. These kinds of things are very hard to know, but maybe there is a lesson in what is going on presently in Syria. As time goes on the increasing disparity in force between the common man and his government makes the “protection from totalitarianism” argument sounds less believable. In principle it sounds good. So does wind energy.
#32 – If you feel somehing is missing, then yes, you could call it a “void” if you like. And personally, I have no problem requiring background checks provided no other information is required concerning the transaction. Unfortunately, that won’t be good enough for Uncle Sugar.
#35 – “Guns are not registered, I gather, but doesn’t sales tax still accrue to the transaction?”
On a face-to-face transaction between private parties, then no, no sales tax applies.
How about a car? You’re probably more likely to die in a car ‘accident’ than at the hands of a mad gunner. Maybe they should only operate for their owner… oh, wait… we’ve already got that with keys and such… but those dang cars just keep on killing and killing!
Comment by George Krutz, III — January 16, 2013 @ 1:59 pm
First argument you’ll get is that you can’t compare cars and guns, even though cars take more lives, you’ll hear that they weren’t designed to kill.
Apparently, someone killed with a gun is somehow more dead than someone killed by a car, I guess.
Second, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights about driving a car.
Third, and most importantly, this is not about saving lives. Yes, cars take more lives than guns, but again, it’s not about saving lives, it’s about hatred of guns.
Plain and simple.
37 – well, the other half of the equation that the Founders developed is that there would be only a minimal, bare bones standing army, if any at all. It was not envisioned that the US foreign policy would be as imperious, or imperial, as it is, where we continuously meddle in other nations’ affairs and have stationed around the globe.
If that vision were carried forward to today, you wouldn’t have to worry about the widespread stationing of tanks in peoples’ driveways. Of course, we also wouldn’t have the military industrial complex and all the money its lobbyists bring to politics.
I say we bring all the troops home, from everywhere, saving a LOT of money in the process. Reduce the standing army to something more in keeping with the Founders’ vision (though probably unrealistic to eliminate it completely), and turn security back over to the states.
As to Germany, I don’t know the answer to the question, but there had to be a reason the Nazis confiscated weaponry (and the Soviets, and the Red Chinese). Given their totalitarian governance, it could not have been a good reason.
Remember that dictators are bullies at heart, and cowards. And the last they want is for people to have property of their own, or to be able to resist the tyranny (now matter how minor that resistance may be). It’s much easier to disarm first, then impose the tyranny, then to do it once the game plan is known.
I’ve got a question about so-called face-to-face or private sales of guns. I’ve never owned a gun, so I just don’t know how gun transactions work. As I understand it (which maybe I don’t), if I buy a car from someone, I have to license the vehicle, and at that point I’m required to pay Virginia sales tax. Guns are not registered, I gather, but doesn’t sales tax still accrue to the transaction?
Comment by Name Withheld — January 16, 2013 @ 2:19 pm
Good question. If I sell you my TV do you pay me sales tax for it?
Will, thats 4.25 mill. members, I have a gun reg. and not a member.
There are probably 50 mill. or more lic. responsible gun owners in this country.
I just can’t imagine how a semi-automatic rifle is going to protect me from a tank sitting in my driveway with its cannon pointed at my living room, or an armed drone flying over my rooftop.
Comment by Name Withheld — January 16, 2013 @ 2:36 pm
A war between the people and the US government would be quite winnable by the people. You cannot think about it the way that you are. First, you’re assuming that your neighbor would be willing to drive a tank into your yard and kill you because you don’t want to give up your Constitutional Rights.
Would *you* be willing to kill your neighbor so easily? Would you be willing to fly a plane into your aunt’s neighborhood and fire a rocket at her next door neighbor’s house because he won’t give up his Constitutional Rights?
First, you’d have a huge number of folks in the military who would simply refuse to carry out the orders because of the oath they took to defend the Constitution, and also I’m sure many of them didn’t sign up to start killing American people in America.
Second, you have to think about the military’s supply lines. Let’s say there is a place that makes MREs in Salem. Normally, when the US military is fighting overseas, the supply of food to the troops isn’t in any danger at all during production or shipment until it gets to that foreign battlefield. That is not the case here.
Also, when rockets are fired into Iraq and Afghanistan, there isn’t as much concern for damage to infrastructure… and why the hell not, it is the enemy’s infrastructure. Here, it would be our own. Everything they destroy, they would have to build.
You simply cannot think about a war like that the same way that you think about a war on foreign soil against an actual enemy of the United States.
31 I concede that we will never keep guns out of every persons hands that wants to do harm, but most of the weapons used are stolen or taken from a family member. So yes it would be a benefit to find a way to have these guns fire when in the correct persons hands.
Children as props…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130734.html
#38 — Why doesn’t sales tax apply? “In general, all sales, leases and rentals of tangible personal property, as well as accommodations and certain taxable services, are subject to Virginia Sales and Use Tax, unless an exemption or exception is established.” (http://www.tax.virginia.gov/site.cfm?alias=SalesUseTax)
#46- We do not pay sales tax on private transactions because most everyone that I know are tired of supporting the lazy, welfare-dependant, freeloaders. My guess is that 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. It’s the “other 1%” that is the problem.
don’t give the government too many ideas they will be taxing my sons allowance before longbecause little Johnny next door wants a equal and fair share
@Herb #26 I might add that you mention two states explicitly, Mass and TX. Mass. ranks right at the top in education and Texas is down in the mid-30s. Which one has the clearer interpretation of “A well regulated militia…?” Texas probably “snow-paqued” that out long ago just as the NRA has.
Code of Virginia, Title 58.1 (Taxation), – 3504 allows sales tax exemptions in private transactions, including firearms and weapons of all kinds.
Per the editorial:
“Gun advocates who fought limits on firearms shows have only themselves to blame for a national push to require background checks on all sales.”
Everyone needs to understand two things. One, if the government sets a certain federal criteria for gun purchases for each and every sale, they will make three classes. Criminals, the disarmed, and a group whose size will shrink and shrink…. the lawful gun owners. They will tighten and thighten and tighten the criteria of who is “fit” to buy a gun until only the elite are qualified or can afford to. Two, “universal background checks” are a way to complete the circle and register everyone’s guns. Once they are all registered, the process will inevitably turn to taking them. Slow and steady, the confiscation can begin, but they don’t dare try it until they are really sure that they know who owns what and where.
I oppose “universal background checks” for good reason.
@herb #48 Are you a big fan of Rush? Now he’s one for “I work hard for my money and it’s not fair…..”
Gary. First this is about gun law where did the education come in. Don’t listen to rush because I am to busy earning my money so I can give to cases like u if that’s what you are referring to. All I am saying this Obamas gun orders have as much chance passing congress as he does being impeached.
There are many local law enforcement already stating they will NOT enforce his orders and where I live in Bedford county won’t either.
Put it this way and millions of other gun owners. From my dead cold hands .
Obama certainly did learn one lesson from his former Chief of Staff. Never let a good crisis go to waste. In one month this issue has turned from keeping kids safe to one that is purely about gun control. Before you deny it, take a look at the rest of the RT. This is the ONLY thread that has any comments. The one about school safety has gotten no attention at all.
#50 I appreciate the help with the information about the tax code. I really just didn’t know that, sorry. I looked up the reference you gave and “sales tax” is not mentioned in that section, but I see that there might be some kind of exemptions for household items. I’ll be satisfied with that.
To be honest, I abhor guns and I wish we could have as few of them around as possible. But I also have to question whether banning “assault weapons” makes any sense when the term “assault weapon” cannot even be defined. A pistol grip makes a rifle an assault weapon? That seems kind of useless. I personally think the whole “assault weapon” thing is mostly a feel-good measure. Banning high-capacity magazines and clips might be sensible, at least this can be defined. If Obama had any real guts he’d ban semiautomatic weapons entirely. But it’s not possible.
Regarding the background checks, I agree that can only be done if firearms are registered, but honestly if you want to keep guns out of the hands of mental cases, what else do you really have besides requiring background checks? It’s wonderful to say we should have fewer nuts out there but there will always be some and we shouldn’t sell them guns.
What I can’t understand is how any thinking person can be crying for yet an other “prohibition.”
Did we learn anything from the failure of the “Great Prohibition?”
Like nearly any prohibition in the unintended consequences of “Great Prohibition” and the resulting black-market feed the growth of crime and financed other criminal activity.
For those who don’t learn from history, just look at the failure and the unintended consequences of the current “War on Drugs.” If you like the “War on Drugs”, you’ll love the unintended consequences of the “War on Guns.” The criminals will meet the demand for a prohibited item for those who have criminal intent.
Is Mexico’s Draconian prohibition of private citizen firearm ownership stopping the flow into Mexico and the thriving black-market of guns?
From the US government:
http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/tijuana/warning.html
**
If you are caught with firearms or ammunition in Mexico…
You will go to jail and your vehicle will be seized;
You will be separated from your family, friends, and your job, and likely suffer substantial financial hardship;
You will pay court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself;
You may get up to a 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
If you carry a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife . . .
You may be arrested and charged with possession of a deadly weapon;
You may spend weeks in jail waiting for trial, and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, court costs, and fines;
If convicted, you may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.
**
Also see:
http://tinyurl.com/yd2scel
**
Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you
From drug dealing to settling playground squabbles, firearms offences are rising
Duncan Campbell
The Guardian, Friday 29 August 2008
The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK’s big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.
The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.
SNIP
**
Everyone here , from any perspective, is skirting the issue.
This is a power grab by Obama, and the left, for more (and more) control. All concerned admit the policies in question will not be effective. Yet, when not, they lay the ground work for more intrusion.
Today’s excuse….”assault” rifles & “high capacity” magazines. Prior, Sat. night specials, plastic guns, non-detectable guns, cop-killer bullets…etc. (etc., etc.).
Make no mistake, tanks in your driveway, etc., remarks aside….the biggest impediment to central government control always has been & always will be an armed citizenry.
In addition, Obama not only lied about his intent….using the first occasion (after the election) to exploit the issue…..with children, etc., he is using the issue to divert from others.
BTW, check out what the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice had to say about the last round of national prohibition of semi-automatic (Firearms that fire one round, eject the spent shell casing and reload the chamber — per trigger pull. Note that they require the trigger for each shot) firearms:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
#53 Herb, IMO I believe the higher educated do not omit the first part of the 2nd amendment in full consideration of its meaning. You just happened to mention two states, Mass and TX, in division of states wrt to gun laws enforcement. These two particular states are far apart on the educational rankings by states, and apart on gun laws as you imply. Thus,I believe there is a correlation, again IMO.
“I can give to cases like u if that’s what you are referring to.” FYI, I am retired having worked my whole life beginning as a very small boy the son of a Georgia sharecropper, college graduate working my way thru and assisted by a $950 student loan, which I repaid to the penny. Afterwards I worked professionally for 42 years retiring with a very successful savings account. I have a lot of compassion for the underprivileged and have always helped when I could. Thus, I don’t care to hear, “I work hard for my money….” After Romney made his “47%” statement I knew he was in a fog.
I have two shotguns and a 22 rifle I bought as teenager with money I made from picking cotton and working in tobacco. I’m not in the “from my cold dead hands” crowd. I am very saddened over the recent killings in Conn., especially the little 6-7 year olds. I bought my guns long before “Gun Control” came to where it is today. Back then I don’t think we had 300 million or so in public ownership. One of my best friends was murdered, shot in the head several times after being driven to an ATM and forced to withdraw money.
55- it specifically relates to private transactions, so you can hold a yard sale, or sell an old microwave to your neighbor, or sell an old lawnmower on Craigs List without having to figure out a sales tax so the government can get its take. I think it is less about inconveniencing anyone than a recognition that it would cost mores to try to enforce than would be gained in revenue, as virtually everyone would find a way around it.
#57 – You are correct, Jim. This is about control.
I just read of another horrid example of a gun killing, which IMO supports gun control. This past Sunday, a 4 year old in Richmond picks up a gun(loaded) from a table. A 58 year old relative (a man) commands the child to give him the gun. The 4 year old who had pointed the gun at the relative pulls the trigger killing his relative.
Obviously, somebody failed the understanding of Gun Control.
I’ve not followed the comments closely but taking a sample prompts me to observe the following.
Some people here are way too paranoid and suspicious and I feel your pain. When George W. Bush was president, I sound like the hysterical people here. It’s all a power grab, etc. I thought. I may have even been right. Who knows. I really, really thought he was the next Hitler. In bed with private enterprise, Haliburton, Enron, starting wars and not paying for them. I could think only he was stupid or evil and I wasn’t sure which one it was.
It seems many here feel the same way about Obama.
Now I don’t want to dismiss your fears out of hand but take a moment and think back to all the criticism you heard of G.W. Bush. Was it unfounded? Was it over the top? Remember how stupid his detractors seemed?
Now take a moment to realize some people here are coming off the same way.
Perhaps a better solution instead of all the slipper slope, power grab, etc., argument would be to take a step back and a breath and then come to this discussion with an open mind and good will. You may not change your mind on the subject but please try to bring a balanced approach to it.
I mean, many here typically talk of government incompetence and stupidity but now have adopted the position the government is extremely efficient, focused, and competent when it comes to taking away your guns. It’s probably some combination of the two and probably not worth all the hysteria.
Dave Hicks, you know very well that just because prohibition does not stop all of the unwanted activity is no reason not to try.
Not every law will be a raving success, but that is how a society of laws operates, nonetheless. Wild, wild west and anarchy are not attractive choices either. The seeming proliferation of mass shootings is enough to cause reaction and the similarities they share is enough to justify all of the actions Obama outlined.
That owning a military assault rifle styled gun or a magazine larger than 10 rounds is not to your liking is not the issue. I don’t especially appreciate speed limits and having to forgo the relief I might get from medical marijuana. We all have our crosses to bear.
I hope that the head of the ATF can be confirmed and that after 6 years we can get that agency at full capacity and moving forward because gun trafficking and straw purchasing are literally killing Americans and Mexicans.
I am sorry you do not believe your gun rights can be protected as we fight the scourge of guns used for offensive purposes, but like me and the speed limit, I hope you can make peace with it.
I just read of another horrid example of a gun killing, which IMO supports gun control. This past Sunday, a 4 year old in Richmond picks up a gun(loaded) from a table. A 58 year old relative (a man) commands the child to give him the gun. The 4 year old who had pointed the gun at the relative pulls the trigger killing his relative.
Obviously, somebody failed the understanding of Gun Control.
Comment by Gary — January 17, 2013 @ 10:39 am
Gary, that is clearly an accidental death. If preventing accidental deaths is your goal, you should focus on automobiles, as they take many more lives in accidents than guns.
It is not paranoia…
http://youtu.be/blXkl9YVoHo?t=7s
63 – yes, the PATRIOT Act (under Bush, for those it matters), like the NDAA, like the Obama/CPUSA gun grab, all limit our freedoms. Drastically and irreversibly.
Just heard Leon Panetta questioning why people need assault weapons for personal use. Setting aside the issue that Panetta, like all gun grabbers don’t know the difference between an assault rifle and pea shooter, it shows also a profound lack of understanding of human behavior.
In this context, need is synonymous with value. What Panetta is saying is that he himself doesn’t value assault weapons for personal use. That’s fine and dandy, but he also implies that he knows how other people value assault weapons.
And he cannot possibly understand that. He – and no one else – cannot possibly understand why people value anything, he cannot understand the value people place on anything. That applies to cars, appliances, money, what have you, and yes, that includes guns.
For him to say, in essence, “I don’t have a need (value) for an assault rifle, therefore no one else does” is the height of arrogance, ignorance and contempt. And if he actually DOES have an assault rifle for personal use (however it is defined), add hypocrisy to the list. All the classic attributes of tyrants.
With regards to government competence, Scott, they are simply shifting the burden to others (e.g., doctors), so they can arrest someone. Either the doctor maintains patient confidentiality, or he is in violation of imperial edict.
#63 – “Perhaps a better solution instead of all the slipper slope, power grab, etc., argument would be to take a step back and a breath and then come to this discussion with an open mind and good will.”
Sorry, Scott, but when the gov’t is doing it’s damnedest to ignore or take away your Constitutional rights, stepping back and taking a breathe is not the thing to do.
As far as being “hysteria”, I don’t think so. But I guess it may seem that way to people who are willing to turn their soft underbelly up to tyranny.
@Jack # 65 Sorry, but I have to disagree. Loaded guns should not be left around for a child to pick up and explore. If the gun had been in a secure place and the 4 year old had managed to get it and accidentally drops it causing it to go off that would be more akin to an accident. The 4 year old had it pointed at his 58 year old relative’s head, hardly an accident since he apparently understood the basics of shooting (aim, pull trigger,) although I don’t think he understood what his actions would be.
64 – Sandi’s right. Just because no government ban on anything has ever worked, and never will, and will only make the problem being addressed worse, it’s important that we put forward a purely symbolic effort, even though doomed to be a spectacular failure.
It doesn’t matter that this purely symbolic act cannot possibly reduce crime (in fact, it increases crime by creating whole new classes of criminals), and it doesn’t matter that it infringes on basic liberties. Only through this purely symbolic act can government just future and more drastic infringements on liberty.
Because when these don’t work, and someone shoots up a school, or a theater, or some other gun-free haven, then they will have to turn the screws even more. Baby steps, fabian-style incrementalism.
Gary..sorry about your freind..
The only thing that i am trying to say is no matter waht gun laws you have besides taking every gun in the country, criminals will get there hands on them.
I am for background checks anytime one is sold.
I believe that as the gun laws are tighten the ultimate goal by the left is to take every gun in the country. They dont view the Declaration Of Independence as a document of laws that are in stone, I do. They believe that it is a living document and will skirt whatever they can to change it to thier way of thinking, so it has to stop somewhere and IMO this gun battle will turn into just that if it continues.
89Hoo, breaking “purely symbolic” laws does not get you arrested, tried, or convicted. That is why we don’t have them.
Do you also advise us to stopping banning or making it illegal to have or use cocaine? Crack? Heroin? Machine guns? Murder? Robbery? Do not “make perfect the enemy of good” here. Because a ban will not work overnight is no reason not to go after it and see if it brings these guns off the streets and out of mass shootings in the future. I am just not seeing the real downside for gun advocates, tyranny fighters, or even strict Constitutionalism’s gripe with trying to solve a problem even without a guarantee. We sure never had one before.
Come back to me, Sandi, when the right to own cocaine, crack, heroin, murder and robbery are specifically protected in the Constitution.
As to machine guns (I’d like to know your definition, but anyway…) the fact they are not rampant is less indicative of the effectiveness of a ban then on something more obvious: no one wants them.
Put differently, if someone really wants a machine gun (or anything else that’s banned) they can find a way to get it. Even an anti-market soul such as yourself can acknowledge that (you have acknowledged it, in fact); so the fact that there are (relatively) few out there can only mean that not that many people really want (value) them.
The war on drugs is a fine example.
…and the 4 year old had managed to get it and accidentally drops it causing it to go off that would be more akin to an accident.
Comment by Gary — January 17, 2013 @ 11:47 am
Guns don’t fire when dropped.
Do you also advise us to stopping banning or making it illegal to have or use … Machine guns?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 17, 2013 @ 1:08 pm
Machine guns are not currently illegal.
Btw, machine guns *are* heavily regulated, but not illegal. I do believe that the regulation on them needs to be backed down.
#72 – ” I am just not seeing the real downside for gun advocates, tyranny fighters, or even strict Constitutionalism’s gripe with trying to solve a problem even without a guarantee.”
The downside, Sandi, is that based on Obama’s announcement yesterday, guns are being blamed solely for the problem, with no mention of violent video games, movies, and television.
While using children as human shields, Obama focused only on guns, which fits perfectly with his goal of disarming American citizens.
Re: Michael @ 11:02 am
Folk who don’t like straw-men on a slippery slope grasping at a red herring need to check out the pro-more-prohibition folks’ rhetoric over on Dan’s blog from time-to-time. There are folk over there who insist that the continuum of insignificant changes in/to features and capability of firearms that there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between a revolver, an Uzi, a five inch gun, a cruise missile, a h-bomb, etc.
Pot meet kettle.
Re: Gary @ 11:47 am
FWIIW, many of us responsible lovers of freedom reject the term “accidental” in such situations. Actually, we very seldom use it save in the very rare malfunction situation.
Among us the term of choice for a firearm is “negligent discharge.”
FWIIW, I wish the media would do the same for not only firearms but a wide range of highly preventable alleged “accidents.”
Someone driving drunk does not have an “accident”, IMHO. The have negligent wreck / collision / etc.
72 – “…breaking “purely symbolic” laws does not get you arrested, tried, or convicted. That is why we don’t have them.” I have to come back to this, as I found this a curious statement.
First, I’ve never referred to Obama’s Executive Orders (they aren’t, and I acknowledged that in post #18); as only Congress can make law, these are more imperial edict than law. But enough with nuance…
Let’s assume CPUSA/Obama crowd gets nationwide gun control laws such as New York just passed (it IS their goal).
You first state that we don’t have purely symbolic laws (even as you have in the past defended the notion of purely symbolic action, and even as you go on to state that there is no guarantee these will work).
Since we don’t know that they will work, can we can not call them purely symbolic? It’s a guess after all, well-intended it may be.
What happens at the next mass shooting in a gun free zone? Can we conclude that they not only did not work, but that they might have made things worse? Since, in this scenario, they obviously did not work, then they truly WERE only symbolic.
Since you and I both know that there WILL be another mass shooting (as the NY law does nothing to stop criminals but give them access to more poorly defended homes) then we know the law won’t work, so we know it is purely symbolic.
But people in NY will be arrested for having a magazine with a higher capacity than seven rounds. So your first sentence is wrong.
And the follow-up…since we know it won’t work, what happens after the next shooting? More symbolism?
I know that YOU seem to think that legislation that required citizens to be adequately armed to defend their country if needed is actually a call to disarm the citizens (still trying to make sense of that), so I’m guessing your response to the next mass shooting will be further symbolism. When will YOU draw a line that acknowledges it isn’t working?
78..Thats why if they are convicted it is negligent homicide. Not accidental homicide, but the media wont even call a terrorist a terrorist, what makes you think they are going to use the term negligent discharge.
79 – to clarify, second paragraph should read (changes in bold):
First, I’ve never referred to Obama’s Executive Orders as law (they aren’t, and I acknowledged that in post #18); as only Congress can make law, these are more imperial edict than law. But enough with nuance…
And as usual, we are back to semantics. No one is under any impression we can stop ever incident of guns used improperly. You may gauge efficacy only when the percentages are highly successful, but anyone knows that will take time even if it is achievable in a gun nation like ours. No, we may not stop “the next one”. That is not a reason not to try. It is not a reason not to try if we do not stop the next ten, because eventually, like fully automatic weapons, they will not be in circulation and certainly not affordable for the average mass shooting nut or their mother.
Until we can make legal gun owners part of the solution, they will remain part of the problem. That mother had her guns legally and that sure did not protect even her. Guns sold in parking lots are not just being sold by criminals to criminals. Neither are guns over the internet. It seems some people do not appreciate the scope of the problem.
Refusing to try because “it won’t work” is not the plan of action anything worthwhile gets done under. Never has been.
@Jack #74 “Guns don’t fire when dropped.”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_discharge we can find,
“On occasion, an accidental discharge can occur by means other than the finger pulling the trigger, such as dropping a loaded weapon. Because of this possibility, most currently produced pistols are designed with a “drop-safety” or firing pin block, a mechanism inhibiting or isolating the firing pin, preventing accidental discharge if the firearm is dropped. However, most long guns do not have drop- safeties.
Prevention of dropped-firearm ADs with long guns therefore depends on the user being familiar with the precautions needed for that particular gun: it is standard practice for all long-gun users to unload the firearm’s chamber before any activity that might foreseeably result in a dropped firearm (e.g., climbing a fence while hunting), and before placing the firearm in a vehicle (where sudden deceleration may cause the firearm to act as if dropped).”
So guns may AD when dropped if proper safety procedures are not followed, which may have been the guess involving the 4 year old. I want to see more of this news item wrt to an investigation.
82 – and doing the same thing over and over again with no change in results is the definition of insanity. And it’s worse when it erodes essential liberties. Semantics, I guess.
82 – No one is under any impression we can stop ever incident of guns used improperly…
Symbolism by any other name…of course, we CAN ensure that fewer people are able to defend themselves, create a whole new class of criminals, and ensure a thriving black market in constitutional liberties deemed illegal. Forward!
When having a semi-automatic military styled assault rifle and a 30 bullet magazine is your “essential liberties” defined, then yes, I guess we can define it as “insanity” to do what civilized society has done for centuries, if that makes you feel better.
Sorry, Gary, I should have said “modern guns don’t fire when dropped.” That was my mistake.
86 – no limitations in the Constitution, Sandi (a nuanced document), just the fevered imaginations of those who don’t care about it.
88 – correction, those who think they know better.
I find it hard to credit that you are saying that “fewer people are able to defend themselves” if they cannot purchase a semi-automatic military styled assault rifle like the AR-15 and a 30 bullet magazine. How on earth did they do so before these were available to the public? Were they originally dirt cheap? Because the average family is not shelling out that kind of money on self defense that I am aware of. But then, the average family is not living in fear and expecting to take on their government either.
And it is totally a personal choice to join “a whole new class of criminals”. It always has been.
Yeah, there was a time when 3/5 of a person probably didn’t think highly of that “nuanced document” either. I think many believe there are matters in which we “know better” now.
90 – Sandi, I should have said fewer people are legally able to defend themselves. Criminals will break the law and get the bigger weapons and magazines (hard to believe, criminals breaking the law), but in order for the average honest man to be able to defend himself, he now has to be a law breaker. And incidentally, it’s not 30-round magazines in NY, it’s anything more than seven.
Yes, totally a choice. I know your spiel – MANDATORY IS VOLUNTARY, MORAL IS ILLEGAL…save it for the commissariat.
91 – where is 3/5 person mentioned in the Constitution? That was a construct of northern politicians afraid of the Negro vote…well after Lincoln had already shredded the Constitution. And what does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
I wonder how loud the screaming would be if it were the 1st Amendment being attacked?
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders @ 3:32 pm
I and most of the pro-freedom folk, which I know, are willing to be part of the solution.
IMHO, those who remain part of the problem are those that only (or primarily) look to prohibition as the only thing we can work on now.
Very We-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us Pogoese:
http://tinyurl.com/ayqdy5r
**
Despite Newtown, we crave violent movies
updated 1:01 PM EST, Mon January 14, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
√ LZ Granderson: Tarantino’s bloody “Django Unchained” got two Golden Globes
√ Film that makes mass murder look cool is hugely popular even after Newtown, he says
√ He says celebrities who protest gun violence yet star in ultraviolent films are hypocritical
√ Granderson: Films shouldn’t be censored; the real culprit is our addiction to violence
SNIP
Mass shootings — like those at Newtown, Columbine, the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater — and everyday street violence, like what’s going on in Chicago, can be addressed immediately by legislation. But background checks and assault rifle bans will not free us from our most debilitating shackle, and that is our numbness, if not addiction, to violence, particularly in film.
Of the 100 top-grossing movies of 2012, only three were rated G. Most in the top 10 were PG-13, including “The Hunger Games,” a film about kids brutally killing each other for sport; two were PG and one was R.
SNIP
**
—–
Add to that the whole underfunding of public health issue. Of the States bordering Virginia, only NC spends public funds per person to support public health. See: http://tinyurl.com/a8kmfcs
Also see: http://tinyurl.com/bdq3ffx
**
Mental health funding dissappears from state budgets
Wednesday – 3/9/2011, 6:11am ET
Darci Marchese, wtop.com
WASHINGTON – After mass shootings at Virginia Tech, Fort Hood and in Tuscon, Ariz., the nation’s mental health system gets put under the microscope.
But one mental health advocacy group says concern fades fast, and with it goes funding. Advocates are worried that untreated mental illnesses will grow worse.
SNIP
After the Virginia Tech tragedy, the state of Virginia actually poured millions of dollars into its mental health system, but the state has seen that funding decrease.
“Then it goes away. We have short memories in America,” says Fitzpatrick.
Virginia is now among the top 10 states that cut funding from mental health budgets between 2009 and 2011.
SNIP
**
ALSO read [PDF] State Mental Health Cuts: A National Crisis – NAMI @ http://www.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=125018 and [PDF] FACT SHEET: Mental Illness in Virginia’s Adult … – NAMI Virginia http://namivirginia.org/assets/pdfs/MIandVirginiaAdultPopulation.pdf
Add to that the discussing the discussion that the two of us had some time back about violent criminals as repeat offenders.
—–
Where is the big push in the bills in the current legislator to address anything save firearms? Where are the editorials, the LTE, the MSM coverage of States and Feds action/lack of action demanding the “rest” of the solution be addresses and funded?
IMHO, it is hard to talk about it is part of a solution when the rest (and likely more effective) parts of the solution is not on the table in any meaningful way.
@93 I’ll tackle the first question, 89Hoo, only because it’s easy. Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3 reads in part:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
It was superseded by the 14th Amendment.
It’s understandable you might not know that’s in there, especially if you rely on Republican House members reading the Constitution. They left parts out again.
#96 – Republicans weren’t the only ones reading, Christian. Of course, seeing how few Democrats even bothered to attend, I can understand how you would assume it was only Republicans.
Thank you Christian, I stand corrected. But what does that have to do with the Second Amendment?
http://tinyurl.com/awl2sz4
**
January 17, 2013
Sheriffs, state lawmakers push back on gun control
A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, ‘Follow the Constitution’, but their actual powers to defy federal law are limited
By Jeff Barnard
Associated Press
GRANTS PASS, Ore. — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama’s proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.
“A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, `Follow the Constitution,’” said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.
But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Wednesday it’s unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.
SNIP
**
I do not believe that listening to President Obama’s remarks, or reading his Executive Action items shows “prohibition as the only thing we can work on now“. It just happens to be the one you (collective) refuse to entertain and pretending the “now” of it matters seems more than a little disingenuous.
I believe all the calls blaming movies, video games and music counts as “the 1st Amendment being attacked” as well. I have no real hope that adult entertainment that children miraculously see and “play” will be changed, but it is certainly on the table. Wonder if that will get the vilification Tipper Gore got for trying? Something tells me no.
89Hoo, parsing will gain you nothing. We have interpreted, and re-interpreted the Constitution as it has suited us (for the most part) since it was written. What the Founders meant in that time cannot and has not always applied to current time. It simply hasn’t. That will not change now and it will not stop with restricting the so called “right” to own a semi-automatic military styled assault rifle like the AR-15 and a 30 bullet magazine. It may have been meant as a straitjacket, who is to say, but it has not been and it will not be.
Re: “They have only themselves to blame now that narrowly tailored bills routinely dispatched each winter in Richmond are being replaced with a national push to institute universal background checks on all firearm sales, not just those at gun shows.”
——————
Could it just be that those who talk about prohibition as a part of a solution without the rest (and likely more effective) parts of the solution being on the table in any meaningful way are actually the ones that have only themselves to blame.
http://tinyurl.com/b2jsqxt
**
Obama-backed gun bills considered a long shot in Congress
By Matt Smith, CNN
updated 10:12 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013
(CNN) — Despite supporters’ hopes that this time it’s different, President Barack Obama’s new call for restricting some semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines will face deeply entrenched resistance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and could be a long shot even in the Democratic-led Senate.
Any gun legislation sent to the House “is going to have to pass with most Democrats and a few Republicans,” said Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report. “This would be an even more high-profile bill.”
SNIP
**
It’s pot-meet-kettle time, IMHO.
#67 Correct de mundo, ‘Hoo.
All is market.
LOL
Note location of his thumb.
Can’t trust some folk at all.
http://tinyurl.com/b494typ
Quetions:
Does one of the most pro-more-restriction pols in Virginia own and AK47?
Did someone transfer it to him (think even temporary possession) w/o a background check?
Does he own 30 round mags?
Gee Dave Hicks, you think no one knows the NRA is a powerful lobby? This being a democracy with a representative body making our laws, it could easily come to pass that President Obama is only able to fiddle with the edges, but that still gives him credit with those who wanted the changes and cover for the next carnage, and the next, and the next.
I cannot fathom defense of these weapons being widely available to the general public. A public with a good percentage of angry, passionate, ignorant, racist, mentally unbalanced, arrogant, paranoid and ergo easily provoked citizenry. And I really cannot fathom anyone loving freedom so much that they choose rights to such guns over even a chance to stop a future massacre. Time will tell.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 8:01 pm
Tell me about all the Virginia session or the the national level bills (proposed or currently in the hopper) that support your claim that the rest (and likely more effective) parts of the solution is actually on the table in any meaningful way.
Really? You are going to claim that demanding the right to have available on the market semi-automatic military styled assault rifles with 30 bullet magazines means you are “pro-freedom folk” and being against them being on the public market means you are “anti-freedom folk”? I get it that you think I should hear me, but do you ever think, you should hear you?
You KNOW the odds of stopping a gunman with such a weapon with one shot from one armed guard or armed teacher (not that it has happened yet). You KNOW that these guns staying on the market with that kind of fire power is a disaster waiting for the wrong hands on any given day. You KNOW that we have no effective defense in most scenarios you care to dream up (since it seems such a pastime). And yet, there is no sacrifice to big for your “freedom”. Not the massacres before, and not the children and not the next one. Is that really what freedom is to you all? Don’t even try to legislate just go get armed and “be ready”? What a world you want.
Well we have started here:
http://burke.patch.com/articles/governor-assembles-school-safety-task-force-9ffde59e
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-roanoke-county-school-board-members-talk-about-school-safety-plans-20130116,0,1949031.story
And here:
http://www.uft.org/our-rights/school-safety-planning
And here:
http://www.dhs.gov/school-safety
And here:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/education/ci_22390768/rewriting-schools-safety-plan-takes-top-priority-soquel
And here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/16/obamas-proposals-on-school-safety/
There are plenty of things underway Dave Hicks, maybe you only check the anti-freedom-gun news?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:05 pm
With all due respect where are the Virginia session or the the national level bills that support your claim that the rest (and likely more effective) parts of the solution is actually on the table in any meaningful way.
#104 “cover”, thanks.
Oddly 89Hoo #88, I think others shared your concern, just for different reasons.
“[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry. “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#.UPXkRhEJ01R.facebook
Anything is possible.
I guess we disagree on “meaningful” too, Dave Hicks.
Patrick Henry was not a huge fan of the Constitution as written. He thought there was too much opportunity for abuse.
All I got to say is there will be a Republican in the white house again sometime. They will not forget Obama trying to circumvent congress. There will be pay back for unconstutional EO’s, so I would be very careful If I were him and on his side because Karma will always come back to bite you.
Herb, I doubt we’ll see a republican in the WH in a generation as the government plays a part in too many people’s lives in too many ways. Bigger gov at the federal level means good times for those working for government at all levels as well as those dependent on programs.
Precisely Herb, there will eventually be another GOTP President and it would behoove people to remember how things are supposed to work. Obama has not tried to “circumvent congress”. Pay back is for school yard bullies who do not know any better. WHAT are you saying was an “unconstutional EO’s”?
Certainly Patrick Henry, like many others had personal and business interests that would conflict with his rhetoric matching his actions. He would be a “states rights” supporter because that is where his own freedom to own slaves and gain from it lay. The high ideals of a nation conflicted with that virtually from day one.
From what I have read, I think the states were wary of anything that encroached on their fiefdoms and the federalists were much more concerned with the “excesses of democracy” within the states, than any abuse of the central power that had plenty of checks and balances. (Enough to bring the nation to a shutdown over 200 years later). Of course the states and their leaders wanted a weak federal government. They thought they had one, until Lincoln.
Right BUD, cause they sure all starved under Reagan and Bush!
Herb, I hate to tell you, but based on the extra-constitutional activities and abuses of the past several Republican presidents (PATRIOT Act, DHS, etc.), and on their mostly venal contingent in Congress, any next GOP President will differ only minimally from the CPUSA/Obama crowd in there now in terms of governance (but they will sound better, for whatever that’s worth. Symbolic measures, nothing of substance. You would think this would make the current regime and its supporters happy, but it likely will not.
For example, some Republicans have (rightly) stressed that one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment was to provide a bulwark of armed citizenry against a tyrant. This is all very true and documented, but the other half of the equation was a minimal standing army, so that the threat of that armed citizenry had teeth. As someone else on here mentioned, armed resistance is hard when there is a tank in your driveway, and you don’t have one. The Founders knew that.
So will the Republicans, in their drive to keep the promise of that bulwark alive, insist on minimizing the standing army, to include the quasi-military police forces run from and for Washington (ATF, DEA, DHS, IRS, CIA, FBI, etc)? I’m sure they’ll pay lip service to reducing the latter (but no real action), but they’ll never agree to reducing the size of the military, to bringing all the troops home from everywhere, and to adjusting the foreign policy accordingly. Too much gravy in that train.
So until the GOP gets serious about reducing the threat of tyranny, they’re just jerking you around.
116 – Henry WAS a states’ rights supporter, and was also very personally offended by slavery, seeing it, rightly, as anathema to the teachings of Christ. Like all slave owners, he saw himself as in a bit of quandary, in that the economy was so dependent on slaves, it was hard to wean off of them (pardon the crude analogies).
There is a bit of hypocrisy here, but history is often best viewed in the context of the times, much like Robert Byrd’s lynching blacks for the KKK may have some contextual justification.
The differences here, besides your specious claim to Byrd “lynching blacks”, is that 1) Byrd recanted, apologized and spent his life making amends instead of just saying ‘but I am good to mine!’. 2) Byrd is not quoted and revered as Patrick Henry still is. I guess some things are more forgivable than others even when they happen “in the context of the times”.
Sandi @ 89 said:
“And as usual, we are back to semantics. No one is under any impression we can stop ever incident of guns used improperly. You may gauge efficacy only when the percentages are highly successful, but anyone knows that will take time even if it is achievable in a gun nation like ours. No, we may not stop “the next one”. That is not a reason not to try. It is not a reason not to try if we do not stop the next ten, because eventually, like fully automatic weapons, they will not be in circulation and certainly not affordable for the average mass shooting nut or their mother.”
“Refusing to try because “it won’t work” is not the plan of action anything worthwhile gets done under. Never has been.”
Interesting that gun-ban crowd is unwilling to apply that same reasoning to putting SRO’s in elementary schools.
120 – well, Byrd the Pork-Barrel King IS much loved and revered by most on the left who excuse his racism because of his statism (I’m sure the apology made it all better to those he abused…and what cause did he have to apologize?)(they also rarely mention his refusal to fight alongside blacks in WWII). Context, I guess.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:00 pm
Look as if we might.
Re: Chuck @ 1:09 pm
Check older threads.
Earlier, I said I’d pay higher taxes to put SRO’s in every school — that includes elementary schools.
FWIIW, I also support arming volunteers, support staff, security guards, teachers, administrators, etc (who are willing to carry).
Interesting that my comments and “membership” in the “gun-ban crowd” leaves you so sure we are fighting “putting SRO’s in elementary schools”.
Honesty compels me to note that “armed guards” are just the first target for anyone determined on rampage. We ALL know what that will turn into and it will be even more “superficial”, “feel good” and “useless” as you claim getting these massive shooting machines off the market will be. But then I guess you will have your own “Mission Accomplished” moment and claim victory.
I have never met anyone who “loved” Robert Byrd, but yes, the left took his apology and his lifelong efforts to make amends as presented and did not hold it against him forever. I will add that West Virginia kept electing him, not “the left”. Oddly, it seems few have ever held Patrick Henry responsible for the hypocrisy of his life and faith. How is it you revile only the one who apologized and made amends and not the one who kept doing wrong after acknowledging it was?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 8:51 pm
I don’t believe that I assumed that you were fighting “putting SRO’s in elementary schools”. If I came across that way it was poor communication on my part.
FWIIW, I tend to agree that uniformed “armed guards” might just be the first target for anyone determined on rampage. Hence, it might also be a good idea to have the SRO’s in plain clothes discretely carrying. To be sure, the students at the MS/HS level would surely know who she/he is. However, an outsider…?
What I am envisioning is additional discrete carry by a number of “arming volunteers, support staff, security guards, teachers, administrators, etc (who are willing to carry).” IMHO, that does change the dynamic.
Byrd also filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act…led about his time a Imperial Grand Whoopeedoo of the Klan….
125 – I don’t know, Sandi. I think the point that all these whackjobs that attacked schools that were designated gun-free zones may contradict your contention that armed guards would be the first targets. If that were the case, we would see more schools with armed guards attacked (private schools, perhaps). And in the (admittedly small) sample set of schools that are not gun free zones that have been attacked, often an armed individual has ended the attack.
The people who attack schools are bullies and thugs, and generally go out of their ways to avoid confrontation, particularly where they may wind up getting hurt.
Here’s an idea: since the safest schools appear to be those with armed guards (like the elite private schools the Ruling Class send their kids), why not use a voucher program to allow lower-income folks to send their kids to safer schools?
Oh, or better yet, a lottery! Yippee! At least some of them will survive!
130 – better that NONE should have a chance, right? Honestly, your objection baffles me.
In today’s News.
“Accidental gunfire at three gun shows around the United States on Saturday left five injured, authorities said.
Three people were injured in Raleigh, North Carolina, at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show at the state fairgrounds, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance.
Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.
Long said the shotgun’s owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged.
In Indiana, police said a 54-year-old Indianapolis man was injured when he accidentally shot himself while leaving a gun show.
State Police said Emory L. Cozee was loading his .45 caliber semi-automatic when he shot himself in the hand as he was leaving the Indy 1500 Gun and Knife show at the state fairgrounds. Loaded personal weapons are not allowed inside the show.
Cozee was hospitalized for treatment. Police say the shooting was accidental and no charges will be filed.
Meanwhile, authorities in Ohio said a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm but one round remained in the chamber, police said.”