ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Even fools, horses, and liberals

Keep this in mind when the unilateral involuntary disarmament crowd tried to portray the no-compromise position as extreme:
An interesting little factoid has emerged from a new Fox News poll of U.S. voters: Personal sentiments are strong and defiant among many U.S. gun owners.

"If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.
I find it fascinating that even most liberals and Democrats who own guns aren't dumb enough to buy into the idea that a forcible government monopoly on violence is a good idea.

Labels:

168 Comments:

Anonymous Josh January 29, 2013 4:16 PM  

So much for the arguments by agent Asher etet al that Americans will be rushing to hand them over...

Anonymous Tad January 29, 2013 4:20 PM  

@Vox Day

I find it fascinating that even most liberals and Democrats who own guns aren't dumb enough to buy into the idea that a forcible government monopoly on violence is a good idea.

Luckily for Democrats, Republicans and others, there is no move to confiscate guns. So no one has to resort to violence.

What's interesting is that it seems that those who insinuate that this is plan act as though what they really want is not a preservation of liberty, but an excuse to shoot someone.

Ironic.

Anonymous cave horse January 29, 2013 4:21 PM  

Tad, how much do your government masters pay you to troll this site?

Blogger Giraffe January 29, 2013 4:23 PM  

I find it fascinating that even most liberals and Democrats who own guns aren't dumb enough to buy into the idea that a forcible government monopoly on violence is a good idea.

I find the liberals that I know have the mindset that the laws don't apply to them. Also, you get a free pass for being on the right [I mean "left"] team.

I guess I'm dubious that very many liberals don't buy into a government monopoly on violence. They mistrust individuals but government can do no wrong.

Anonymous harry12 January 29, 2013 4:25 PM  

Tad January 29, 2013 4:20 PM:
What's interesting is that it seems that those who insinuate that this is plan act as though what they really want is not a preservation of liberty, but an excuse to shoot someone.


That puts me in mind of a specific 'someone'.

Blogger Giraffe January 29, 2013 4:26 PM  

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales. Favor: 91%

/facepalm

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 4:26 PM  

For those interested in the cross-sections these represent:

Politics Has gun
Conservative 55.4%
Moderate 41.9%
Liberal 26.9%

I count quite a bit higher than Nate's claimed "100 million armed Americans". Here I was thinking he was far too optimistic. It contradicts every cynical bone in my body to say this, but victory might be in hand.

All the conservative brain trust needs to do is get the bastards to overcommit. They show every inclination to cram this through by any means necessary, and the enforcement will literally kill them.

They're moving too fast. I say, give them a boost.

Blogger Giraffe January 29, 2013 4:28 PM  

What's interesting is that it seems that those who insinuate that this is plan act as though what they really want is not a preservation of liberty, but an excuse to shoot someone.

I can typing! Can someone translate the syphilitic queer?

Anonymous 43rd Virginia Calalry January 29, 2013 4:29 PM  

I am going to say this now and I am going to repeat it as often as the subject comes up. "If you wear a uniform in the United States and your senior officer gives you a direct order to disarm American citizens, you only have one moral and ethical course of action, Draw your weapon and kill that person, kill them where they stand, kill them without hesitation or remorse.

Blogger ajw308 January 29, 2013 4:32 PM  

Here's a Dem Anti-Gunner who's used a gun in self defense.

Go read the Wiki page and see if your skin doesn't crawl once you see what this guy is.

These are the guys who want us vulnerable.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 4:34 PM  

"Luckily for Democrats, Republicans and others, there is no move to confiscate guns. So no one has to resort to violence."

That's just the spirochetes talking.

Anonymous Sensei January 29, 2013 4:36 PM  

I'm not buying it. How you answer a poll is only tangentially related to how you'll respond in real life. For liberals who claim they'll defy the law, when the polite but firm agents come, and offer tax incentives to turn in their guns and also, you know, be a good citizen and get more rewards for letting us know if the Joneses down the street have any they haven't turned in, for those people who have defaulted all their life towards trusting the government, how do you really think they'll respond?

For that matter, how do you think many of the blustering conservatives (with families, young children) will respond when their bank accounts are frozen, their utilities shut off, then the police show up? Rabbits are rabbits, even those who hold political views slightly more in accordance with observable reality than other rabbits.

Though, here in the hinterlands, at least no local police will come for the guns. Not going to happen. They'll defy the order because they know good and well it means being shot at by the same people they go to the rifle range with on the weekend, who will be sorry to shoot them but won't hesitate.
The government will have to send in outsiders to do it here, but then there are always plenty of Hessians when a government needs them.

Blogger ajw308 January 29, 2013 4:40 PM  

@Tad
Luckily for Democrats, Republicans and others, there is no move to confiscate guns.
Highly placed spies in the Gov't, Feinstein and Schumer, have have been telling us for years that there is a move to confiscate guns.

Are you calling the esteemed Senators liars?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 4:41 PM  

For additional understanding:

The progressive blueprint here is easy to see. They plan to pass this and then let it sit for a while without enforcing it. If they enforce it immediately, the people fight and they lose. That's how they work.

(Switching to the second person...)

After a while, you start enforcing it a little bit against bad people. Criminals, deadbeats, crazies...the strategy is to normalize the process, then divide and conquer. In the divide and conquer stage, you set the bigger demographics against the smaller demographics. You arm the legitimate (bigger) demographic and disarm the smaller demographic.

Depending on the size of the remaining demographic groups, you extend this into an international war or a civil war. In a heterogeneous society like 1960s America or today's America, civil war is the best way to rack up bodies*. In a relatively homogeneous society (Germany or Russia) you attack weak neighbors and repeat the process, albeit much more quickly because occupying forces can get away with it. Absorb their economy into your war machine...

You know the rest.


*What did you think was the point? Pick your perspective: evolutionary psychology, Christian mysticism, historical grandeur, whatever. History's biggest names are attached to the men with the highest kill counts.

Anonymous Porky January 29, 2013 4:41 PM  

In 2006, 99 congressmen and 16 senators voted against a bill declaring the illegality of confiscating weapons during an emergency (as the government did after Katrina).


Anonymous fish January 29, 2013 4:42 PM  

"Luckily for Democrats, Republicans and others, there is no move to confiscate guns. So no one has to resort to violence."

Well there is this douchebag!

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/police-chief-within-generation-guns-will-be-taken-streets

Blogger Jehu January 29, 2013 4:42 PM  

It's amazing how a position held by a clear majority, or even a large minority, can be 'extreme'. Seems to me by definition it is mainstream.

Anonymous Josh January 29, 2013 4:42 PM  

For that matter, how do you think many of the blustering conservatives (with families, young children) will respond when their bank accounts are frozen, their utilities shut off, then the police show up?

It's going to get violent before the government resorts to doing that.

Also note that hundreds of sheriffs have stated their refusal to enforce gun confiscation.

Blogger ajw308 January 29, 2013 4:42 PM  

Here's what you're gonna ask for.

Anonymous Beau January 29, 2013 4:44 PM  

there is no move to confiscate guns.

Nope, not at all, didn't happen during Katrina. All it took was a state of emergency for registered gun owners to have their weapons seized.

Anonymous daddynichol January 29, 2013 4:46 PM  

Luckily for Democrats, Republicans and others, there is no move to confiscate guns. So no one has to resort to violence."

Tell that to survivors of Katrina

Anonymous Sensei January 29, 2013 4:47 PM  

Also note that hundreds of sheriffs have stated their refusal to enforce gun confiscation. -Josh

I'm aware of it, that ties into the last part of my comment. I suspect many areas are the same as here. The police departments who will actually have to go get the guns in rural areas know exactly what will happen.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 4:51 PM  

@Sensei,

You're misunderstanding (affluent SWPL) liberal psychology. They don't act according to fear or disgust because they don't have functioning amygdalas. They act (or react) according to self-righteousness (or guilt) and status (or shame) and possibly a couple of others I'm forgetting.

I'd guess from your pseudonym that your amygdala gets plenty of stimulation, and I suspect you're projecting and overgeneralizing to other demographic groups.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 4:54 PM  

Don't you all see that you're playing right into their hands?

They don't want to enforce it now. They just want it on the books!

Blogger Giraffe January 29, 2013 4:55 PM  

Also note that Wyoming has proposed a law to arrest any fed trying to enforce law that requires confiscation or registration. If the sheriff's were to deputize a large portion of the men in their counties it could be pretty difficult for the feds to bail out their agents like they did for the murderers at Ruby Ridge.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 4:55 PM  

"Don't you all see that you're playing right into their hands?"

No. How?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 4:56 PM  

If I were in charge, I'd want these sheriffs refusing to enforce this law. This is what they want! Doesn't anyone get it?

Anonymous daddynichol January 29, 2013 5:01 PM  

@ Aeoli Pera

So the feds can invoke Marshall Law?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:02 PM  

Noah,

Remember what I said before:

The progressive blueprint here is easy to see. They plan to pass this and then let it sit for a while without enforcing it. If they enforce it immediately, the people fight and they lose. That's how they work.

(Switching to the second person...)

After a while, you start enforcing it a little bit against bad people. Criminals, deadbeats, crazies...the strategy is to normalize the process, then divide and conquer...


This is the point of getting it on the books now. If people refuse to enforce the law, there's no backlash. There's no popular reaction. A few token attempts to repeal the law, sure, but maybe the supreme court knocks them down 5-4. The law sits in the corner and everybody forgets about it...until they decide to start disarming the Adam Lanzas. And then his mother (to be safe). And we all agree pedophiles and schizophrenics shouldn't have guns, right?

Anonymous Sensei January 29, 2013 5:02 PM  

This is what they want! Doesn't anyone get it? -AP

I get that the easiest way to take control of any established country/society is to calculatedly play its right against its left and vice versa. The knee-jerk reactions of each side are entirely predictable, so you use them to more or less get away with whatever you want.

But it's right for those sheriffs to refuse to enforce bad laws. What would you suggest they do instead? That's why once societal manipulators are in power, all you can do to stop them is forcibly remove them from power. You can't fight them through democratic processes because they already exploit those processes.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 5:03 PM  

I kinda doubt that widespread resistance is what the squids have in mind. In any case, if it goes that far, we'll see what these sheriffs' words are worth when they lose eligibility for federal grants to buy new toys.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:06 PM  

@daddynichol,

No, you can't invoke martial law over a population as heavily armed as Americans are. Any such declaration would have no real threat behind it.

Anonymous JartStar January 29, 2013 5:07 PM  

Also note that hundreds of sheriffs have stated their refusal to enforce gun confiscation.

Yep. They will have to deal with the States first before they can get to the citizens directly.

The anti-gun forces are made up of progressives, and the progressives have a lot on their plate right now besides gun control. They don't have infinite political will or clout and have bigger fish to fry.

What I do find very, very interesting is I see two main themes coming from progressives since the Obama victory: a)that the old school Union/white-Democrat harkening back to the 50-70s isn't going to work anymore, and b)that the darned ol' Constitution keeps getting in the way of progress. They are partially terrified of being in control now since it means they have to produce results and there's infighting on which direction to go. It's also very apparent that they are frustrated that their hands are tied fiscally as they simply cannot spend on the money they desire.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:11 PM  

What would you suggest they do instead?

It's obvious. You shoot the person who gives the order. If the general is complicit, the officers shoot the general. If the officers follow the generals' orders, the enlisted men shoot the officers...

...If the state troopers are given the order, they shoot the messenger. If local enforcement are given the order, they shoot the local authorities.

Anonymous Stilicho January 29, 2013 5:13 PM  

They are partially terrified of being in control now since it means they have to produce results and there's infighting on which direction to go.

Their messiah has a solution: vote present, then claim that there's a permanent crisis that requires even more sacrifice from you people. Now, why are you complaining? Don't you care? For the children?

Like many things, it will work until it abruptly stops.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 29, 2013 5:19 PM  

What's interesting is that it seems that those who insinuate that this is plan act as though what they really want is not a preservation of liberty, but an excuse to shoot someone

Never let a crisis go to waste. I heard that somewhere.





Anonymous Daniel January 29, 2013 5:20 PM  

Tad, such folk don't need another one, they've already got an excuse to shoot someone.

You.

Anonymous Sensei January 29, 2013 5:21 PM  

It's obvious. You shoot the person who gives the order. If the general is complicit, the officers shoot the general. If the officers follow the generals' orders, the enlisted men shoot the officers...

...If the state troopers are given the order, they shoot the messenger. If local enforcement are given the order, they shoot the local authorities. -AP


Is the sheriffs giving notice that they won't carry out these orders not more or less a shot across the bow that those things might indeed take place?
It's unreasonable to expect that the entire body of people organized (nominally, at least) to maintain societal order would simultaneously agree to violently turn against their hierarchies without giving notice of it. Maybe it's the obvious solution to you, but it goes against human psychology.

Anonymous Josh January 29, 2013 5:21 PM  

Hey look, someone else with the initials AP calling for shooting people.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:24 PM  

To make this more concrete, here's how Joe Schmoe local cop holds his superiors responsible:

He goes to the chief and says "We're not going to enforce this, right?"

If the chief says, "No, we're going to enforce it." Joe shoots him and faces the music like a man. If the chief says "Yes, it's clearly unconstitutional" Joe tells the chief to confront his superior. Or, more likely, Joe will have to do this himself. And so on, up the chain.

Civilians must have a different chain of command in mind. They need to confront their city-level politicians and demand a lawful statement one way or the other. Shouldn't be hard, given the way local politics works.

I'm not saying I'm optimistic. But you did ask what people should do to defeat this.

Anonymous civilServant January 29, 2013 5:25 PM  

Do you favor or oppose:
Yes No Unk
Background checks for all buyers 91% 8% 1%
More services for mentally ill 89% 9% 2%
Enforcement of existing gun laws 86% 12% 3%
Mental health checks on all buyers 83% 15% 2%
Background checks to buy ammo 80% 19% 1%
Putting armed guards in schools 60% 36% 4%
Banning high-capacity magazines 56% 38% 6%
Banning semi-automatic weapons 54% 42% 3%
Reducing access to violent movies 52% 43% 5%
Arming teachers 42% 52% 6%


It seems Tad's view is the majority view.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:27 PM  

Josh,

You're mistaken. As of yet, there is no law on the books.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:28 PM  

No such sweeping law as we're considering here, rather.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 5:34 PM  

Hell, if only a small fraction of the people opposed to a gun ban would just take all of their money out of the bank, max out their credit cards, and then not pay, it would collapse the system.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:36 PM  

I'll need to take a break from this soon.

Sensei,

You're right that it flies in the face of human psychology, but consider how many people would need to do this to get the law repealed or enforced? Ten? One hundred? Imagine one hundred shootings in a single week. Even the MSM couldn't sweep that under the rug.

Case 1: The societal manipulators want to pass this and let it sit. If it passes and sheriffs do not enforce it, then the societal manipulators will win in the long run. They'll get that 8-digit bodycount we're foreseeing in 2033 or whatever.

Case 2: If they don't pass it, good men need to do nothing. Nobody dies.

Case 3: If they do pass it and, say, 100 good men face the legal system because they followed my plan, then we can put off that civil war for another couple of decades. That's a hell of a lot better than sitting on our asses and letting Case 1 happen.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:41 PM  

Noah B,

No, it means those people become slaves. Consider the student loan crisis.

Anonymous bw January 29, 2013 5:46 PM  

The Cops will save you. They are the moral agents. They have been properly vetted. Only they need guns and Nazi attack dogs.

Connecticut cops beat tasered man who couldn't resist (VIDEO)
Three police officers in Connecticut's largest city have been put on desk duty until further notice since a video showing them attacking a man after he had already been brought down with a taser was posted to YouTube.


It is not about violence or deaths for the Statists and their enablers. It is about who gets to do it to whom.

Anonymous Blue Heaven January 29, 2013 5:47 PM  

what they really want is not a preservation of liberty, but an excuse to shoot someone. - Tad

No one hear could have described the Cops better. Outstanding.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 5:50 PM  

Aeoli, none of us can see the future, and it's usually a mistake to attempt to linearly extrapolate trends over the long run. In your Case 1, what if refusal on the part of the sheriffs to enforce gun laws led to a broader movement on the part of locals to refuse to enforce bad federal laws, especially if the local governments are nudged in that direction? To some extent, I think we're already seeing this happen with marijuana legalization in several of the states.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:52 PM  

It would be nice if I had at least one historical example of successful resistance to disarmament and the division/conquer thing. Then we could mimic it.

Say we fail in this and the civil war kicks in a couple of years or decades from now. At least we can study up on bin Laden's strategy and tactics in the meantime. Far as I can tell from the casualty reports, all it takes to bankrupt a superpower is a few middle-class mechanical engineers building IEDs in a garage somewhere.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:55 PM  

Noah B,

Good question. In that case, we'd have more of what we have already. A pretence of law selectively enforced against the bad people, while the good people do as they please.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 5:57 PM  

"No, it means those people become slaves. Consider the student loan crisis."

Your thinking is backwards. The student loan money isn't going to be repaid (at least, not in real terms). The federal backing of student loans was a desperate attempt to delay the collapse of academia. People who are still paying taxes are the ones paying for student loans.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 5:58 PM  

No one hear could have described the Cops better. Outstanding.

If they'd wanted to help people, they'd have become firemen or EMTs. I'd hazard a guess that you can trust the guy who became a cop because his dad was a cop.

Anonymous Move Zig January 29, 2013 5:58 PM  

Ummm...just fwiw, I just received my permit. Cherry is broken and when tax returns come, I go gun shopping...with a big smile on my face.
Apparently I am only one of many...which is reassuring for some reason.
My apologies for going (slightly) off topic.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 6:11 PM  

Noah B,

You may need to consider the debt in more concrete terms. Banks are always forgiving if you keep paying the minimums on your loans. They don't care how long it takes. They'll even adjust the minimums if your income is low.

All they care is that you keep working and you keep sending them part of the paycheck.

Remember, your paycheck represents real wealth creation. The money they lend you was magicked from thin air (same as a student's credentials, incidentally). So they type a couple of zeros into your bank account and you send them real wealth for the rest of your life in exchange. (Sure, the dollar loses some value.)

Blogger Desert Cat January 29, 2013 6:19 PM  

Noah B. January 29, 2013 5:34 PM
Hell, if only a small fraction of the people opposed to a gun ban would just take all of their money out of the bank, max out their credit cards, and then not pay, it would collapse the system.


Observing the last four-plus years, this doesn't hold water. All that would happen is that the Fed, through various mechanisms, recapitalizes the banks thus affected. If this could work, the collapse would already have happened.

Anonymous Noah B. January 29, 2013 6:22 PM  

"All they care is that you keep working and you keep sending them part of the paycheck."

Exactly. So give them nothing. It's so much easier to just refuse to pay than it is to shoot people, isn't it?

Anonymous Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 6:31 PM  

If you're arrested for nonpayment you'll still be working, creating real wealth, in prison. Your creditor will still be enjoying the wealth you create.

Imagine all Americans did this. Now everyone's in chains, doing manual labor, and passing the wealth on to their banks. The only reason this would fail is that it's an inefficient form of economy, and you can be sure the bankers will be the last to feel it.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 29, 2013 7:08 PM  

Jehu January 29, 2013 4:42 PM
It's amazing how a position held by a clear majority, or even a large minority, can be 'extreme'. Seems to me by definition it is mainstream.




unfortunately, Jehu, it's the Tads of the world who control the media and educational apparatuses. and they, therefore, define the language *as it is popularly used*.

you can have US Senators openly declaring that they would confiscate all firearms if they could and wholesale confiscation from law abiding citizens during declared emergencies such as Katrina and Tad characterizes that as not being a movement to confiscate weapons.

Anonymous JI January 29, 2013 7:09 PM  

If Democrats don't support this, they why on earth do they keep voting for it? And, unless I only know the 40%, why do all the ones I know say they'd happily give up their guns?

Anonymous Godfrey January 29, 2013 7:25 PM  

Don't be fooled, there are a lot of Democrats who will be holding onto their guns.

Anonymous Godfrey January 29, 2013 7:28 PM  

Also, notice that most of these so-called "laws" wouldn't apply to the runling classes. They'll continue to be well armed and protected.

Anonymous Sensei January 29, 2013 7:34 PM  

I imagine the major "pro-gun yet Democratic" demographic would be the union voters.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben January 29, 2013 7:47 PM  

Tad, you want to talk about the government going around invading countries and killing tons of people?

You're just a little shit. I want a gun to defend myself. Pure and simple. I'm not a government piece of shit at the Pentagon thinking up new weapons to incinerate thousands of people in an instant.

Anonymous Beau January 29, 2013 7:58 PM  

Don't be fooled, there are a lot of Democrats who will be holding onto their guns.

Many of them are the very ones who want to disarm us, like Bloomberg and Feinstein.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 8:20 PM  

No. They are not going to come after your guns. Not directly anyways. They are not going to do a direct assault on your front door. MexiKaliForniKation already has an “Assault Weapons” ban, yet hardly anyone turned in their “assault weapons” or registered them. No, they are sitting in dark corners of closets and gun safes that don’t see the light of day except to be cleaned… if ever. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act did not compel millions to turn in the “assault weapons.”

No. They are cowering you. Law, after law, after law. Laws that your children will grow up in. Laws that your children will be accustomed to. Programmed to. Growing up into the new camp one generation at a time. You… yourself, have grown up in laws that your grandfather may have scoffed at. And they in turn grew up in laws that their grandfathers scoffed at. The wheels of tyranny maybe turning slowly, but the wheels are turning none the less.

We are NOT our grandfathers. Our grandfathers were not their grandfathers. See where this is going? Where do you think it will end?

Go buy a gun from the Sears and Roebucks catalog? Go buy a gun without a NICS? Take out your once legal, now illegal gun, to the gun range?

A little here, a little there… and here we are. Controlled.

Sure… probably most will not turn in their newly found “illegal” weapons. Most will probably not register their newly found “illegal” weapons. But is that the point? Or is control the point? You may never get caught with those newly found “illegal” weapons, but if you do, welcome to the felony club… and all your guns, legal and “illegal” confiscated. No, all those newly found “illegal” guns will sit in a dark closet or gun safe… regulated and dared to see the light of day.

What if they started a revolution and there was no one to fight? What if they decreed one citizen control law after another, and no one fought back? How many people are sitting in prison right now for something that our Founders would have scoffed at? And of those who are sitting in prison right now for breaking some government diktat that never should have seen the light of day… where are their champions of justice and liberty?

Government is instituted on the threat of violence. Trauma based predictive programming. Here we are.

They have you sitting in the corner saying to yourself… IF, the government comes through my door, I will fight back. There will not be another Ft. Sumter… of which they are counting on. We will not fight back unless our government perpetuates mass violence upon us… of which they won’t, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. It is all scare tactics. And it is working. It has worked. And it will continue to work… as it has worked. What proof do you need? Here we are. You are not your grandfather. You grandfathers were not their grandfathers. Death by a thousand government diktats… and barely is a shot fired.

Do you get it now?

We’re just waiting for the impending doom!

The old fallback.

The wheel will keep on turning… A little here, a little there. And your grandchildren will not be their grandfathers… the generational camp. Here we are.

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – Adolf Hitler

Anonymous DonReynolds January 29, 2013 8:33 PM  

I recall a segment by Paul Harvey, maybe 20 years ago, when he took up the subject of majority rule in South Afrika. He said it sounds like a good idea, maybe we should try that HERE in the USA too. Then he proceeded to list at least two dozen issues where the vast majority of the American people are opposed but the ruling class insisted on ignoring the will of the people. Today, Paul Harvey would add gun confiscation and amnesty for illegal aliens as two MORE issues that are opposed by the vast majority of voters but the ruling class (personified also by the media) insists is necessary.

The press has been often referred to as the "Fourth Estate", but in the Obama era they may have been promoted to be the "Fifth Column". Infuriating.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 8:41 PM  

The list of sheriffs that are on record as opposing gun bans is compiled by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. If you are a sheriff or a peace officer, join! If not, join Oath Keepers.

Blogger Doom January 29, 2013 8:45 PM  

"I find it fascinating that even most liberals and Democrats who own guns aren't dumb enough to buy into the idea that a forcible government monopoly on violence is a good idea."

I find people who voted for Zero who don't want to give up their arms to be the most reprehensible people on earth. They just helped elect the very people they now wish to ignore, twice, and the government that goes with it. If gun owners do indeed hang together, those fuckers can burn on their own. I won't help them if I find out, at all, ever. And if their side loses the impeding war, I want them kicked out on their ass.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 8:45 PM  

Well, first of all, maybe these Sheriffs could start by showing us which of our liberties they DON'T trample on... which of our 10 amendments they DON'T crap on... before they tell us they won't confiscate our guns.

Should be interesting.

Go take your constitutionally legal fully automatic M-16 to your local Sheriff and see if he doesn't arrest your arse.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 8:47 PM  

Mr. Pea and I seem to agree on how it ends and how TPTB intend to get there, but he doesn't seem to share my opinion that mass murder is the point all along. Maybe I should pretend to believe it's incompetence instead of malice so I'll seem less crazy.

Blogger ajw308 January 29, 2013 8:48 PM  

Mr. Pea, you have a good point. I suspect our generations grandchildren would be shocked when they find guns, vaults, and maps to buried 6" capped PVC pipes in estates left to them and most would probably be shocked and turn them in, but the implementer of the Weatherman's radical plan isn't going to wait for two generations to pass.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 8:49 PM  

The mass murder will start at WWIII o'clock.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 8:50 PM  

So if your sheriff doesn't yell "Liberty or Death" and put on a tricorner hat he is useless?

Live in the real world, Agent Pea. Education of sheriffs is a process. This is a good start that you can build on.

You are an atheist, right?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 8:55 PM  

ajw308,

They may be evil, but they are not stupid.

I know some very serious people who honestly believe that they will come for their guns, but don't want to do the Ft. Sumter, who will start killing off various federal ABC's in their AO's. They are making a list, and checking it twice... IF that happens. And etc.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 29, 2013 8:55 PM  

Aeoli Pera..."Say we fail in this and the civil war kicks in a couple of years or decades from now. At least we can study up on bin Laden's strategy and tactics in the meantime. Far as I can tell from the casualty reports, all it takes to bankrupt a superpower is a few middle-class mechanical engineers building IEDs in a garage somewhere."

I believe you are mistaken. We are not Arabs, we are of an entirely different culture and tradition. If you can imagine the Irish Republican Army transplanted to Alabama or Texas or North Carolina, you would probably get a better idea of what to expect. We would not videotape beheading prisoners with a steel sword so all our pals could enjoyI our work later. We would not want you to suffer for the camera, but if you are a liberal politician or tv anchor, better send someone else to the street to get the newspaper in the morning. IEDs? You must be kidding. Watch for "Irish Lightening" instead. A box of 32 matches can do more damage than an AR-15 and only costs a nickle. The price of gasoline has been coming down lately.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 9:00 PM  

stg58/Animal Mother,

Actually, Jesus is my Lord and my Savior.

And please, cut the OK'er crap, I used to be one. If you are in the inner sanctum, look up... Damn 5-0.

“Like every elected official in the state, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” wrote Maketa in an open letter to El Paso County residents. “This means all rights.” - As an example.

I used to rounds with those Oath Fakers cops.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 9:00 PM  

The mass murder will start at WWIII o'clock.

I still disagree. My argument in previous comments (heterogeneous society) is that our violence will be directed inward as a civil war.

Obviously, some other countries will probably be at war at the same time. And another country might try to attack us (doubtful, given our nukes). But we won't be attacking another world power like in WWII.

So if your sheriff doesn't yell "Liberty or Death" and put on a tricorner hat he is useless?

No need to yell, but if he doesn't believe "Liberty or Death" that makes him yet another useful idiot.

Were you listening, or were you looking at the woman in the red dress? Look again.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 9:04 PM  

I still disagree. My argument in previous comments (heterogeneous society) is that our violence will be directed inward as a civil war.

We'll find out... some day... one day... maybe.

Anonymous p-dawg January 29, 2013 9:06 PM  

@Aeoli Pera: Oddly enough, you don't typically get arrested for not PAYING your income tax. You usually get arrested for not FILING it. They will hit you with non-payment when they're already getting your for not filing, but otherwise just keep filing and telling them you'll pay as soon as you can and you're fine. Note that this does not constitute legal advice, just my observations of many, many tax cases over the years.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 9:10 PM  

DonReynolds,

You're right, of course. But I wouldn't discount the IEDs or the general strategy of bankrupting the larger opponent. Both have a proven track record. We're not talking about destroying the enemy, which is an unattainable goal. We're only talking about exhausting the enemy and being left alone long enough to get a parallel economy running.

After one such war we can expect the country once known as America to fail to rebuild itself. I doubt there will/would be a second war.

Anonymous p-dawg January 29, 2013 9:18 PM  

I don't advocate the shooting of government officials. But I would like to note that if you wanted to do something crazy like that, it would be better to shoot to wound than kill. Wounded personnel require far more support and expenditure of time and money than do corpses. For research purposes only.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 9:19 PM  

p-dawg,

A little off-topic- We were talking about loans, not taxes. I expect that once nonpayment becomes a real issue the orcs in blue will want to start "cracking down". It's the only response they know.

TPTB on the other hand...I'm still getting a handle on their psychology. Crafty, patient bastards. Maybe semivoluntary make-work government projects. Pyramid-building type stuff. (They seem to be really into monuments.) And if you're ditching the economy anyway then what the hell, right?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 9:23 PM  

Like I said, they are evil, not stupid...

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

Anonymous p-dawg January 29, 2013 9:24 PM  

@AP sorry, my apologies for my confusion. I'm certainly no lawyer, but isn't peonage illegal in this country? Isn't being criminally prosecuted for failing to pay back a loan the equivalent of being sent to debtor's prison? I am honestly seeking clarification here, as noted, I'm no lawyer. I thought US v. Reynolds cleared that up, though.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 9:34 PM  

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is bullshit. We have flushed out several of these sheriffs who talk a good game but tolerate this behavior by their deputies and have a different attitude day to day.

I think we have found another paper sheriff.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 9:40 PM  

What I found at OK'ers when I and other veterans joined in it's early stage:

I'm a Law Enforcement Officer sniffle-sniffle it is my job sniffle to enforce the law sniffle-sniffle I don't make the laws sniffle I might not like the law sniffle but that is what I am paid to do sniffle if you don't like the law sniffle-sniffle then get the law sniffle changed sniffle and besides sniffle SCOTUS says sniffle it is okay sniffle.

Yeah, I and various veterans got kicked out.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 29, 2013 9:44 PM  

"Do you favor or oppose:
Yes No Unk
Background checks for all buyers 91% 8% 1%
More services for mentally ill 89% 9% 2%
Enforcement of existing gun laws 86% 12% 3%
Mental health checks on all buyers 83% 15% 2%
Background checks to buy ammo 80% 19% 1%
Putting armed guards in schools 60% 36% 4%
Banning high-capacity magazines 56% 38% 6%
Banning semi-automatic weapons 54% 42% 3%
Reducing access to violent movies 52% 43% 5%
Arming teachers 42% 52% 6%"

Scary indeed. Not that I give a shit about what a "majority" thinks. God damn it, I'm a majority of one.

Anonymous dh January 29, 2013 9:50 PM  

This is the ultimate push poll.

Even the most extreme version of a gun ban proposed does not call for confiscation. It's like polling what will happen if the sun refuses to come up.

Anonymous CitizenOutkast January 29, 2013 9:52 PM  

If this was Germany in their "glorious" past, Tad would be telling the Jews to settle down and not worry about what that Hitler guy is saying. After all, he hasn't made a move against them at this point so it's just a bunch of paranoia. Relax.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 9:52 PM  

Mr. Pea,

Yes, we had a lot of that, in the beginning. Even on our Board of Directors. When Jose Guerena, the Marine in Tucson who was gunned down by SWAT officers happened, we planned a march in Tucson. The LEO's on our board of directors opposed the idea because they didn't want to make the police in Tucson and across the country mad. Us v them, still. The LEO's refused to participate, and so they were removed from the Board of Directors.

There you have some internal philosophical struggles from our early days.

We want all the LEO's we can to join, but we won't sacrifice our principles to keep them as members.

I personally signed up R. Lee Ermey into Oath Keepers. We have many thousands of good members and patriots.
Happy? We would live to have you back. Which state are you in?

Anonymous Godfrey January 29, 2013 9:58 PM  

The historical record shows...


First registration

Then confiscation

And then the round up of political dissidents


Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 9:58 PM  

p-dawg,

I'm certainly no lawyer, but isn't peonage illegal in this country?

I don't know. Probably. But a large percentage of American graduates are effectively peons, as are many casualties of the housing bubble (particularly the Mexicans who work for less than minimum wage). When an unskilled worker has a large debt with high interest that prohibits them from owning property or investing in new skills (because any income above subsistence living is paid toward the debt), it is fair to describe them as a "peon".

Anyway, I was responding to Noah B's hypothetical idea of crashing the system with debt, which would put a lot of people in a similar situation.

Isn't being criminally prosecuted for failing to pay back a loan the equivalent of being sent to debtor's prison?

Yes. As I mentioned, I'm not sure what's going to happen to our underclass. As with illegal aliens some will want to "crack down", others will say they want to "show compassion" but really they just want the cheap labor.

Anonymous Godfrey January 29, 2013 10:05 PM  

@ p-dawg January 29, 2013 9:18 PM I don't advocate the shooting of government officials.


Government officials are stooges. They're easily replaced. The real power lies with the wealthy international elites that control the large banks, the large corporations and the large foundations.

Politicians are egotistical morons selected and funded to play the role of "representative".

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 10:19 PM  

Happy? We would live to have you back. Which state are you in?

I still have inside sources in OK'ers. Thanks, but not interested.

When a veteran OK'er goes to directly hold a OK'er cop accountable, he will be immediately shot down as being divisive. Left a very bad taste in me. I'm not used to going along to get along.

By the way, how many of those SWAT cops saw the error in their way and confessed and joined OK'ers after that little march in Tucson?

Look, Ok'ers is what OK'ers is. I'm just not interested... thanks.

Like I said, ask them which of the 10 amendments and liberties they don't crap on before you believe they believe in the 2nd amendment. I am not willing to compromise.

Blogger Aeoli Pera January 29, 2013 10:21 PM  

Reading back through the thread, I noticed an hole in my response to Noah B. I claimed that taking out loans to crash the system would condemn the debtors to peonage. I later stated that I don't know what will happen to our present debtors (the new underclass). This statement undermines the confidence in the claim above.

To patch this up, I refer you to Desert Cat's comment. Regardless of my confidence in the eventual form of peonage (the recurrence of debt prison or not), I maintain that the debtors would fail to bankrupt their creditors and would therefore still be condemned to a life of effective peonage. This is because the large banks' loan money doesn't just dry up. They are only "investing" in a very loose sense, because they can make up any bad investments by printing more money.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 29, 2013 10:25 PM  

@dh: "Even the most extreme version of a gun ban proposed does not call for confiscation. It's like polling what will happen if the sun refuses to come up."

You and Agent Ta(r)d need to stop this line.

They aren't stupid. Why would they propose a bill that includes confiscation at this point? They don't have the votes.

Confiscation comes later. Registration may even come later.

But the Left that you are a part of will not stop. They never have. So stop the "they won't confiscate" line. You've been outmanuevered on this several times.

I'm calling you out.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 10:31 PM  

Mr. Pea,

Fair enough. I am sorry you had to deal with that in OK. We recognize the problems you describe and work to eliminate them so more people don't have the same experience.

Anonymous Anonymous January 29, 2013 10:45 PM  

The police/sheriffs are not going to be defending liberty in all likelihood.
Even the ones that claim so now, how many will fall when the pressure sits upon their chests.

Do not count on it.

-ConantheCimmerian

Anonymous The other skeptic January 29, 2013 10:46 PM  

Search on this text:

In Unconventional Warfare operations it may be impossible or un­wise to use conventional military munitions as tools in the conduct of certain missions

Anonymous Anonymous January 29, 2013 10:48 PM  

And yes Tad and dh have been shown to be completely wrong when it comes to confiscation. Confiscation is not the first step.


Though Pea is beating this quote into the ground, this is in fact their course:

When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already. . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – Adolf Hitler

-ConantheCimmerian

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 10:58 PM  

Maybe it will start sinking in and some people will say... "Hey! That's my child and my grandchildren!"

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 11:01 PM  

stg58/Animal Mother,

What was the green-beanies name on the Board of Directors? Yeah, that's the one. He and a few others in the hierarchy went on a witch hunt... and decimated a lot of good people.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 29, 2013 11:13 PM  

Green Beret? Rex. He's dead. Died in his sleep last year.

Anonymous Mr. A Pea January 29, 2013 11:14 PM  

Gun Control…

So now, every child in school who twitches the wrong way or picks up a bubble-gum toy shaped like a pistol, or points his finger at a friend and says Bang, or looks sad and lonely for ten minutes at the back of the class on a rainy Tuesday, or draws pictures when he should be adding numbers in his notebook, or wears odd clothes, or gets angry for any reason at all, or objects to taking a vaccine, or wears a jacket with a small American flag sewn to the shoulder, or doesn’t play well with others, or makes a positive statement in class about the Bill of Rights, or reminds a teacher of a little criminal in a movie, or has a bottle opener in his pocket, or dreams in class about designing a rocket that will take people to Mars…can be referred to a counselor, who in turn will refer him to a psychiatrist, who will make some sort of off-the-shelf diagnosis, which will travel with the child for the rest of his life, making the child believe he has a brain problem, and the psychiatrist will prescribe that child drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Zoloft, Paxil, or Prozac, drugs that scramble neurotransmitter systems and can very certainly cause that child to go violent.

The Psychiatric Wolves Attack More Innocent Children

And like Adolf has been saying...

Meanwhile.

People might not like, but lets be honest for once... there - it - is.

Sigh... Beating a dead horse.

Good night folks.

Anonymous bw January 29, 2013 11:15 PM  

Were you listening, or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?

No. It was a polka dot dress. Right, Sirhan?

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 29, 2013 11:15 PM  

Green Beret? Rex. He's dead. Died in his sleep last year.

Yeah, that's his name and so I heard.

Anonymous bw January 29, 2013 11:22 PM  

The federal backing of student loans was a desperate attempt to delay the collapse of academia. NoahB

It's also a necessary place to further propagandize and hide millions of young workers for a time...

Anonymous DonReynolds January 29, 2013 11:40 PM  

Unending Improvement..."Scary indeed. Not that I give a shit about what a "majority" thinks. God damn it, I'm a majority of one."

Not as bad as you seem to think.

Remember, the majority of people in this country are women. Assuming the survey was not biased in any way, you can safely assume the female majority was overwhelmingly in the Yes column. Fortunately, this country is NOT a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. So it does not matter much what women think about guns any more than it matters what men think about abortion. The women will never take away my guns or my constitutional rights. I never asked them if it was OK in the first place. I give up long ago giving a flip what they think. Any men who take their marching orders from women best keep their distance from me.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 29, 2013 11:41 PM  

He said that the light-skinned blacks have been cruel oppressors of the dark-skinned Haitian majority (like him). “The white man, at least he will give the black man a chance. These mulattoes, forget about it. They hate the black man worse than anything. They keep everything for themselves.”

Hmmm, is the Mocha Messiah from Haiti?

Anonymous dh January 29, 2013 11:50 PM  

I'm calling you out.

You can call me out endlessly, it doesn't change the facts:

a. Yes, there are some, even a bunch, of liberals who want to take all the guns. I can only speak for myself, I have not claimed otherwise. There are some elected Democrats/liberals who want all guns gone, end of story. And if they could, they would confiscate. Right now.

b. There are some, including myself, who would like the 2nd amendment repealed and replaced.

I would just say that it is extremely dangerous to judge and make decisions on policy based on the fringiest elements of your political base. I would not say we should make policy decisions based on, say, VD's gun policy (insane people can buy anything they can afford, private citizens should be able to own whatever military weapons they want, felons/active convicts have a God-given right to bear arms of any nature they want, and more). Likewise, Dianne Fiensten and Michael Moore are not appropriate barometers of the liberal left anymore than any person on the far-right of this issue is either.

Now. Onto your call out:

c. I have no idea what will happen in the future. And neither do you. You would like to use historical precedent, which there is much, and use it to calculate a future outcome. Ok. That's not a bad approach to predictions or policy. But in an honest evaluation, you have to consider all evidence, not just the evidence that supports one scenario that could happen. The alternate scenario to the "brick by brick" theory of what will happen regarding gun control is the "status quo" theory, in which, nothing substantial changes.

d. Under the "status quo" model, nothing of substance changes. "Of substance" means, namely, that some people who are broadly defined as "bad" can't buy any guns, and most everyone broadly defined as "good" can't buy some "bad" guns. All the rest of the people who are "good" can buy "good" guns. What has been proposed as of now is expanding, to a previously held definition with some new rules, what is a "bad" gun, and who is a "bad" person. Whether or not this bill becomes law, it is not a radical change in terms of the overall status. It certainly does not approach the scenario that the polling brings up.

The problem with the "brick by brick" theory is we have had gun controls in this country since immediately after the 2nd amendment was ratified. And we have had modern gun control, with only a few changes, for about 80 years. During that 80 years, nothing of substance has changed. During that time, the "worst case scenarios" have happened in other countries, but not here. Soviet Russia, Germany, and all manner of African tinpots have done exactly what you suggest will happen in America - registration, confiscation, and extermination.

So at some point, you have to acknowledge what could happen hasn't happened. And when you examine the reason why they haven't happened, one conclusion is that there is something in our system of government, cultural or sociological makeup, or some other factor, which tends to discourage that. It could be widespread gun ownership putting a backstop against expanding the definition of "good" and "bad" people and guns, or it could be something else. The reason doesn't actually matter, except to identify, that the underlying dynamics haven't changed.

e. Finally, we also have strong evidence that the "brick by brick" strategy doesn't lead to the end-game which you envision. That evidence is that in Pres. Obama's first term he could have jumped to the end-game. That end-game would be major game changing restrictions on gun ownership. He did not pursue that strategy. This is not a minor point.

The theory of "brick by brick" is entirely possible. That much is true. However, there is little evidence that it's actually happening.

Anonymous dh January 29, 2013 11:54 PM  

Sure… probably most will not turn in their newly found “illegal” weapons. Most will probably not register their newly found “illegal” weapons. But is that the point? Or is control the point? You may never get caught with those newly found “illegal” weapons, but if you do, welcome to the felony club… and all your guns, legal and “illegal” confiscated. No, all those newly found “illegal” guns will sit in a dark closet or gun safe… regulated and dared to see the light of day.

If this was the case, why would the law be written in way that explicitly works against this purpose?

Both the original expired law, and the proposed one, have nothing to say about weapons that already exist. No gun that is currently legal becomes illegal to own. You are aware of that, right?

Anonymous DonReynolds January 29, 2013 11:57 PM  

Aeoli Pera..."Isn't being criminally prosecuted for failing to pay back a loan the equivalent of being sent to debtor's prison?

Yes. As I mentioned, I'm not sure what's going to happen to our underclass.".

Happens all the time, sonny, thousands of times a DAY! You get ordered to appear before the judge to answer to a complaint. When you show up the judge orders you to pay XYZ. If for some reason you do not....maybe you don't have an income, maybe you lost your job, maybe you got robbed.....no matter what the reason is. The judge will have you picked up for CONTEMPT OF COURT.....after all, you failed to do as ordered.....and there is no excuse. Then you can be kept in JAIL until SOMEBODY PAYS ON YOUR BEHALF. It does not matter who or whether they are related or whether you had to sell something to raise the cash. You rot in jail till the money is paid. YES....THAT IS DEBTOR'S PRISON. And each time you fail to make a monthly payment, the judge can repeat the entire process all over again. In addition, the US State Department can lift your passport, if necessary, and your drivers license can be suspended, and any professional or trade license can be put on hold too....in addition to the usual remedies of selling your crap at a public auction or seizing your retirement fund, or your social security check, or your tax refund. Yeah....they can do that all right. They do it every freakin day. Right now most of the people this happens to are men and the debt is called child support and alimony. But it is no different for tax debt, or student loan, or anything else the court chooses to hear. And yes, they do not mind if much of the burden falls on the "underclasses".

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:02 AM  

"And when you examine the reason why they haven't happened, one conclusion is that there is something in our system of government, cultural or sociological makeup, or some other factor, which tends to discourage that."

Yeah... that would be US. The people who are saying not no, but hell no. It's also noteworthy that gun control was advancing in this country well into the mid-90s, and it was largely due to disruptive communications technologies (AM radio, email, web, social media, etc.) that gun control efforts have been at least temporarily halted. These new communications technologies have allowed people to bypass the statist media to gather information, express their beliefs, and coordinate with others.

"Obama's first term he could have jumped to the end-game. That end-game would be major game changing restrictions on gun ownership. He did not pursue that strategy. This is not a minor point."

Obama was kept in check to some degree by fear of how the people would respond, which is exactly the point.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:03 AM  

"No gun that is currently legal becomes illegal to own."

And once again you're lying. If many of these modern weapons aren't registered and a $200 fine isn't paid on each one, they would become illegal. Not only is this a violation of the 2nd amendment, it's a taking without due process.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother January 30, 2013 12:14 AM  

A man in NY was jusy arrested for possessing 5 30 round AR mags.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:15 AM  

"Obama's first term he could have jumped to the end-game. That end-game would be major game changing restrictions on gun ownership. He did not pursue that strategy. This is not a minor point."

Let's also not forget that gun control cost the Democrats their majorities in Congress for 10 years. Obama and the Clintons are well aware of that, and they didn't want to put an albatross around the Democratic Party's collective neck. Obama also wanted a second term, and for that, he needed to keep pretending to be a moderate rather than a Marxist ideologue.

Now he's been reelected and the Republicans hold the House. If Obama can browbeat or manipulate the Congress into passing gun control legislation, he gets his legacy, and any blame gets spread around instead of falling squarely on the Democratic Party. That's the play.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 30, 2013 12:20 AM  

I got the exact cop-out response I was expecting.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 12:23 AM  

Obama was kept in check to some degree by fear of how the people would respond, which is exactly the point.

Exactly. So what is going to change in the "brick by brick" strategy to permit some future confiscation?

It doesn't make any sense, because at some point, you have to have a large reduction of weapons to permit complete confiscation.

Whatever the reason, we are at a stalemate. Nothing that has been changed by this.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 12:25 AM  

And once again you're lying. If many of these modern weapons aren't registered and a $200 fine isn't paid on each one, they would become illegal. Not only is this a violation of the 2nd amendment, it's a taking without due process.
Are you talking about the National Firearms Act? I do not think you are speaking factually. If you are, I am happy to correct myself.

Anonymous Unending Improvement January 30, 2013 12:29 AM  

Here's how it goes:

1. Obama pushes through a watered down bill, but "Assault Weapons" are banned, along with magazine restrictions.
2. People generally get used to not legally being able to own these weapons.
3. Another crisis comes, the cries that the laws currently in place were not enough goes out.
4. With renewed force and the Democrats regaining the House, gun registration is put in place.
5. Many Americans comply and register their weapons, all future weapons bought are registered as well.
6. Another crisis. Cries for confiscation come up. The government knows where a large percentage of the weapons are. Federal and pressed State agencies start rounding up all weapons.

The only way this chain of events would be broken or merely delayed is if a Republican President comes in with a Republican Congress.

However,

1. The GOP is timid and would struggle to implement.
2. The GOP is dead. The 2012 election was their last chance to gain any significant traction. With amnesty coming soon, millions more Democrat voters come into the US.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 12:30 AM  

Let's also not forget that gun control cost the Democrats their majorities in Congress for 10 years. Obama and the Clintons are well aware of that, and they didn't want to put an albatross around the Democratic Party's collective neck. Obama also wanted a second term, and for that, he needed to keep pretending to be a moderate rather than a Marxist ideologue.
Uhh, no. That's not factual either.

But regardless, when Obama's term, that some here have said he doesn't he want, ends, and he has not developed into a full scale Marxist ideologue policy-wise, then what will the claim be?

Because right here in your statement, you have upended the narrative of his first term - all for the last 4 years we've heard how is nothing but a Marxist. But now, you are saying he was pretending to be a moderate BUT now the Marxism happens.

Really it doesn't make any sense. Instead of trying to find code words just look at the policies he has put forth and gotten put into place. Most of the ones regarding foreign policy are simply extensions of neo-conservative ideology that has ruled Washington for 20 years. His social policies, though often pretended to be socialism, are nothing of the sort. His corporate bailouts are the exact continuation of the Republican policies of 2006-2008, identically executed. His healthcare reform is literally the farthest thing from socialized medicine - in which citizens have to pay a private company for insurance to cover private treatment.

The largest planks of Obama's policy body that is socialism is to protect the previously implemented socialist programs from decimation. Which is not nothing, but hardly enough to hang your hat on in describing him as Marxist ideologue.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 12:33 AM  

Here's how it goes:

Yes, it could go that way. Future Presidents and Congresses could choose to do anything. They could choose to repeal the 2nd amendment. At anytime in the future, something else could happen, that has nothing to do with today.

Now that we have established that in the future, something different could happen, we are left with what is happening now.

1. Worst case is we return to the 1994-2004 status quo, in which, gun ownership continued to climb and more and more people continued to own guns.

2. With or without the proposed new gun laws, it is the most legally and practically secure time to own a weapon in American history.

Those are just a clear statement of reality. There are millions of ways to imagine something changing in the future. That doesn't make them likely.

Anonymous Ulmer Miller January 30, 2013 12:34 AM  

Giraffe said,"Also note that Wyoming has proposed a law to arrest any fed trying to enforce law that requires confiscation or registration. If the sheriff's were to deputize a large portion of the men in their counties it could be pretty difficult for the feds to bail out their agents like they did for the murderers at Ruby Ridge."

True but didn't Obama sign an executive order that allows him to take control of power grids across the country in times of crisis?
"Oh, they won't comply with confiscation? Let's shut off the heat!"

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:46 AM  

"Are you talking about the National Firearms Act?"

Yes. Feinstein's new proposed gun ban would add something like 150 different types of weapons to those currently regulated under the NFA.

"Exactly. So what is going to change in the "brick by brick" strategy to permit some future confiscation?"

Any number of factors could change that may give those in power the impression that they can confiscate privately owned weapons with minimal resistance. Just look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A crisis arose, and those who were opposed to individual ownership of weapons exploited the situation, betrayed the public trust, and disarmed those who were most vulnerable and in need of arms. Don't pretend that confiscation can't happen, because it has happened, and quite recently.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 12:52 AM  

"1. Worst case is we return to the 1994-2004 status quo, in which, gun ownership continued to climb and more and more people continued to own guns."

No. You're still lying. Worst case in Feinstein's gun ban, which much broader than the 1994 ban.

"2. With or without the proposed new gun laws, it is the most legally and practically secure time to own a weapon in American history."

Bullshit. In 1910, there were practically no restrictions on guns. You could buy one from your local hardware store or order one through the Sears catalog. There wasn't a significant crime problem in this country until do-gooders enacted Prohibition. People who sold weapons didn't have to have any federal licenses, keep any records for the ATF, or worry about corrupt prosecutors trying to destroy them simply because they sold firearms.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 30, 2013 1:00 AM  

True but didn't Obama sign an executive order that allows him to take control of power grids across the country in times of crisis?
"Oh, they won't comply with confiscation? Let's shut off the heat!"


Shutting off the power grid for about three or more days is going to lead to Civil War II. People are going to start dying and some ethnic cleansing is going to occur, although perhaps not in Wyoming.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:23 AM  

No. You're still lying. Worst case in Feinstein's gun ban, which much broader than the 1994 ban.
Can you provide a link to the proposed bill?

If you are talking about the law that's being proposed now, it is very similar to the 1994 bill. The main changes are: clip size restriction, instead of 2 characteristics, the requirement has changed to 1, and weapons that have been invented since 1994 being added to the "bad" list. It is an updated but essentially unchanged bill, one that does not significantly alter the "big picture" of gun rights. If passed, we are would be in a very similar state as we were in 1994, with a few more restrictions than before.

If you are talking about Feinstein wanting to ban all guns, and confiscate them, I agree, I think she would given the chance. However, so far as I know, there is no actual proposal to do so. Happy to correct myself if that is inaccurate.

Bullshit. In 1910, there were practically no restrictions on guns. You could buy one from your local hardware store or order one through the Sears catalog. There wasn't a significant crime problem in this country until do-gooders enacted Prohibition. People who sold weapons didn't have to have any federal licenses, keep any records for the ATF, or worry about corrupt prosecutors trying to destroy them simply because they sold firearms.

It is true that you could buy weapons as you describe, however, the Supreme Court recognized essentially any restriction on ownership as legal, if done by Congress or the States. And there we actually very many restrictions - they were at the State or local level. Congress could ban anything not related to a regulated militia, and they did start right at the onset of prohibition, which also lined up with a new class or more portable and effective automatic weapons. If you were to read up on the Miller case, you would find that the Courts found Congress could ban any gun that was not related to militia service. In the Heller case, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time a fundamental right under the 2nd amendment to own guns and other weapons for no particular purpose. This is the first time in 200+ years that the Courts have explicitly recognized and struck down restrictions on the general restriction gun ownership.

Also, in the Heller decision, the conservative wing of the Court all but promised to delve deeper into 2nd amendment law, and it is very possible that a new assault weapon ban, the Brady bill, the National Firearms act, and other laws could be partially or completely struck down. With a firm precedent establishing that Congress must recognize the 2nd amendment individual ownership right, it is the most secure time to own a weapon.

Throughout the last 200+ years of US history, state and local governments could go much further in banning weapons, like in DC, where they were virtually completely banned. This is all over now.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:24 AM  

True but didn't Obama sign an executive order that allows him to take control of power grids across the country in times of crisis?
"Oh, they won't comply with confiscation? Let's shut off the heat!"


I don't think this is true. Do you have a link?

Anonymous ericcs January 30, 2013 1:24 AM  

Tad intimates paranoia by assuring us that there is no move to confiscate guns, but like all leftists, Tad is a damn liar. Hubert Humphrey promised that he would eat his hat if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever imposed quotas on society; Ted Kennedy repeatedly stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 would not affect the demographic mix of the US, and likewise with every liberal/leftist/progressive who has ever influenced an issue in the public venue, ad infinitum ad nauseum. In their march through the institutions, the left has always used semantic ploys, lies and deceit as inculcated by the Frankfurt School, Alinsky, Chomsky, and the Devil himself.

As I've stated before, Tad does not represent the opposing side in some genteel debating society. Believe it or not, the left proscribed war on the rest of us a long time ago, which has engendered even more of their lies as they refuse to acknowledge it. Tad is the enemy, and should be treated accordingly.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 30, 2013 1:29 AM  

dh said:

and weapons that have been invented since 1994 being added to the "bad" list.


Now I know you are a dickhead.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:34 AM  

Yes. Feinstein's new proposed gun ban would add something like 150 different types of weapons to those currently regulated under the NFA.

I don't think this is true. The NFA is from 1934, and as far as I can tell, is not changed at all by the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013".

The text of the bill does not support what you are claiming. (Link: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4)

Again, if you have a different reading, happy to correct myself.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 1:36 AM  

"If you are talking about the law that's being proposed now, it is very similar to the 1994 bill. The main changes are: clip size restriction, instead of 2 characteristics, the requirement has changed to 1, and weapons that have been invented since 1994 being added to the "bad" list. It is an updated but essentially unchanged bill, one that does not significantly alter the "big picture" of gun rights. If passed, we are would be in a very similar state as we were in 1994, with a few more restrictions than before."

So you admit that you don't know what's in the bill, and then without further hesitation, you pretend to know what's in it. Do you even realize that you're lying, or do you just do it without thinking?

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:50 AM  

Ted Kennedy repeatedly stated that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 would not affect the demographic mix of the US

The problem is that you are just wrong. The law you are talking about is not one the associated iwth Kennedy.

The law you are referring to is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which for the first time permitted chained immigration - i.e., one person comes over, and then sponsor the whole family.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, the one that Kennedy spoke about on the floor of the Senate, set a yearly cap of 290,000 legal immigrants. So, for the last 48 years, at 290k a year, we'd be talking about a net increase of 13,920,000 new legal immigrants, plus offspring, less deaths, etc. A far cry from where we are.

In fact, in one fell swoop, Congress legalized 3 million illegal immgrants in 1982. This was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985, signed into law by Pres. Reagan. This

Hubert Humphrey promised that he would eat his hat if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ever imposed quotas on society;

Again, this is just untrue. The CRA does not impose quotas. It allows quotas. That's a huge difference. Thousands of other laws and regulations "impose" quoatas, and lots of Court cases establish that they are permissible.

In their march through the institutions, the left has always used semantic ploys, lies and deceit as inculcated by the Frankfurt School, Alinsky, Chomsky, and the Devil himself.

The problem is that the conservatives just want to be lazy. Where you say "semantic ploys", the other side says "laws". The left and liberals are tenacious about our goals, ideals, and desired policies and outcomes. The conservatives meanwhile, as demonstrated on this blog, are intellectually inferior, and essentially spoiled losers. They can't be bothered to engage in the political process because they envision a static, conforming, essentially flat status quo. Why tinker with what was perfect to begin with, right? Especially after the Pres. GW Bush fiasco of the last decade, they are essentially rudderless, unable to articulate any policy agenda with conviction, unable to govern where they do have power, and unable to exist in any meaningful fashion on the national political level.

So many of the supporters are simply trying to re-fight previously lost and settled matters, imagining some sort of tipping point where they can finally start the killing.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:53 AM  

So you admit that you don't know what's in the bill, and then without further hesitation, you pretend to know what's in it. Do you even realize that you're lying, or do you just do it without thinking?

I have read the bill that is proposed, but since you are apparently capable of being specific, it's hard to figure out what laws you are talking about. If you are talking about the proposed law in front of the Senate right now, I have read it, and I don't believe it has any relation to what you are talking about. If you disagree, happy to have it out. I readily admit I am not lawyer, and it's possible that my reading of it is not accurate. The text of the bill is not lengthy. It's 113 pages give or take, with the majority being two lists of weapons.

If you are talking about some other law, never proposed or envisioned, or passed, it would help if you are more specific.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:55 AM  

Now I know you are a dickhead.

Great, I am dickhead. Anything else? I can tell you are an intellectual weight to be reckoned with. When pushed, the best you can come up with is "dickhead".

Perhaps my poopy-pants will be the next topic of discussion.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 2:14 AM  

OK, the registration requirement and $200 fee do not appear to have been included in the bill that was finally introduced in the Senate.

However, there is some language in this bill that is so broad that it could make virtually anyone owning one of these modern weapons into a felon. This is a far, far broader ban than the original assault ban. And most semiautomatic pistols other than 1911's would be banned by this bill.

This part in particular is especially dangerous. One of the definitions of a semiautomatic assault weapon is "Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun."

So what falls into that category? Why, that's for the ATF to decide, of course! Did you replace the old buffer spring in your AR with one that's a little stiffer? In that case, that new buffer spring is a SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON, and you just became a felon if you installed it after the ban went into effect.

This is NOT a return to the 1994-2004 status quo. This is tyrannical.

Anonymous ericcs January 30, 2013 2:18 AM  

'dh' has ably described the ratchet effect used by the left as they assert something supposedly benign in some law, to be used in aid of future laws that impose their ultimate aims on society. He takes issues of right and wrong, and devolves them into legalistic semantic games. The left usurps power with laws and regulations, all of which are the Holy Writ in their secular religion, and which thus allows them to worship that repository of morality the State ever more fervently.

Thank you, dh... you have yet again demonstrated each of my points, while simultaneously being so enormously stupid as to not realize it. Or perhaps you are simply disingenous like all the rest of your horde.

Too bad the so-called lazy have awakened. Be reminded that forbearance is not surrender. Behold mine enemy...

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 2:26 AM  

Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Yup. Good bye bump stocks.

This is NOT a return to the 1994-2004 status quo. This is tyrannical.

This is comical. Really. If you described the Assault Weapon Ban of 1993/4 as tryanical, I could say that at least you are consistent. But it's comical to try to pretend that banning modifications that are designed or have the effect of increasing the rate of fire is tryanny.

Either you are fine with full-auto weapons, or you aren't. If you are, fine, I can respect that. Repeal the NFA, and be done with it.

Trying to take things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_SWefYWKw0 and backdoor full-auto weapons is just silly.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 2:29 AM  

'dh' has ably described the ratchet effect used by the left as they assert something supposedly benign in some law, to be used in aid of future laws that impose their ultimate aims on society. He takes issues of right and wrong, and devolves them into legalistic semantic games. The left usurps power with laws and regulations, all of which are the Holy Writ in their secular religion, and which thus allows them to worship that repository of morality the State ever more fervently.

All of which translates to "dh is a meanie pants because he wants to actually read the laws and understand them, and I just want my way, or else there's going to be some shooting".

Too bad the so-called lazy have awakened. Be reminded that forbearance is not surrender. Behold mine enemy...
Okay, great, we are enemies.

Here is a question for you. If everything you say is true, why have you so far chosen forbearance, and why haven't you started the killing yet?

If any brick is a brick to far, aren't you being a coward and a failure by following existing gun laws? Isn't any regulation of weapons an infringement of the 2nd amendment?

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 2:32 AM  

" But it's comical to try to pretend that banning modifications that are designed or have the effect of increasing the rate of fire is tryanny."

More important is the language including anything that FUNCTIONS to increase the rate of fire. It is tyrannical because it can be interpreted to include practically any modification made to a firearm.

"Either you are fine with full-auto weapons, or you aren't. If you are, fine, I can respect that. Repeal the NFA, and be done with it."

Clearly, you are aware that this ban goes far beyond the scope of the 1994 ban. You lied when you pretended it did not. You're one sorry lowlife, dh.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 2:35 AM  

Noah, just in general, I really enjoy having a nice discussion on the topic of gun control. I have to say it's tiresome having it in the form that has to happen this way. The first step is to be insulted and called a liar a dozen times. Then the second step is to move the goal posts. Finally the third step is to go to extremes to justify a previously state opinion.

If you are in the VD camp, which is that no gun control is acceptable, at any level, then fine. Happy to just have that stated, and we can move on. It's not worth re-fighting that, it took several posts to establish those battle lines, and it's pretty clear.

If you are in another camp, where some gun control is defensible, it might be worth continuing. Or it might not be.

I responded to this thread because it is just disingenuous to hold that the questions being polled and reported on have any bearing on the actual state of current gun control. The general proposition here seems to be "most people are idiots, can't be trusted, and their opinion is valueless (unless they agree with me, in which case, their opinion is evidence I was right all along)". I object to this sort of shifting sleight of hand. Either people are idiots, and concerning ourselves with public opinion is of no value, or not.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 2:41 AM  

Clearly, you are aware that this ban goes far beyond the scope of the 1994 ban. You lied when you pretended it did not. You're one sorry lowlife, dh.

This is just silly. I was very clear about what was different on this bill. You can try to pretend that this bill is a big departure from 1994, but it's not. The list of prohibited weapons is longer, and more detailed, the clip size is new, but the overall status of gun ownership is not large.

Compare this gun law with the UK's Firearms Amendment Act 1997. That's gun control.

The effect and intent of the original ban and and the effect and intent of the proposed ban are identical - to ban so called assault weapons, to ban modifications or enhancements to allowed weapons that make them more lethal or more efficient, and to limit the ability of "good" people to get "bad" weapons. The only difference is that between 1994 and now, we have 10 years of empirical evidence of how gun manufacturers worked around the rules to still produce weapons that people wants, but the government did want the people to have.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 2:44 AM  

More important is the language including anything that FUNCTIONS to increase the rate of fire. It is tyrannical because it can be interpreted to include practically any modification made to a firearm.

Sorry, one more point. This is simply disingenuous. The law is written to prevent you from modifying an existing weapon to fire more quickly. That's what "functions" means. If the gun before modification can fire X rounds per minute, than you cannot modify it to do more.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 2:54 AM  

dh, I have yet to mean a gun control advocate who is anything resembling honest, and you're no exception. Most of them simply parrot what they've heard in the media and aren't as deliberately deceptive as you are, and certainly not as persistent. In any case, if you find it tiring to be called a liar, perhaps you should stop lying. Of course, if you did that, it would be a short debate.

Anonymous kh123 January 30, 2013 3:00 AM  

"Again, this is just untrue. The CRA does not impose quotas. It allows quotas."

I think it's fair to say that the first hit of heroin doesn't necessarily impose addiction; it simply allows for further fixes down the road.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 3:01 AM  

"Sorry, one more point. This is simply disingenuous. The law is written to prevent you from modifying an existing weapon to fire more quickly. That's what "functions" means. If the gun before modification can fire X rounds per minute, than you cannot modify it to do more."

Ultimately this is going to be interpreted by the ATF and federal prosecutors, who are basically the last people on the planet that any gun owner should trust. The language is so broad that it could mean literally anything. This is just one more tool that the feds would use to attack innocent people.

If the ATF concludes that a weapon fired 300 rounds per minute and you modified it in such a way that it now fires 301 rounds per minute, they're going to testify that you committed a felony until there's case law to provide guidance on the subject.

Anonymous kh123 January 30, 2013 3:02 AM  

QE doesn't impose tax payers to bail out banks indefinitely; it simply allows for it should the need arise.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 3:04 AM  

dh, I have yet to mean a gun control advocate who is anything resembling honest, and you're no exception. Most of them simply parrot what they've heard in the media and aren't as deliberately deceptive as you are, and certainly not as persistent. In any case, if you find it tiring to be called a liar, perhaps you should stop lying. Of course, if you did that, it would be a short debate
And what are these lies are you see them?

There isn't a day goes by where I am not alleged to be a liar here, it seems. And if it's not stated, it's implied.

An honest reading the situation will reveal that I am more willing to state my views than just about anyone here, especially from the left-side of center. And usually more temperate with giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 3:06 AM  

I think it's fair to say that the first hit of heroin doesn't necessarily impose addiction; it simply allows for further fixes down the road.

True enough.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 3:11 AM  

The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

This also puts the lie to the claim that "if you ban X, only outlaws will have X".

The implication has always been that "good" people will get rid of X, but the "bad" people will still get X.

Now we know it's not true. Gun owners are just 1 law away from being outlaws, I guess..

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 3:21 AM  

"It is an updated but essentially unchanged bill..."

We've covered this one. You are well aware that Feinstein's bill goes much farther than the 1994 ban.

"And we have had modern gun control, with only a few changes, for about 80 years. During that 80 years, nothing of substance has changed."

This is a totally dishonest description of gun control in the United States. We had gun control laws enacted at the federal level in 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994. There may have been other anti-gun legislation passed during this interval I'm not specifically aware of. None of these were repealed, although the 1994 ban did have a sunset provision. The brick-by-brick strategy that you deny exists is very clearly being implemented.

Anonymous p-dawg January 30, 2013 6:47 AM  

@dh:

"This also puts the lie to the claim that "if you ban X, only outlaws will have X"."

Uh, are you insane? Someone who owns a banned, illegal item is, BY DEFINITION, an outlaw. That's what outlaw means. OUTside the LAW.

Anonymous ericcs January 30, 2013 6:57 AM  

I refuse to fight the battle on the level dictated by my enemy, so I will not delve into the specific verbiage of this law versus that, or this intent versus that, or this interpretation versus that. By attempting to goad me into pursuing such an endeavor, the enemy typified by dh abuses the general discourse by arbitrarily focusing on trivia and his own interpretations, the latter based on little but his own say-so (although he will always ascribe it to other so-called expert parties, i.e. "they are your betters so shut up"). He does this because he expects me and you to respond in kind. This is a deliberate attempt to deflect and derail the primary issue, which then gets lost in endless details regarding labelling and/or semantic interpretation of the attendant legalese. It is a favorite tactic of those more cunning representatives of the left, and if you accept its terms you automatically lose. The left will further attempt to goad you by infantile name-calling (stupid, lazy, rube, racist, etc.).

Here are a few tactics of the deceitful left over the last 70 years or so...
- stealth regulations and language that can be interpreted 100 different ways, but only one way by those in power;
- open-ended jargon leading to reinterpreation of the law;
- death by a thousand riders and addendums and add-on minor bills, changing (subtly or otherwise) whatever law enabled them in the first place;
- judicial activist interpretation, freely based on the imposition of case law instead of first-principle Constitutionality in each and every new proceeding.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the perfidy of the left. Do you really wonder why there is no other choice but to consider them the enemy?

Anonymous FrankNorman January 30, 2013 8:46 AM  

So one of the problems here is poorly-written laws that government officials can interpret subjectively?

Blogger Hamilton January 30, 2013 9:58 AM  

My church, as well as several other "Christian" outlets, are claiming that if gun control is put in place then as Christians we have the responsibility to obey our "God ordained" government.

I'm having a hard time with that. Don't we have the right to defend ourselves?

Anonymous RC January 30, 2013 10:40 AM  

I'm having a hard time with that. Don't we have the right to defend ourselves?" - Hamilton

Only if the feminist church says you do, apparently for you anyway. Lord, if you're a Christian, read the Bible and think for yourself. Church leaders today are little better than the powerseekers in govt proper. They've been inundated with feminist propaganda and simply spew it right back out, like an automata.

Blogger James Dixon January 30, 2013 12:06 PM  

> This also puts the lie to the claim that "if you ban X, only outlaws will have X".

Since a ban makes otherwise law abiding citizens into outlaws, the statement is still true.

Anonymous civilServant January 30, 2013 12:36 PM  

unfortunately, Jehu, it's the Tads of the world who control the media and educational apparatuses. and they, therefore, define the language ....

"If you're not there then you don't count."

"90% of life is showing up."

"The future belongs to those who show up for it."

Anonymous David January 30, 2013 12:42 PM  

Guns are expensive!

I seriously doubt anyone who bought guns in November and December were thinking they were going to throw a few hundred bucks(or more) at something they would just turn over to the police once a law was passed.

Anonymous civilServant January 30, 2013 12:54 PM  

I'm a majority of one.

You may wish to take a census.

Anonymous civilServant January 30, 2013 12:55 PM  

My church, as well as several other "Christian" outlets, are claiming that if gun control is put in place then as Christians we have the responsibility to obey our "God ordained" government.

Who is the government?

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:10 PM  

Uh, are you insane? Someone who owns a banned, illegal item is, BY DEFINITION, an outlaw. That's what outlaw means. OUTside the LAW.

The pretense of the statement, however, is different. The pretense is that good people follow the laws, and so banning something will only cause the nice good people to give up the guns.

This survey actually shows that there are lots of people who are thought to be "good", but who are actually "not good", in that they will choose law-breaking if they disagree with the law.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:17 PM  

This is a totally dishonest description of gun control in the United States. We had gun control laws enacted at the federal level in 1934, 1968, 1986, and 1994. There may have been other anti-gun legislation passed during this interval I'm not specifically aware of. None of these were repealed, although the 1994 ban did have a sunset provision. The brick-by-brick strategy that you deny exists is very clearly being implemented.

No, it's not. During the same time period all many other nations have gone from basically no laws, to total bans. See the UK. See Germany. These are nations that in the early 1900's were at parity with the US in terms of practicable gun control. And now, in the same period, guns are entirely or effectively banned, or heavily heavily regulated.

The brick-by-brick streatgy, if it was happening, is immensely slow. It is not dishonest to say the state of gun control has not changed much in the last 80+years.

The basic epochs are unchanged: no control (prior to NFA), banning of regular ownership of a few types of weapons (passage of NFA), and now widespread screening and class restrictions (Brady bill and initial assault weapons ban).

During 1994-2004 the practical effect of the ban was that you could not by certain types of weapons, but manufacturers and owners found ways to constructively work around most of the rules, and still legally sell and own weapons that were practically the same. The same practical effect, if the new ban is passed, is likely.

Regardless, what is notable about the "brick-by-brick" claim is that the next big brick was not proposed. It was passed on, again, for the 100th time. There is no confiscation. Still.

Anonymous dh January 30, 2013 1:27 PM  

ericcs--

I will respond to you, because it's worthwhile:

enemy typified by dh abuses the general discourse by arbitrarily focusing on trivia and his own interpretations, the latter based on little but his own say-so (although he will always ascribe it to other so-called expert parties, i.e. "they are your betters so shut up"
I don't think I have ever resorted to that tactic. Feel free to prove me wrong. I encourage regular people to read the laws.

e does this because he expects me and you to respond in kind. This is a deliberate attempt to deflect and derail the primary issue, which then gets lost in endless details regarding labelling and/or semantic interpretation of the attendant legalese.
We are not talking legalese. There is a claim that X is in the law, therefore the law is tyrannical. X is not in the law, yet the claims of tyranny persist. So it's not unreasonable to ask on what basis the claim is made.

It is a favorite tactic of those more cunning representatives of the left, and if you accept its terms you automatically lose. The left will further attempt to goad you by infantile name-calling (stupid, lazy, rube, racist, etc.).
I really think this continues to be unfair. I rarely resort to name calling, and I don't think I've done against a specific person. I also shy away from silly things like "call outs" and trying to pin the tail on the liar. Or declaring someone an enemy.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the perfidy of the left. Do you really wonder why there is no other choice but to consider them the enemy?

I would be happy to agree with you, but in each of the items you have assigned to the left, as proof of our dishonesty, there isn't a single item that is a feature of the left that is not also a regular feature of the right.

You are going to sit here and lecture on this topic, and try to pretend that this is not the status quo of those in and out of power, for the last 100 years?

- stealth regulations and language that can be interpreted 100 different ways, but only one way by those in power;
- open-ended jargon leading to reinterpreation of the law;
- death by a thousand riders and addendums and add-on minor bills, changing (subtly or otherwise) whatever law enabled them in the first place;
- judicial activist interpretation, freely based on the imposition of case law instead of first-principle Constitutionality in each and every new proceeding.


If you want to make an argument against case law, by all means, have it out. Or about legislative process, or about corruption, it is unlikely you will get much pushback from me, or in fact, from many other liberals.

But of course, all of that requires thought, and planning, and political will to change. And it's all not easy, or overnight. It is not firm or a show of power to eschew the actual work of governing in favor of making empty, silly claims of "you are the enemy".

I've seen your type before, in the country I was born. When things fell apart, and the shooting started, the second wave of those against the wall were the first ones marching around trying to dictate who is an enemy of whom.

Anonymous Noah B. January 30, 2013 3:37 PM  

"It is not dishonest to say the state of gun control has not changed much in the last 80+years."

You are deliberately ignoring the Gun Control Act of 1968. This outlawed gun ownership for large numbers of people who had previously been able to own guns. The Brady Bill tightened the noose by providing an enforcement mechanism for the GCA and further expanding the ranks of those decreed to be ineligible to own guns.

"...but manufacturers and owners found ways to constructively work around most of the rules, and still legally sell and own weapons that were practically the same."

More proof that you're a snake. Manufacturers and owners didn't "work around" anything. They complied with the assault ban while it was in effect.

Anonymous CaptDMO January 31, 2013 9:14 AM  

"..a forcible government monopoly on violence is a good idea.."

But.but..on top of the banking, "health", and Unionized labor manufacturing industries, wouldn't such a monopoly be... Facisim?

Oh, right.

Anonymous CaptDMO January 31, 2013 9:47 AM  

"...Both the original expired law, and the proposed one, have nothing to say about weapons that already exist. No gun that is currently legal becomes illegal to own. You are aware of that, right?"

Say..what ever happened to all those Thompson Automatic Machine guns available from the Sears catalogue, in both high capacity, and drum magazines?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts