ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Never again

In light of the recent calls for gun control in light of yesterday's lethal shootings in yet another gun-free zone, I thought it was important to remember this particular fact of history:
The official phase of Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish campaign was opened today with a law forbidding Jews to possess firearms or other weapons.

This law was the first of a series designed to effect a "permanent solution" of the Jewish problem.

It forbids Jews to buy, own, or carry guns, ammunition or weapons designed for striking or thrusting. Jews now possessing such weapons must deliver them to the police at once under pain of fine or imprisonment up to five years. Foreign Jews may be exempted at the discretion of the minister of the interior.

It was announced that all Jewish business and professional activity had been "permanently" closed at Munich, birthplace of the Nazi party and fourth city of Germany.

Adolf Wagner, Nazi storm troop leader for Bavaria, in making this announcement at Munich, disclosed also that the thousands of Jews arrested throughout Germany Thursday were held as hostages.

He also said Jewish owned art objects in Munich were being confiscated.

Eight thousand Jews were arrested in Berlin alone, it was estimated.


- Middelsboro Daily News, Nov 12, 1938
Those who are trying to disarm you are planning to kill you.  Never forget that.  Never permit that. Never give the gun-grabbers so much as an inch, no matter how "reasonable" their suggested restrictions are.

MOLON LABE.

Meanwhile, Karl Denninger points out that effective gun control necessarily means disarming the police and the military too, as that is where the criminal elements will obtain their weapons if need be.

"The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms."

If the government's desires for gun control are legitimate, then it can begin by disarming the police and the military first.

Labels:

132 Comments:

Anonymous Idle Spectator September 17, 2013 7:27 AM  

Gun. It rhymes with fun.

Anonymous Bobo September 17, 2013 7:28 AM  

I was telling a friend yesterday that I was approaching the point over being "over weaponized", since I'd actually lost count of how many firearms I had.

He said "Yeah, and your wife's too hot."

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 17, 2013 7:40 AM  

Never willingly give an inch, or you will be pushed All the Way Down the Slippery Slope.

Anonymous Disgusted September 17, 2013 7:43 AM  

So, to summarize your post:

"You know who else was in favor of gun control? Hitler!"

Anonymous Catan September 17, 2013 7:53 AM  

Here come the rabbits.

"You know who else was in favor of gun control? Hitler!"

It's so cute that rabbits think only Hitler practiced gun control.

Shows how little you read history. Can you show us a single totalitarian collectivist regime that didn't disarm its populace, rabbits? See if you can spot the pattern.

Anonymous Stilicho September 17, 2013 7:54 AM  

Has Big Sis added black Buddhists to her watch list yet?

Anonymous Klaus Meine September 17, 2013 7:57 AM  

And yet, Diane Feinkenstein, Matt Lauer and- insert random, self hating Jew name- will call for more gun control. Eff em. We should've joined with Stauffenberg and fought the bolshevik hordes. Unfortunately we had Lincolns demonic spawn, FDR doing their bidding ,taking us to where we are today.
Imagine the damage a P51 backed Panzer division would've wreaked on those commie bastards.
Big city nights!

Anonymous Salt September 17, 2013 8:00 AM  

Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause. The liberal gun grabbers have it otherwise. It's the gun. Miami, for example, must be one of the most violent cities in America. I'm guessing here, but I'd assume peace loving liberals are moving in droves to Chicago.

Anonymous Catan September 17, 2013 8:01 AM  

A random observation:

Is it just me, or do rabbits, when they come up with their witty little responses, assume that nobody else knows any more history than they do? Their responses only seek to mock the fact directly in front of them, paying no heed to how the rest of history may make their response look ridiculous. They assume we are stupid, and less well read than they are, and any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed.

The classic signs of a pseudo-intellectual moron.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 8:02 AM  

Big city nights!

Don't run, there's no place to hide
Today or tomorrow it will get you
Don't move, the knife is right at your throat
And whatever you do, there's no way out
When the shroud comes down on this place
To bury us all alive
We'll know the time has come, to face the heat

Anonymous Stilicho September 17, 2013 8:05 AM  

Has Big Sis added black Buddhists to her watch list yet?

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 8:06 AM  

We should've joined with Stauffenberg and fought the bolshevik hordes. Unfortunately we had Lincolns demonic spawn, FDR doing their bidding ,taking us to where we are today. 

Or...not

Moron

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 8:10 AM  

"We should've joined with Stauffenberg and fought the bolshevik hordes. Unfortunately we had Lincolns demonic spawn, FDR doing their bidding ,taking us to where we are today. "

holocaust denial in 3... 2...

Anonymous paradox September 17, 2013 8:18 AM  

Nazi Germany relaxed gun ownership laws on German's loyal to the Nazi Party while disarming the Jews. Looks like Obama is following the same plan. Disarm Americans and hand frakking terrorists machine guns.

Anonymous fnn September 17, 2013 8:39 AM  

"We should've joined with Stauffenberg and fought the bolshevik hordes. Unfortunately we had Lincolns demonic spawn, FDR doing their bidding ,taking us to where we are today. "

holocaust denial in 3... 2...


Holocaust Deniers -the ones who are openly pro-NS-obviously consider Stauffenberg to have been a traitor.

Bonus: Here's a left-wing, anti-racist Holo-skeptic. There are others.

Anonymous Roundtine September 17, 2013 8:49 AM  

Conservatives should offer to make cities above 1 million in population gun free zones. The cities will be limited in access, with fences around them to help keep guns out. The tolls and access points can be manned with armed guards. The cities can also break off politically and form their own states if they have enough population.

Anonymous Joe Doakes September 17, 2013 8:53 AM  

When my friends ask why I don't own more weapons in anticipation of the Zombie Apocolypse, I point out that ever cop car is a mobile gun store, equipped with a high-capacity pistol, several magazines of ammo, a 12-gauge shotgun, and possibly body armor or an assault rifle in the trunk. All I need is one head-shot, which can be taken from concealment far away, like shooting out of a deer stand or duck blind.

Of course, that's all any criminal needs, too. So I suppose there will be competition for supplies. This administration doesn't seem to realize it has painted a huge target on every cop's head. I bet the cops realize it. I would be surprised if many retain their uniforms when SHTF.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 8:55 AM  

In light of the recent calls for gun control in light of yesterday's lethal shootings in yet another gun-free zone,...

It was a double gun free zone.

--Hale

Blogger njartist September 17, 2013 8:55 AM  

Correct me if I am wrong: I read on one site that the weapon(s)used was/were) AK47s; if so; how did the weapons(s) get into a high security highly surveilled military base within a tightly mapped city. Or does the Navy now get its weapons from Russian sources?

Anonymous fnn September 17, 2013 8:55 AM  

Looks like Obama is following the same plan. Disarm Americans and hand frakking terrorists machine guns.

The Obama-Saudi-Israel "covert" war in Syria is ramped up.
(...)
"The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear – a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the US role in Syria’s civil war."
(...)

Anonymous bob k. mando September 17, 2013 8:57 AM  

Catan September 17, 2013 8:01 AM
Is it just me, or do rabbits, when they come up with their witty little responses, assume that nobody else knows any more history than they do?




there's a GREAT many things that the rabbits assume.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1177100&start=1080

for instance, in this discussion thread about Breaking Bad, nquinnell assumes that Todd is not Evil ... 'just' a sociopath. for those not following along, Todd shot and killed a 10 year old who happened to stumble across one of their gimmicks without hesitation.

that's a great line.

"He's not evil, he's just a sociopath."

it's the kind of thing that could only be said BY a sociopath / some other neuro-deviancy that's just as fucked up.

there is no facepalm large enough.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:05 AM  

If the government's desires for gun control are legitimate, then it can begin by disarming the police and the military first.

Very few on the left would disagree on this. We know, however, that any attempt to disarm the police would be met with howls of rage from.. the right. Of course. That's just how it goes.

The only real comment here is that we have another very likely disturbed fool with what so far, according to Drudge, are some very serious mental issues - PTSD, voices, the whole nine. And violent video games.

From a gun control standpoint, the only thing really worth mentioning is that if this guy lived in California, and not Texas or Washington DC, he would have been declared an APP, and his weapon confiscated. It is entirely likely how that he would still have killed by some other means - he seemed quite dedicated to the task.

Those who are trying to disarm you are planning to kill you. Never forget that. Never permit that. Never give the gun-grabbers so much as an inch, no matter how "reasonable" their suggested restrictions are.

Do you suppose the government of the UK is planning a holocaust against it's people? Or a subset of them?

Secondly, if we are heading towards political dissolution within twenty years (give or take), why wouldn't it smart to start disarming vibrant minorities, to prepare the way for their expulsion? Instead of killing them, isn't it more likely that any disarmament campaign would be paving the way for mass expulsion?

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:06 AM  

where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms."

Does anyone happen to know if these employees are all civilians? I read that in two sources, but it seems to conflict with some of the people who were talking about the shooting, who appeared to me to be wearing military dress.

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 9:09 AM  

I'm a little surprised that the Holocaust hasn't been Godwinned out yet.

"Oh yeah, you know who else didn't like Jews? Hitler!"
"Lol Godwin'd."

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 9:13 AM  

Do you suppose the government of the UK is planning a holocaust against it's people? Or a subset of them?

Well, I'd say it's pretty clear they wanted to impose all kinds of government controls on them. And after all, the immigrants are likely to start a holocaust, so it may or may not be planned.

Anonymous Klaus Meine September 17, 2013 9:17 AM  

"holocaust denial in 3... 2..."

Oh stop with the policing.

The Olbricht group reached out to the West. MI controlled most intel and enabled the continuation of the holocaust by refusing to negotiate. FDR was their bitch.
Alligning with German dissidents would've saved lives. Or do you think the Cold war body count was worth Lend Lease?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 17, 2013 9:17 AM  

Has Big Sis added black Buddhists to her watch list yet?

Which list we talking about? The hit list, the terror watch list, or the voyeur list? I guess the last one would matter if the assailant was a woman.

We are talking about Miss Hardcastle, right?

Anonymous Keep Smiling September 17, 2013 9:17 AM  

Your words are "Mass Shooting"

"mass shooting?.... ummm ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY MEMBER"

BRAAAAT!

"Dagnabbit"

Anonymous Starbuck September 17, 2013 9:18 AM  

If the government's desires for gun control are legitimate, then it can begin by disarming the police and the military first.-VD

Let them do something like that. i would be all for it. However, I will NOT give up my guns. I do not care what laws they pass, nor do I care how they try to pull at the emotional level. It's only going to get worse....

Anonymous Dittohead-maybe September 17, 2013 9:18 AM  

"Very few on the left would disagree on this. We know, however,"

I like how the tard talks like he is the sole designated representative of everyone on the Left.

Tell me more, dh. Tell me more what millions of leftists believe and think? You are a very boring and stupid troll, even for a tard.

Anonymous Ridip September 17, 2013 9:19 AM  

And yet more and more restrictive legislation and zero-tolerance policies keep being crammed down our throats for our own good, for our own safety, for our children's safety.

Well, straight from the law of unintended consequences, here's a tragic story out of small town Missouri where such a policy backfired resulting in the death of a young man it was designed to protect.

Anonymous The Once and Future Libtard September 17, 2013 9:27 AM  

Vox; the newspaper article you posted is discussing the NAZIs disarming a population.  Then what you are discussing is the disarming* of the population.  Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall you being in favor of disarming a population, given they are savages or somesuch.
 
*never mind for now that restrictions/regulations ≠ disarmament 

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:34 AM  

I like how the tard talks like he is the sole designated representative of everyone on the Left.
It's true no one can speak for anyone else, but there is evidence to support my point of view. In the last very wide poll that broke this out, the support was strong for liberals to end protections for gun ownership. See http://people-press.org/files/legacy-questionnaires/658.pdf, page 25. 30-67 in favor of gun control over gun ownership. Granted not a perfect question, but it's the opposite of moderates and conservatives.

Tell me more, dh. Tell me more what millions of leftists believe and think? You are a very boring and stupid troll, even for a tard.
Stereo types are often right. Most liberals are for strong gun control and/or confiscation, especially for handguns, and especially for the mentally ill. A small minority of left wants a total ban. A small minority of the left want liberalization and streamlining of laws, like Vermont (which has no gun control at all - no registration, no permitting, no hoops).

How is that?

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:38 AM  

Well, straight from the law of unintended consequences, here's a tragic story out of small town Missouri where such a policy backfired resulting in the death of a young man it was designed to protect.

It's odd how two people can read one story and come to different conclusions. I read that story and think, what a shame it was that a young person with some development issues was given unrestricted access to both a cell phone and a handgun.

Anonymous a_peraspera September 17, 2013 9:41 AM  

Even if they did include police in the total gun ban, they could always go back in a year and re-arm the cops, while you wouldn't get yours back. So it's still a nonstarter.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 9:47 AM  

"If the government's desires for gun control are legitimate, then it can begin by disarming the police and the military first."

Very few on the left would disagree on this


Pull the other one. It's not 1970, which is probably the last time that a majority of leftists were talking about disarming the pigs. They certainly don't want to now that they control them.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:47 AM  

Let them do something like that. i would be all for it. However, I will NOT give up my guns. I do not care what laws they pass, nor do I care how they try to pull at the emotional level. It's only going to get worse....

Doubtful. Gun control isn't a big of an issue to most leftists as you would think coming from the right. There are a few blocks of Democrats who are enthusiastic about it, but it's not really the case.

The #1 single biggest threat to gun rights right now is the Supreme Court. It seems to be setting itself up to reverse course and strike down some laws that have been on the books for 75 years - the National Firearms Act and the more recent Gun Control Act of 1968. In DC vs. Heller the Court basically gutted the rules supporting registration, trigger locks, and some permitting. They also set the stage for reversing United States vs. Miller, which gives the government the ability to regulate weapons of war distinctively.

The Court has a sneaky way of making it so that their policies don't leave any big direct immediate impact on the Country, but the result will be that the really big weapons - automatics, heavy machine guns, etc will become available.

And that is something I don't think even the NRA has the chili to sustain support. The way Congress has been passing laws recently (i.e. last 20 years) is to stay out of the details, and grant the Executive control over the details. And so that crappy lawmaking is the biggest mid-term threat to gun rights.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:49 AM  

It's not 1970, which is probably the last time that a majority of leftists were talking about disarming the pigs. They certainly don't want to now that they control them.

I don't think the left controls the cops. Maybe. They are still mostly conservatives and they are mostly out of step with the left. The Occupy crowd was split on if the cops are fellow travelers or the enemies, but once the evictions happened, that was settled.

Anonymous VD September 17, 2013 9:49 AM  

Very few on the left would disagree on this. We know, however, that any attempt to disarm the police would be met with howls of rage from.. the right. Of course. That's just how it goes.

I agree with regards to the majority of the right. However, I don't believe that most of the left wishes to disarm the police. They talked a good game in the 60's, but they appear to be very comfortable with a heavily armed police force these days.

Do you suppose the government of the UK is planning a holocaust against it's people? Or a subset of them?

Yes, they are obviously trying to destroy the native population, hence the secret importation of tens of millions of non-British people in the last 20 years.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:56 AM  

They talked a good game in the 60's, but they appear to be very comfortable with a heavily armed police force these days.

Possible I am out of step. Where I am the police would be disarmed tomorrow. It may not be the prevailing the opinion. On a political level it has been the conservatives up arming the police for the last 10 years, with the ridiculous Homeland Security-ification of local police forces.

If the devil offered Dianne Feinstein a deal to transform civil society in the US to that of Japan, where even inside the military most don't have direct access to weapons, it would be a done deal.

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 9:58 AM  

> Do you suppose the government of the UK is planning a holocaust against it's people? Or a subset of them?

History indicates that it's almost certain. The only question is whether it's the current government or a future one that will implement it.

> In the last very wide poll that broke this out, the support was strong for liberals to end protections for gun ownership.

So start an attempt to repeal the second amendment. You'll never really get what you want as long as it stands.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 10:01 AM  

"Possible I am out of step. Where I am the police would be disarmed tomorrow. "

The vast majority of the push back on disarming the police would come from the right... but I agree the left isn't going to sit by and let that happen either.... for lots of reasons.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:13 AM  

JD, on the 2nd amendment, I don't think that will happen until or unless we have a dynamic shift in what weapons we can get. The SCOTUS appears to be ready to invalidate pretty much the rest of the Federal weapons case law and black letter law, and open up regular ownership of heavy weapons.

We say the streets are a war-zone right now, but it's not really true. There are a million M249 in surplus. The AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country, but the reality is that it's only popular because superior weapons, like say the M27, are not available. And because of the NFA, no one is even working on certain classes of weapons that are possibly, but not viable because of legal restrictions.

In 15 years when these heavier weapons are more common, you might see something different in regards to the status of the 2nd amendment in most people's mind. It is possible a future mass shooting where the shooter had a SAW and 2,000 rounds of belt-feed depleted uranium hollow-points that the practical implications outweigh the ideological.

Anonymous Sir_Chancealot September 17, 2013 10:14 AM  

People,

DO NOT POST ON THE INTERNET ABOUT WHAT GUNS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT OWN. (Caps intentional)

Furthermore, I would state that one should never talk about what one would do in the event of a "zombie apocalypse".

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 10:17 AM  

I don't think the left controls the cops.

Try busting their union and you'll find out.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 10:18 AM  

That conservatives haven't realized something doesn't keep it from being true. The cops haven't become hippies, and they might not buddy up with the kind of people who do sit-ins, but you don't have to be an unwashed protester to be a leftist. The cops have been through the same diversity indoctrination and learned to spout the same PC cliches as all the other good little government drones.

As individuals, many cops may be personally conservative and even support gun rights -- it's hard to imagine you could have that job without being aware of some HBD truths, no matter how hard you tried not to -- but as an institution they've been fully co-opted by the left. They know that the real danger is from right-wing, white-supremacist, anti-government types out in the woods with guns. If the order comes down to disarm or detain some list of people for unspecified acts, they won't hesitate.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 10:24 AM  

If the devil offered Dianne Feinstein a deal to transform civil society in the US to that of Japan, where even inside the military most don't have direct access to weapons, it would be a done deal.

Well sure, if she could wave a magic wand and turn all the weapons to rust (there's a science fiction story about that, right?), perhaps she would. But in the real world, there's no way she would agree to disarm the cops and military FIRST, which is what you said "very few on the left" would disagree with. What, she's just going to trust that all the radical right-wing, hate-mongering gun-clingers out here in flyover country will hand over their guns once there aren't any armed police or military to force them? You gotta be kidding.

Anonymous alabamarob September 17, 2013 10:26 AM  

I love the hypoceacy too on this. After the CT. school shooting didn't the NRA get blasted for being insensitive to the deaths when they tried to defend gun owners. And here is Feinstein going for the grab before lockown was even over, before any facts were known.

Speaking of lockdown, I am curious. What do you think would happen if a parent tried to get their child out of school. It is their child - so if they refused could kidnapping be cahrged? Or what if I am working inside the cordon and decided nothing was getting done so I might as well go home and mow the grass or hanfg with the missus. Wou;d I get arrested for freely moving about? Just curious as our Dear El Presidente said we should listen to our overlords, but who the devil is he to dictate my behavior. If I want to risk getting plugged by the baddie it's my life.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 17, 2013 10:47 AM  

It is possible a future mass shooting where the shooter had a SAW and 2,000 rounds of belt-feed depleted uranium hollow-points that the practical implications outweigh the ideological.

Do you even know what you are fucking talking about or are you just stringing words together?

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 10:50 AM  

dh: "They are still mostly conservatives and they are mostly out of step with the left. The Occupy crowd was split on if the cops are fellow travelers or the enemies, but once the evictions happened, that was settled."

Guys, dh will insist that this is a left-right issue forever. It is a leftist imperative to maintain such a dichotomy. But If ever there was a candidate for Fema Camp Capo, it is dh. Not a hrd line leftist, but authoritarian to the core.

It is not a left-right issue. It is an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue.

"why wouldn't it be smart to start disarming vibrant minorities, to prepare the way for their expulsion?"

Authoritarian.

It is possible a future mass shooting where the shooter had a SAW and 2,000 rounds of belt-feed depleted uranium hollow-points that the practical implications outweigh the ideological.

Authoritarian.

what a shame it was that a young person with some development issues was given unrestricted access to both a cell phone and a handgun.

Authoritarian.






Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 17, 2013 10:53 AM  

Police attitudes typically are a driving force in disarmament. In the UK, the police interpreted every gun restriction in the most aggressive and burdensome way possible. If they had discretion, the environment for gun-owners would become much worse even with no statutory change.

In America also, there was a reason people moved to "shall issue". "May issue" generally meant "no".

In Australia also, a typical police (or military) attitude is: "there is no need to let civilians have guns".

The attitude of the DEA hero bragging that he was the only person in the room professional enough to handle his Glock just before he shot himself in the foot with it is normal.

Anonymous Dr. J September 17, 2013 10:54 AM  

SAW and 2,000 rounds of belt-feed depleted uranium hollow-points

Come on, this is almost as absurb as the arguments about private citizens owning tanks and nuclear weapons. Legality is not the only barrier to ownership of heavier weapons. Right now, to purchase and properly supply any supposed Ar-15 means dropping $1K or more on the rifle and another $1.50 per round. A nicely decked out 50 caliber rifle pushes well past $10,000.

In today's environment of high cost ammunition, spilling hundreds of rounds through a fully automatic firearm would bankrupt any would-be psychopath. From an injury and fear standpoint, the Boston guys got a lot more for their money.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 10:56 AM  

It is not a left-right issue. It is an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue.

Aren't you the one screaming that libertarians are authoritarian?

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 10:58 AM  

> We say the streets are a war-zone right now, but it's not really true.

Liberals may say that. :) Most of "us" know better.

> ...that the practical implications outweigh the ideological.

Possibly, but I seriously doubt it. It's always been an ideological issue on both sides.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 17, 2013 11:02 AM  

dh: "Do you suppose the government of the UK is planning a holocaust against it's people? Or a subset of them?"

Mass immigration plus forced integration is white genocide.

The UK government has pushed this hard by stealth. Without honesty or democratic review.

The London riots gave us a preview of one possible endgame of many, when the non-whites and destructive, turncoat / wigger whites are numerous enough: people's justice by the new masses while the security forces stand around doing nothing, except to crack down with overwhelming intimidatory force on any whites organizing for collective self-defense, which is the only kind of self-defense that will work.

Anonymous DC September 17, 2013 11:13 AM  

@dh...

There are a million M249 in surplus.

Please enlighten us all with your source for this assertion. Since the 1986 machine-gun ban, there have been NO new Class III weapons manufactured for civilians; all the ones out there are in civilian hands are pre-1986...so...where ARE all these common-as-sand automatic weapons you claim are available to Average Joe?

In the end, it all comes down to Joe Huffman's Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

My guess is: you can't. Or won't.

Anonymous VD September 17, 2013 11:14 AM  

DO NOT POST ON THE INTERNET ABOUT WHAT GUNS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT OWN.

Relax, dude, if you're reading here, you're already on the list to have your house searched if the Feds ever decide to roll the dice. Everyone wave to our friend at the NSA!

(waves)

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 11:19 AM  

Everyone wave to our friend at the NSA!

*waves*

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 11:25 AM  

*waves!*

Blogger tz September 17, 2013 11:31 AM  

Given the militarization of the police - even the old friendly small town police have given in and have become jackboot stormtroopers with APCs and act like an occupying army. (I did the audio of Methland).

I've not watched the series "Breaking Bad", but apparently the storyline concerns a High School Chemistry teacher that gets Cancer and can't pay for treatment, so gets desperate.

But the "Circumstances made me do it!" excuse of citizens is exactly the same as the excuse for Cops to cease serving and protecting the constitution and citizens and becoming an equal though opposite evil. They break as many laws, do as many evil things as the criminals.

When it is no longer "the rule of law", each group of men feels free to establish its own rules.

Interestingly, (today is Constitution Day), Nota Bene (Kaspersky's blog) notes Lee Kwan Yew, who led Singapore to prosperity, turned 90.

After 25 years of reforms (yes, as early as in 1990) it was a completely different place…

A rapidly growing economy, virtually nonexistent corruption, unequivocal rule of law over everybody – without exception, investors queuing up, universities, electronics, and all sorts of other ‘Made in Singapore’ high-tech stuff, the second-largest Asian financial center (after Hong Kong), an airport straight out of a dream, one of the coolest airlines around…


As, I've said, it would be simple (not easy) to fix Detroit, or the USA.

If both the banker in the suit and the teen punk are treated equally by the police if they litter (or steal), both of them and everyone else will feel justice is being done. I would add the police, prosecutors, and judges.

No amount of words, no number of laws can substitute for there being an actual "rule of law" instead of "rule of men".

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 11:33 AM  

Aren't you the one screaming that libertarians are authoritarian?

Libertarians are authoritarians at heart.

Anonymous alabamarob September 17, 2013 11:38 AM  

*waves*

Just a note though -- DHS just call before you come, I'll clean the house and prepare some Southern hospitality - and sweet tea. Don't tase me bro, You know where I am :) See ya'll.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 11:39 AM  

"Possible I am out of step. Where I am the police would be disarmed tomorrow. "

The vast majority of the push back on disarming the police would come from the right... but I agree the left isn't going to sit by and let that happen either.... for lots of reasons.

Anonymous Toddy Cat September 17, 2013 11:41 AM  

Typical brain dead liberals; "You mentioned Hitler! Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law! You violated Godwin's Law! LA-LA-LA-LA, can't hear you!" Fuuny how this never applies to constant invocations of the Holocaust any time someone mentions race...

Good Lord.

Blogger MarkyMark September 17, 2013 11:41 AM  

Sorry, but all of you crying 'molon labe' are full of hot air! You don't mean a word of it! The moment the gov't comes for your guns, you'll meekly turn them over. Hell, you all speak of being 'legal gun owners', for cryin' out loud!

You SURRENDERED the Second Amendment when you agreed to the 'reasonable' background checks-duh! Sorry, but when you undergo a background check to buy a gun, you are, in essence, asking some anonymous, asshole gov't bureaucrat PERMISSION TO BUY A GUN! Let me repeat that: the background check amounts to asking permission to buy a gun. Well, it's axiomatic that, if you have to ask permission to do something, then you do not have the RIGHT to do that thing.

Let me put it another way: what is it that DMV always likes to say? That driving is a privilege, not a right, correct? What is it that you have to secure at DMV in order to drive? You secure a license, don't you? What is a license? According to Black's Law Dictionary, a license means that permission has been granted by competent authority to engage in a particular activity. Ergo, the Second Amendment is largely GONE!

And what's great is all you tough talking gun owners AGREED to this! You said that there was no problem with the background check; that sounds reasonable enough. You raised no fuss to the countless assaults on the Second Amendment. Why should anyone take your cries of 'molon labe' seriously when you've rolled over for decades, and given the anti-gun nuts everything they ever wanted? Why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about being 'legal gun owners', like you all were good little boys and girls who jumped through all the gov't hoops?

I'm of the Ted Nugent school of though on this: I don't need a permit, because the Second Amendment IS my permit. Amen! Too bad you all didn't agree with him and oppose the background checks, conceal/carry permits, etc.; because of you, we LOST the Second Amendment! Cry molon labe all you want; I'll believe it when I SEE it...

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 11:41 AM  

MOLON LABE

Brought to you from Italy.

Never give the gun-grabbers so much as an inch, no matter how "reasonable" their suggested restrictions are.

Perhaps you could share the standards of your immediate community as a model for the rest of us. No?

Blogger ajw308 September 17, 2013 11:43 AM  

Just recently I've watched Omagh and 50 Dead Men Walking. The British have no compunctions about putting their heel on the throat of a civilian population to control it. I also suspect that there are men in high ranking positions of authority who were troops on the street in the 80's and have their own ideas of how to control a population. There is a reason there are all those cameras in England and don't think a hoodie will keep you on the lowdown, there's gait recognition software and other means of tracking people.

Britain might be the easiest one to take down. They are geared up for it and the civilian population is mostly unarmed. Especially as they are considering rebelling against the EU, they'd make a nice example.

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 11:45 AM  

The moment the gov't comes for your guns, you'll meekly turn them over.

The government will not come for the guns. It will come for the gun owners' bank accounts.

Blogger Ashley September 17, 2013 11:48 AM  

dh:

"depleted uranium hollow-points"

I'm guessing you'll need to hand-make those. LOL.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 11:50 AM  

Sorry, but all of you crying 'molon labe' are full of hot air! You don't mean a word of it! The moment the gov't comes for your guns, you'll meekly turn them over. Hell, you all speak of being 'legal gun owners', for cryin' out loud!

Settle down, champ

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 11:52 AM  

Everyone wave to our friend at the NSA!

(flip off)

COME MEET MY LITTLE FRIEND!

Blogger MarkyMark September 17, 2013 11:53 AM  

Josh, I'm just telling the truth. The background checks undermined the Second Amendment to the point of irrelevance; with the background checks, we effectively LOST our right to keep and bear arms. Since gun owners meekly went along with this and other, insidious gun grabbing measures, I don't believe they mean it when they cry 'molon labe'; they'll be good little boys and girls, and turn their guns in the moment the gov't asks for them.

Anonymous Gunnutmegger September 17, 2013 11:56 AM  

@dh

"A small minority of the left want liberalization and streamlining of laws, like Vermont (which has no gun control at all - no registration, no permitting, no hoops)."

Been to Brattleboro, VT lately?

http://www.brattleboro.org/vertical/sites/%7BFABA8FB3-EBD9-4E2C-91F9-C74DE6CECDFD%7D/uploads/Firearm_Safety_Limits.pdf

They also voted to ban "assault weapons":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2976074/posts

Anonymous Eric C September 17, 2013 11:56 AM  

The background checks undermined the Second Amendment to the point of irrelevance; with the background checks, we effectively LOST our right to keep and bear arms.

As it stands, you can still by firearms without a background check, just not from FFL's. They are trying to change that as we speak, but at the moment you can by all kinds of weapons for cash.

And that's a good thing...

Anonymous Eric C September 17, 2013 11:57 AM  

The background checks undermined the Second Amendment to the point of irrelevance; with the background checks, we effectively LOST our right to keep and bear arms.

I will concede however, it was another step towards civilian disarmament.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

No need to wave. No doubt they have an agent that posts regularly here....pushing this way, then that way. We are all well-known by now, not just here but elsewhere.

Just because they are all out to get you, does not mean you are paranoid.

Ha Ha.

Anonymous alabamarob September 17, 2013 12:12 PM  

Speaking of the UK. Just saw an article indicating that a town in No. Ireland is being terrorized by a clown. He just stands there and stares and people are creeped out. Some have evidently threatened him for scaring them, forget gun threats clowns are the real danger. To use a Staples quote -- That Was Easy.

civilServant - question. OK I agree we should not have to ask permission to buy the weaponry for defense of home and hearth. But as I only began purchasing guns within the last 10 years, my dad was not a gun owner so not something I grew up with, what's a boy to do? I had to start somewhere and the ONLY way I knew of was to purchase at the pawn shop or gun store - which was bound by law to perform the check. Now I got the machines of self-defense -- and I understand more completely the 2 Amendment arguments and would like to see the restrictions lifted, but is it hypocrtical to obey current law and desire and demand change to same? How else will it change, unless more get some skin in the game of gun ownership (like me) by legally purchasing guns including background checks. From there they can be enligtened about how the laws threaten THEM and THEIR ability to defend their loved ones, it becomes personal and maybe from there true change can be made to get the strong 2 Amendment protections back. Yeah it's crappy but what else is there?

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 12:13 PM  

> if you're reading here, you're already on the list to have your house searched if the Feds ever decide to roll the dice.

Of course. I suspect being a registered Libertarian would be enough.

> The government will not come for the guns. It will come for the gun owners' bank accounts.

And that's going to work so well. Most people don't have enough of a bank account to matter. And you obviously have no idea just how many gun owners there are.

Anonymous Nietzsche's Ghost September 17, 2013 12:29 PM  

...And violent video games....

If only he'd waited a day: GTA V comes out today.

He may have been able to get those violent urges out of his system in a much less damaging manner...

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 12:36 PM  

alabamarob...."Now I got the machines of self-defense -- and I understand more completely the 2 Amendment arguments and would like to see the restrictions lifted, but is it hypocrtical to obey current law and desire and demand change to same? How else will it change, unless more get some skin in the game of gun ownership (like me) by legally purchasing guns including background checks."

I do not doubt that it WILL change, rob. It may not change in the direction you would prefer.

Right now, there are people sitting around trying to think of yet more triggers that will enable a background check to prohibit a gun (or ammunition) purchase. Sooner or later, they will find a trigger event that YOU have in your own background....maybe you own a John Deere tractor, maybe you are prior service military, maybe you wear glasses (many whites do), maybe ONE teacher thought you were hyperactive (so you had to take meds).... sooner or later, THEY will finally guess a disqualifying event that YOU have in your lifetime. (Note: or a member of your household, or a relative, or one of the neighbors on your street.)

Now for the kicker. Once they finally guess at something that disqualifies you from yet another gun (or ammo) purchase, why would it make any sense that you can KEEP the guns (and ammo) you already have? Will that not also mean that you must surrender what you are finally prohibited from buying legally?

Say it ain't so, rob.

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 12:37 PM  

How many people have we had, in the last few days, suddenly materialize and start frantically telling us something we already knew?

It's like watching a little kid suddenly have reality dawn, and he goes running down the street yelling, "Aaaaaagh, hamburgers are made of COWS!"

Blogger MarkyMark September 17, 2013 12:41 PM  

Donreynolds, they have those triggers in place for any DV related conviction, charge, or even court order. Court orders are surprisingly EASY for a disgruntled ex-GF or wife to get. All she has to do it tell some lies (for which she won't be held to account even if caught); turn on the tears (easy for any woman to do); and the judge won't be able to rubber stamp the court order fast enough on her behalf! It doesn't matter if you're innocent, either, because family court is decidedly anti-male; if you have a dick, you're guilty-end of story.

Anonymous joe doakes September 17, 2013 12:42 PM  

dh, your con-law fu is weak.

Miller held the Second Amendment protected the right to own weapons in common military use. Heller held it was an individual right, not a militia right. MacDonald held it was protected from state infringement, too.

Joseph Belton sold machine guns to the Continental Congress 10 years before the Constitution was ratified. The Founders didn't exclude machine guns so they must have intended that people be allowed to own them.

If the current Supreme Court held the Second Amendment protects the right of sane, law-abiding citizens to own any man-portable weapon in common military use, that would be perfectly consistent with the Founder's intent. Don't like it, amend the Constitution. Until then, stop infringing on my rights.
.

Anonymous Salt September 17, 2013 12:48 PM  

Joseph Belton sold machine guns to the Continental Congress 10 years before the Constitution was ratified

Okay, you've peaked my interest. Please elaborate.

Blogger MarkyMark September 17, 2013 12:53 PM  

I read on Gun Owners of America (great site, BTW!) some quote of the Founders. Paraphrasing, they believed that if you couldn't be trusted carrying a gun on your person in public, then you should NOT be a free man to begin with...

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 12:56 PM  

Gunnutmegger--

I have, and I wasn't aware of either. The assault weapons ban vote, which I could not find much on anywhere, must be symbolic or something because it does not appear in their current code that I can tell, and it would be on its face against the Vermont constitution.

As for the Firearm Safety Zone, it is also very odd because the map is present, but I can't find anything written to describe it. The Vermont code allows only for regulation of handguns/firearms in a very narrow set of circumstances - schools, school buses, some Courts (not all), and to protect the ability of private property owners to restrict carrying on their private property.

So even given Brattleboro, there are less restrictions there than most of even Texas.

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 1:08 PM  

The government will not come for the guns. It will come for the gun owners' bank accounts.

And that's going to work so well. Most people don't have enough of a bank account to matter.


I spoke simply. The action will be to shut down a target's ability to conduct financial transactions of any kind. The target will be unable to withdraw money or pay rent or mortgage or service water bill or perform any other third-party-involved financial function.

This will cause most to roll over immediately. These will require no further attention or resource expenditure. Those who fail to respond to such pressure will be flagged for eyes-on review and ground-level action.

And you obviously have no idea just how many gun owners there are.

There have been one hundred eighty million NICS checks since 1999. Would you like to know more?

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 1:11 PM  

civilServant - question.

I believe you meant to direct these questions to someone else.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 17, 2013 1:15 PM  

"There have been one hundred eighty million NICS checks since 1999."

And the PTB are no longer able to hide efforts while going after the softer targets without alerting and motivating those who are prepared to become harder ones.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 1:17 PM  

Miller held the Second Amendment protected the right to own weapons in common military use.

Almost agreed. It's also been used in the converse - that if it's not a common *militia* weapon that Congress regulate it. That's what's at risk if Miller is overturned - the unstated assumption that the 2nd amendment allows regulation - under strict scrutiny (which came later) - ownership of weapons that are not common in a well-regulated militia. This is the only essential element to supporting the NFA and GCA at this point. Miller itself was decided based on a lie - that shotguns such as Miller had were not in common use - so any review of it will almost certainly result in overturning or reversing all or part of Miller's precedents and with it the NFA.

Heller held it was an individual right, not a militia right. MacDonald held it was protected from state infringement, too.

All agreed. MacDonald is basically a corollary to Heller which expands Heller to states.

Joseph Belton sold machine guns to the Continental Congress 10 years before the Constitution was ratified. The Founders didn't exclude machine guns so they must have intended that people be allowed to own them.
I also agree. The only real difference is that the MGC of the time was a serious weapon, but nothing at all like what is available now.

If the current Supreme Court held the Second Amendment protects the right of sane, law-abiding citizens to own any man-portable weapon in common military use, that would be perfectly consistent with the Founder's intent. Don't like it, amend the Constitution. Until then, stop infringing on my rights.

I almost agree perfectly:

Except there is nothing in the 2nd amnemdent giving the right only to the "sane", or the the "law-abiding", or "man-portable". Those are all weasel words used to infringe on the rights of half-crazy criminals who have a a 2nd amendment right to horse-drawn cannons and mortars.

If Miller is overturned, which is the basis of the NFA and GCA, there will no legal framework allowing any of those prohibitions to stand, and my point was, that would almost certainly be the best chance for liberals to pass a new amendment changing the 2nd amendment. Likewise, in the Heller decision, the majority went out of the way to specifically say that bans on mental health, felons, etc were explicitly spared, but they provided no legal analysis as to why. It was, basically, just because it would really scary to overturn those prohibitions.

Justica Scalia, especially, has gone out of his way to hint that the Court intends to revisit Miller, Printz, and to find new cases to test various exceptions that have been carved out of the 2nd amendment.

When literally crazy people with access to very serious weapons - rocket propelled grenades (which actually apparently aren't that hard to get right now), TOW missles, full automatic heavy guns, etc OR more likely, when billionaires start to amass serious private armies with weapons purchased on the international arms market - there may be enough chili to make some changes.

VD's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the historically accurate, legally sound method. But politicans and the Courts who desired to see the 2nd amendment in a sort of legal limbo, do not want to have it tested.

Anonymous alabamarob September 17, 2013 1:18 PM  

I understand Don and that was my point - stupid as I am and as badly as I may have stated it. But I'm just wondering if those 30 million + gun owners, many of them like me who are new to gun ownership and followed the law - bad as it maay be, will stand up and demand the law change from this point forward. If they do come up with a disqualifier, such as posting here, maybe these legally purchased, via background checks, guns will be employed to stop the confiscation. I hope it doesn't come to that but maybe it will and a gun is still a gun no matter how purchased, no? And can you guarantee me that the many gun owners who received their guns from dads and granddads and gun shows where background checks werenot mandatory will not turn over their guns. Are they such 2 Amendment die-hards that they will defend their rights? I'm just asking.

I am on your side here, I'm with you on this. There should be no background checks, no restrictions as to gun ownership. I understand the history of governments who restrict the citizens ability to defend themselves against ne'er-do-wells.......... and abusive gov'ts. They don't turn out well for the disarmed citizenry. And I understand it doesn't have to be guns, it could be archery, swords, catapults - whatever.

But what was I to do, the law said I had to go through the process to get my guns and I don't know anyone in the criminal underworld where I could go to purchase undocumented guns and I was unfamiliar with gun shows at the time, so I went through the system. I want it changed, but now I have my guns so I ask is it so hypocritical that I use "legally" purchased guns to defend gun rights for the future? And as for Molon Labe, I don't know until that day comes but I hope to have the courage to stand with other gun owners and defend with deadly force if necessary our right to gun ownership. To say it is a forgone conclusion that I will do so would be hypocritical. I just want to do the right thing.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 1:21 PM  

This will cause most to roll over immediately. These will require no further attention or resource expenditure. Those who fail to respond to such pressure will be flagged for eyes-on review and ground-level action.

Up until a few months ago, I thought so. But then I was reading about what marijuana dispensaries in Colorado are going through. They are explicitly legal under state law, but the Federal government has been warning banks and others (VISA, namely) to not do business with them because if they do, they are subject to seizure and sanction under Federal law.

When we think of the DEA, the DOJ, and others, we think of them as huge. But the DEA doesn't have enough man power to even keep atop of the newly opened operations in one state, let alone 50. And so far the State hasn't even started actively resisting. If, for example, Colorado made it legal to place a 24-hour detainer hold on any Federal agent coming into the state, it would have a huge impact.

Anonymous alabamarob September 17, 2013 1:21 PM  

Sorry civilServant, bad memory of the original post when I made the reply. What can I say - I'm an idiot.

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 1:54 PM  

What can I say - I'm an idiot.

No. You are not.

But the DEA doesn't have enough man power to even keep atop of the newly opened operations in one state, let alone 50.

Entirely true. But it is not necessary for such an issue to be addressed and resolved in one day. One may apply pressure over time. And be assured that should they resist no matter how hard the people of Colorado have no economic or financial or industrial or agricultural means to resist for long.

Should it come to that. But observe that the pressure is being placed not on the clinics but on the financial institutions. This is the efficient way.

If, for example, Colorado made it legal to place a 24-hour detainer hold on any Federal agent coming into the state, it would have a huge impact.

It would indeed. Be assured that that issue would very much be resolved in one day.

VD's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the historically accurate, legally sound method.

Be assured he prohibits the implementation of such interpretation in any space over which he has control.

Anonymous Golf Pro September 17, 2013 2:14 PM  

The other thing to remember:

Guns kill more people than they save. It's a simple reality, just like you'll never get the ball out of the trap if you it the ball first and not the sand.

Common sense.

Anonymous teddles September 17, 2013 2:29 PM  

Guns kill more people than they save.

How many lives have guns saved so I can compare to the deaths?

Also, do you mean guns in general, gun in government hands, or guns in private citizens hands?

Or is this just a baseless assertion and you just talking out of your ass?

Inquiring minds...

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 2:49 PM  

Or it could be a blatant parody.

HOW DEVIOUS IS THAT?

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 2:52 PM  

> There have been one hundred eighty million NICS checks since 1999. Would you like to know more?

That's individual purchases, so there are fewer new owners than that, but that gives you an idea, yes. So do you really think the government is going to shut down the accounts of that many people?

Do you have any idea what that would do to tax revenues?

> And be assured that should they resist no matter how hard the people of Colorado have no economic or financial or industrial or agricultural means to resist for long.

That's a pretty broad claim which I don't believe can be readily backed up.

> Be assured that that issue would very much be resolved in one day.

Not likely.

Anonymous DC September 17, 2013 3:09 PM  

@dh...

Still waiting for your source on the surplus M249 market.

Also, this:

When literally crazy people with access to very serious weapons - rocket propelled grenades (which actually apparently aren't that hard to get right now), TOW missles, full automatic heavy guns, etc

Please point me to the nearest eeevvvilll raciss Gun Show where I can buy a six-pack of the RPGs that aren't so hard to get...or do I need to apply for a DOJ/State Dept./CIA waiver attesting that I'm a Syrian rebel to get those?

Again, put up or shut up, sir.

Anonymous stevev September 17, 2013 3:45 PM  

waving.... only with a single erect middle finger...

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 4:05 PM  

alabamarob..."I want it changed, but now I have my guns so I ask is it so hypocritical that I use "legally" purchased guns to defend gun rights for the future?"

No, rob. It does not matter how or where you obtained your firearms if you later decide to use them in the defense of liberty.

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 4:06 PM  

I finally believe a False Flag theory:

the DC Naval shooter passed a background check at a Virginia gun store. Bull shit - his record was scrubbed.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 4:12 PM  

Golf Pro...."Guns kill more people than they save."

THANK GOD!
Is that why they usually have more than one bullet or is that only in case you are a poor shooter?
Yes, ONE of the several purposes of guns is to save the few at the expense of the many.....just like always.

Use some more COMMON SENSE, Golf Pro....

How many of the enemy are you willing to kill to save just ONE of your own people?

Correct Answer: ALL OF THEM

Anonymous patrick kelly September 17, 2013 4:15 PM  

"Correct Answer: ALL OF THEM"

Unless your goal is to lose and die.

Blogger Dusty September 17, 2013 5:02 PM  

There's a big difference between racially-specific gun prohibition and generalized gun control. But since Vox sensationalizes everything to use as evidence for his own delusional beliefs I suppose there's no use in mentioning it.

Keep feeding the sheep, Vox.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 5:05 PM  

DC--

Please enlighten us all with your source for this assertion. Since the 1986 machine-gun ban, there have been NO new Class III weapons manufactured for civilians; all the ones out there are in civilian hands are pre-1986...so...where ARE all these common-as-sand automatic weapons you claim are available to Average Joe?
I never said they were available to average Joe. I speculated that in the future, the SCOTUS may overt turn the NFA and GCA, which are the main prohibitions on automatic and serious heavy weapons. If that were to happen, they would become available. My source for the 1 million surplus saws is Jane's Defense Weekly, September 4th, '02 edition, inside story "Herstal profits flat as SAW hits the rocks".

In the end, it all comes down to Joe Huffman's Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

My guess is: you can't. Or won't.


I would be happy to take a crack at it, but first you have to make some definitions clear. What will accept as "safer", what will accept as "average person", what will you accept as "handheld weapons", what will you accept as "one time or place" and what will accept for "restricting access".

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 5:13 PM  

DC--

Please point me to the nearest eeevvvilll raciss Gun Show where I can buy a six-pack of the RPGs that aren't so hard to get...or do I need to apply for a DOJ/State Dept./CIA waiver attesting that I'm a Syrian rebel to get those?

You are clearly assuming something which I never said, but whatever.

1. For example, heavy weapons are not hard to get even as civilians: http://www.milweb.net/webverts/53480/

2. For automatics or RPGs (which are legal under the NFA, but somewhat impratical because each one round requires a new background check and a new tax stamp), keep checking http://www.autoweapons.com/. I fired one with a friend who is a collector about 6 years ago, completely legally.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 5:14 PM  

the DC Naval shooter passed a background check at a Virginia gun store. Bull shit - his record was scrubbed.


Not that hard to imagine. States dont share this type of data. Some states it explicitly illegal to share.

Anonymous civilServant September 17, 2013 5:30 PM  

There have been one hundred eighty million NICS checks since 1999.

That's individual purchases, so there are fewer new owners than that


Very true. I know one man who owns over three hundred guns. The total number of existing gun owners in the United States is between forty and eighty million with forty being the more likely bound. It is these "old owners" who are driving the majority of recent purchases. Few of them have plans to share ....

Of course this in no way reflects what is happening behind the scenes. But that is tracked almost as easily as NICS.

So do you really think the government is going to shut down the accounts of that many people?

Not all at once. Not instantly to be sure. But eventually yes.

Do you have any idea what that would do to tax revenues?

Very little if properly implemented. The government is already borrowing one trillion dollars a year. What is fifty billion more? One may also consider the effects of assessed fines. One thousand dollars a day until compliance is officially verified? It might even generate revenue ....

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 5:30 PM  

dh-

Background checks are performed by the FBI. Are you saying states have the option of not sharing criminal/mental health information with the FBI? Doesn't sound like something Uncle Sam would tolerate these days.

Anonymous Pox Vay September 17, 2013 6:15 PM  

http://poxvay.blogspot.com/2013/09/vox-on-gun-control-and-obamas-terrorism.html

Blogger Phoenician September 17, 2013 6:35 PM  

Those who are trying to disarm you are planning to kill you.

"In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession." (Wikipedia)

So the Nazis were quite happy in allowing Germans to have guns, apart from the Jews. Because, of course, they knew that they could whip up those same Germans to support any racist anti-Jewish pogrom they wanted, with enough propaganda.

Lying racist fucks never change, do they, Dipshit?

Also...

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/06/did-gun-control-prevent-jews-from-stopping-the-holocaust/

----
Guns could not have made the difference, columnist Michael Moynihan wrote in the Tablet, an online magazine of Jewish culture. The Holocaust was a state-sanctioned outpouring of violence from the German public, so the idea that gun control stood in the way of Jewish survival “vastly overstates the effectiveness of a tiny minority resisting a genocidal machine,” he wrote.

Antony Polonsky, a professor of Holocaust studies at Brandeis University, takes issue with a common corollary: that the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising — in which about 750 Jews took up arms, killed about 25 Nazis and briefly slowed the deportation of Jews to concentration camps — shows that an armed minority can resist its genocidal oppressors.

The uprising was the largest single Jewish revolt against the Nazis. But the Nazis killed thousands of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, and the 50,000 who survived were sent to concentration camps. “The people who participated in it were killed,” said Polonsky.

The record also shows that the Nazis accelerated the liquidation of remaining Jewish ghettos after the uprising.

That’s a pattern with anti-Jewish violence, said Polonsky. “Attempts at self-defense provoke more violence.” The same occurred when Jews took up arms during the Russian pogroms of the early 20th century, and when blacks did the same in the American South before the civil rights era, he said.
-----

personally, I think Americans should be encouraged to own guns. I believe that blacks, in particular, should be encouraged to own concealed weapons and use them on people who make them "concerned for their safety".

Anonymous Mr. Stubby September 17, 2013 6:50 PM  

There have been one hundred eighty million NICS checks since 1999. Would you like to know more?

Yes. How many gun transfers without government permission?

Anonymous Mr. Stubby September 17, 2013 7:03 PM  

We CAN NOT have a magical mystical world of utopia wherein we all live in the perpetual orgasmic adulation to the State if people are allowed to be armed. So yes, they will, one way or the other, try to disarm the populace, and arrest/murder those who refuse to disarm.

The flip side is... only those who have been nano-chipped and plugged in, will be allowed to be armed... to kill those who refuse to be nano-chipped.

Anonymous Vic September 17, 2013 7:03 PM  

Anal Pox,

You seem to have went to a lot of trouble to obfuscate the issues at hand in your hard on for Vox. But given the data available to even idiots like myself via the interwebs, it is highly unlikely anyone with a smidgen of common sense would believe these people who advocate the government trample the rights of their American neighbors, do so out some concern for humanity. They obviously do not. Hell, these same fools lobby for the right to kill their own children. You despise humanity, like all despots before you.

Gun control is an issue pushed by idiots who revel in being victims, and push for the same predicament for the rest of us.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 7:16 PM  

"Yes. How many gun transfers without government permission?"

About three times as many legals ones.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 7:56 PM  

I would say that the argument that heavy weapons in the hands of individuals is a mistake is itself a misunderstanding of societies and the events clearly observed.

#1. heavy weapons + no responsibility (government immunity) is a bad thing. Regular people don't have immunity from prosecution or civil suits. Therefore, regular people are far less likely to abuse the use of any heavy weapon. They enjoy not being prosecuted for murder or sued for millions of their hard earned dollars.

#2. Gun free zones attract shootings. One can potentially infer from this inescapable fact that equal ownership of weapons means overall better safety. Certainly if the populace in general is morally bankrupt and are savages, violence will be prevalent. But violence happens with knives as well as giant bombs. And it is just as numerous with machetes as rifles.

#3. where do we get this notion that governments need to be armed?!? Mah roads! It is an irrational fear of the wrong thing to fear some unknown enemy in a far off place instead of an immune and unaccountable government at home that is armed with every kind of technologically advanced weapon leaving its populace with the equivalent of wooden clubs.

#4. As for the M249 or other such belt fed weapons in the hands of some crazy: I would rather risk the crazy and have the freedom to be unmolested with my rifle than have a militarized and unaccountable police state.

Blogger AMDG September 17, 2013 8:06 PM  

There is a contradiction in the story: how can Navy personnel carry in a gun free zone? Do they have to check the weapon in at the door or leave it in the car?

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 8:29 PM  

> ... One thousand dollars a day until compliance is officially verified? It might even generate revenue...

And how will you collect it with the persons finances frozen? Do you really think they'll continue to work when they're not getting paid?

Anonymous Billy September 17, 2013 9:16 PM  

We should've joined with Stauffenberg and fought the bolshevik hordes. Unfortunately we had Lincolns demonic spawn, FDR doing their bidding ,taking us to where we are today. Exactly right



If we'd had stayed out of the war and not have upset the traditional balance of the European Powers, there would not have been a holocaust. Germany didn't want war with Britain. Chamberlin made a haste alliance with Poland, which guaranteed Britain's entre into the war.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 9:18 PM  

James Dixon: You are assuming they won't give up their guns in order to get their finances back, but this is not at all obvious to me if they are family men. I've never seen someone risk their family's immediate survival for the greater good. I'd be absolutely extatic to see the Americans do it in adequate numbers to turn back the tide, but I don't think it's going to happen.

No, I think the luckiest bastards will be killed, and the rest will be tortured to death. The unluckiest majority will suffer the eternal torments of hell.

Anonymous Jake September 17, 2013 10:07 PM  

Civil servant's idea is stupid.

He talks about the government borrowing money to stay afloat, but blithely dismisses how cutting 25-50% of the population out of the legitimate economy will impact the gov.

What happens CS when a very large percentage of the population no longer has any use for US Dollars? Do they crawl to their basement and wait to die? Or do they barter, buy and sell on the black market, work quietly for cash (tax free), etc. Do you not understand that it is rather important to the US gov. That people use their paper money? That after 100+ years of prodding and forcing people to use worthless script money the LAST thing they'd want to do is give them every reason in the world to seek out alternatives? You implement your little scheme and overnight the local economy's going to start running heavily on silver, lead, whiskey, etc.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 17, 2013 10:12 PM  

Markku...."No, I think the luckiest bastards will be killed, and the rest will be tortured to death. The unluckiest majority will suffer the eternal torments of hell."

This sounds like something that might happen in Europe someday....or already has. There is no such American experience, even after the Civil War, there was no serious attempt to disarm the public. Any attempt to do so would be sufficient reason to stomp their eyes out. Yes, I believe they would....even if they were singled out individually for disarming.

Hey, do it like the selective service. Put every day of the year in a big bowl and draw out the special dates, one at a time, to establish who gets disarmed first, based on their birthday. The first date drawn may be July 10th, for example, and everyone with that birthday must turn in their guns (and ammo) by noon, else in the afternoon the goon squad will come to your house and confiscate them. An excellent plan. In one calendar year all the birthdays would be worked and all the guns would be gone....no?

Ok, forget that one, much too confusing. Just make it easy. On your next birthday, whenever it is, part of your birthday celebration will be to turn in all your firearms (and ammo) to the local police or sheriff's office. There, that is simple enough....I can see the PSA ads now.

You keeping up, Markku? This is the sort of thing that might work well in European countries. I know in Germany, it would come off without even a protest.... because it is required and you could get in big trouble if you don't and there would be fines and you might lose your job!

It would not work in the USA at all.

Blogger James Dixon September 17, 2013 10:42 PM  

> You are assuming they won't give up their guns in order to get their finances back, but this is not at all obvious to me if they are family men.

Yes, I'm assuming exactly that. First, thanks mostly to government policies, the number of family men has been steadily declining as a percentage of the population. But even ignoring that, significant percentages of rural families use those guns to put food on the table. They'll NEVER give them up.

Blogger tz September 17, 2013 11:10 PM  

I would not disarm the police, but disband the crony definition so that anyone who qualifies for CCW or open carry is part of the "militia".

The problem is more that there are professional jackboots with privilege than ordinary citizens subject to and enforcing the rule of law, and the natural law.

I have far more to fear from the average state-appointed Cop than Nate no matter what he happened to have on his person.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:13 PM  

Background checks are performed by the FBI. Are you saying states have the option of not sharing criminal/mental health information with the FBI? Doesn't sound like something Uncle Sam would tolerate these days.

You are quite misinformed. The NICS system, which is run by the FBI, is only used directly by licensed dealers in 30 states. In 20 states, the same data that is underlies the NICS is accessed directly by a state agency (or, in one state, a private company contracted by the state) to the state agency performs the check.

As far as reporting, this information is turned over directly from Courts when a person is involuntarily committed, but for all other types of mental health issues, it's primarily a voluntary system. There are plans in 24 states to improve automatic reporting of disqualifying mental health conditions (including electronic submission for the first time, welcome to 2013).

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:15 PM  

I have far more to fear from the average state-appointed Cop than Nate no matter what he happened to have on his person.

That's probably good, because no matter how good a shot Nate is, and I am sure he's excellent, there is a better chance that the cop and his 6 buddies will kill you with their redundant array of government-funded poorly-aimed bullets before Nate can disable them all.

Anonymous Eric Ashley September 17, 2013 11:18 PM  

I'd assume a fair number of folk would go outlaw all the way. They'd post requests for help and for trade of skills or equipment on the net. And....a small bank was robbed. It was slick and at night so no one was endangered, and no one was caught.

One of the nice things about a free society is you can adjust to new conditions. All your n'bors start carrying SAWS, including the lunatic down the street....its time to move to 50 acres and telecommute.

Anonymous Van September 18, 2013 7:49 AM  

Dh-

That's not particularly different from my understanding. I'm not sure if I'm misinformed at all; if so, my degree of misinformitude certainly doesn't rise to the level of "quite."

So 30 states have checks run directly by thr FBI, and the other 20 use a state agency that accesses the same information. I assume you are aware that when a federal law is passed, if states have the option of choosing between enforcement by the relevent federal agency or assuming enforement themselves, thbe state agency must adopt standards at least as strict.

You haven't shown that states can refuse to share criminal history information. It's already been said that running this guy's prints should have kept him from getting a secret clearence, with the assumption being his prints weren't run. Now we find out he also passed a check to purshase a gun - the info isn't there, despite the fact it is legally required to be.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 11:51 PM  

Van--

In terms of the NICS, the check itself is carried out by the state. The underlying data sources are the same as what NICS uses, but the actual code that does the check is a "clean room" implementation. For example, in NH, I was on a team that designed and wrote most of the code for the DPS system that was used for in-state handgun checks (until it was replaced). The part that each state controls is how to match the applicant information against the many underlying data sources. It is, I assure you, non-trivial. Also, the state is the one who set the *exact* criteria for denial - which exact criminal convictions are a precluding factor, which combination of public mental health records, etc. It means there are really 20 + 1 different standards.

You haven't shown that states can refuse to share criminal history information. It's already been said that running this guy's prints should have kept him from getting a secret clearence, with the assumption being his prints weren't run. Now we find out he also passed a check to purshase a gun - the info isn't there, despite the fact it is legally required to be.

Sorry, I misbelieved we were talking about clinical medical information, which is quite a patchwork.

I haven't followed this case, so my information is more general, but in general, the variations come from the fact that Federal law is quite vague. If you read Section 922, for example, it mentions that an ineligible person is one who is under indictment for a crime with the potential punishment being more than one year imprisonment. This sounds, on it's face, very easy to report. As a state or local court, you would report anyone whose class of crime indicted. But what is an indictment? The Fifth Amendment says that for any serious crime - felonies - indictments come from a Grand Jury only. Yet, in many jurisdictions you are charged with a crime when the district attorney files a complaint against you directly with the court. So, if you are a state court, do you report to NICS only those charges that have gone to the grand jury? Do you report those charges which have filed directly with the court? Do you file after the preliminary hearing? The answer depends, right now, on your circuit. States in the 9th circuit only have been directed to file after a preliminary hearing. In the 3rd circuit, case law is after an arrest.

In the case of the recent shooter, I remember hearing that some charges were never filed. In that case, the data almost certainly wouldn't make it to NICS, except if he were in NY, where they report arrests into NICS.

Simple, right?!?

Anonymous Van September 19, 2013 10:02 AM  

I just came back to add the same thing - I don't think he had a single conviction, which may have prevented the info from appearing (particularly if charges were never actually filed).

When a state administers a federal program, there is typically a requirement for the state to be at least as stringent, with the feds first approving of the state program, then performing audits.

Until I have time to read the reg, I don't know about either issue. Regardless, I find it suspicious - just too perfect for the armaphobe agenda. Add in the secret clearence he should not have gotten (more thorough than gun purchase). Of course, that can easily be explained by relaxed standards for diversity.

Anonymous Van September 19, 2013 2:56 PM  

Now that I both have a few minutes and am at an actual computer rather than a smartphone:

You seem to be arguing that what matters is how you got there, when the question is "are you in San Diego?" "Well sure, I'm in San Diego. But did I fly? Did I drive? Did I take a train? If I flew was it a direct flight, or was there a stopover? Was there a delay? See, it's all really quite complicated."

No, it's not. And consider me insufficiently dazzled by your work experience. I have enough direct experience with federal and state government interactions to know what I've stated is the case. Any state that deviates from the federal regulations can only do so by being more stringent. Regarding who is prohibited from buying a firearm, there won't be 20+1 different standards. There will be the federal standard, a bunch of states that adopted the federal standard word for word, and a handful that adopted the federal standard with additional standards on top. The supremacy clause or something.

What matters is not how they access the information, but that they access it. The states that serve as the FBI's POC for NICS simply access the NICS data. They aren't accessing a different set of data, as you seem to want to imply.

I don't agree that the federal law is vague regarding what information is to be reported, it's probably just less inclusive that the armaphobes would like.

That is the issue with Aaron Alexis - he apparently was never charged with a crime, despite shooting into his neighbor's apartment and at a vehicle. So, here is where the armaphobes run in, demanding more extensive background checks. But the breakdown wasn't in the check, it was in the arrest process.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts