Vox Popoli: Police your institutions

This is more evidence that it is absolutely necessary to strictly police your organizations for hostile ideologies. It's very hard for normal people to comprehend this, but leftist parasites will readily devote years, even decades, to quietly worming their way in before showing their true colors.

The editor of Guns & Ammo magazine apologized to readers and resigned shortly after the writer of a column advocating gun control was fired this week.

Dick Metcalf, a well-known television host and gun writer, was canned after penning a column in favour of gun control in the magazine’s December issue. The outrage then prompted editor Jim Bequette to issue an apology and resign.

In the apology, Mr Bequette said he hoped the column ‘would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights,’ but then said he was wrong and asked for forgiveness.

Mr Metcalfe, widely visible in the gun community, has written about guns and hosted gun-oriented television shows for decades, but that did not save him from reader backlash.

Whether it is a smug-faced atheist schoolboy infiltrating a nominally Christian school or a gun-grabber seeking to become the voice of the gun media, the techniques and the tactics are always the same. And they are active in your church, in your synagogue, in your school, and in your place of work.

If you don't actively look for them and root them out, sooner or later, they will take over. Always pay particular attention to those who are unusually eager to help and happy to lend a hand. Being driven by ideology, they often have the motivation to take on all the dirty little jobs that no one else wants to do and secure their positions by making themselves indispensable. They usually present as being non-ideological, but put some pressure on to determine their real views and they'll usually reveal themselves.

Notice how Bequette tries to present a non-ideological justification: a healthy exchange of ideas. They always hide behind a facade of being reasonable.

Labels: politics

274 Comments:

Spoos in August November 14, 2013 9:08 AM: What I'm hearing is "nice red uniforms."

Got any comfy chairs, Vox?
rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:11 AM: So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None?

Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs?

What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?
Eric C November 14, 2013 9:14 AM: "What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?"

Fuck yeah!
Porter November 14, 2013 9:15 AM: Leftist parasites are active in synagogues? It just doesn't seem possible.
Abe November 14, 2013 9:17 AM: "Notice how Bequette tries to present a non-ideological justification: a healthy exchange of ideas. They always hide behind a facade of being reasonable."

If we've learned anything about Conservatives and the tin-foil-hat Right, it's that an exchange of ideas is out of the questions. Orthodoxy is the name of the game whether its in a political space (the tea party), the media (Guns and Ammo and FoxNews) or on blogs (VP).

The irony is, these institutions would be made much more effective with a little input from others.

It's like in-breeding: You are guaranteed at some point to produce something that looks really stupid.
NorthernHamlet November 14, 2013 9:25 AM: Vox,

How does what you're calling for differ from the recent "the new rules of engagement" regarding Athol Kay? You believe the right and religious should police their institutions with firings and outings but became angry when it was done to someone else in a private institution that no longer wanted someone around, aka policing their institution.

If this question has already been asked in a previous thread, disregard. Also, please note, I am not saying I disagree.
Myrddin November 14, 2013 9:25 AM: So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None?

We aren't free unless we're allowed to own our own fighter jets and tanks.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:27 AM: A reprint of the original article. The third paragraph is where he really steps in it.

Article
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 9:29 AM: @rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:11 AM "So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None? Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs?
What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?"

Yes to all the above. Such items are already under the monopoly control of psychopaths in government.

I have a question for you, what controls and limitations can be placed on the psychopaths and sociopaths in government now that the Left has removed them all? What now is there that protects us from the psychopaths in government? A written constituation? A balance of powers? Representative government? What remains?
YIH November 14, 2013 9:29 AM: Call me crazy, but ya'know, I didn't think a print magazine worked like, say, a blog, where you type something up and hit the ''publish'' button and there it is. Was there no Editor in charge or Publisher in charge to say ''Um, dude, this mag is called, um, you know, Guns and Ammo, and like, a 'gun control' column just might not be appropriate for a publication like, um, GUNS AND AMMO!!!
Call me naive like that...
Spoos in August November 14, 2013 9:30 AM: It's expensive as all get out, but it's not, ipso facto illegal. As long as all the guns are properly NFA tax-stamped, you're good to go.

Most of the cannons used in the early days of the War for Independence were owned by towns or private citizens, so it worked in the past.
ThirdMonkey November 14, 2013 9:32 AM: Metclaf Responds

He ends his butthurt response with these questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

1. Only if said criminal is convicted by DUE PROCESS, his crime involved the use of firearms, and it is part of his sentence. Repeal all felon with firearms laws, let a jury of his peers decide at sentencing.
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

People ignore the term "infringed." I don't think it means what they think it means.
George Pal November 14, 2013 9:33 AM: Invocations for healthy exchange of ideas, for dialogue, should raise siren alarms. The dialogue and exchange are pretense for Trojan horses. Considerations of the Constitution are nearly always for the purpose of overriding it. Interfaith dialogues are always introductions to heresy or Islam. Those who are pro gun, freedom, etc. bear the most watching. Absent the willingness to tar and feather the the wolves cloaked in sheepskins, the least that can be done is to boot them out – ceremoniously – bell, book and candle.
Tallen November 14, 2013 9:35 AM: should anyone be able to purchase one of those?

Anyone can purchase one if they have enough money and the right connections. Therein lies the problem. Laws are not applied equally to all citizens. If a policeman can carry and use a fully automatic firearm then I should be able to as well. If something is made illegal (Constitutionally or not), then civil servants should be the very first ones impacted, military included. Law must be apply equally to all, or there is no law.
JartStar November 14, 2013 9:37 AM: If we've learned anything about Conservatives and the tin-foil-hat Right, it's that an exchange of ideas is out of the questions.

This is simply untrue. What Conservatives don't want is the "exchange of ideas" coming internally as it destroys the institution from the inside out. If a serious liberal institution or person wants to debate a conservative one I've never seen the conservative one turn it down.
Desiderius November 14, 2013 9:40 AM: Trust, but verify. Tit-for-tat begins with trust. Betrayal should be met with massive retaliation, but leading with suspicion is an overreaction and counterproductive.

Bona fide with bona fide, mala fide with irae.

In context, advocacy for gun control is prima facie evidence of mala fide or a fatal obliviousness to it. General application of this approach should only be done with care.
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 9:40 AM: @Abe November 14, 2013 9:17 AM "... an exchange of ideas is out of the questions. Orthodoxy is the name of the game whether its in a political space... the media."

Interesting, I have nearly the exact same opinion of the Left.

Question, how can there ever be common ground between a man that believes the government is a benevolent entity run by altruistic angelic-like beings for the betterment of humanity and a man that believes the government is a malevolent entity run by narcissistic psychopaths and sociopaths for their own benefit?

We simply have no common ground. Your whole understanding of human history and human nature is contrary to mine.
Desiderius November 14, 2013 9:42 AM: "Laws are not applied equally to all citizens."

Modern Progressivism (sic) is an unending succession of Bills of Attainder.
James Dixon November 14, 2013 9:44 AM: > So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None?

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is so hard for people to understand?
Josh November 14, 2013 9:46 AM: So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None?

Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs?

What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?

Yes to all.

Gun control is for wimps and commies.
Josh November 14, 2013 9:50 AM: 1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

1) Leaning towards yes. Restrictions should be applied by a jury on a case by case basis, if at all.
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Individuals cannot violate the constitution, which restricts what governments are allowed to do. Dumbass.

Seriously, 4 is an extraordinary example of horrible logic and I can only assume willful ignorance of history and law.
Josh November 14, 2013 9:52 AM: What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is so hard for people to understand?

It's not that they don't understand it. They just don't like it. Exactly like atheists and the existence of God.
AlteredFate November 14, 2013 9:54 AM: The answer is yes, rufusdog.

But I suspect you are actively trying to derail this thread. I've seen the same lame and worn out attempt to argue for "resonable gun control" used multiple times here alone. There is no reasonable limit.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:59 AM: I have a question for you, what controls and limitations can be placed on the psychopaths and sociopaths in government now that the Left has removed them all? What now is there that protects us from the psychopaths in government? A written constituation? A balance of powers? Representative government? What remains?

THE PEOPLE. Sheez you just so badly miss the boat. Our current corrupt evil government is just a reflection of us. If the people pulled their heads out of their collective asses (one hell of a loud pop), it would stop, my goodness man, stop playing the victim card.

American currently has the government it wants and deserves.
JartStar November 14, 2013 10:02 AM: The history of the last 50 years has shown that national governments with extremely hi-tech weapons can't control a populace who is armed to the equivalent of light infantry.
simplytimothy November 14, 2013 10:02 AM: Invocations for healthy exchange of ideas, for dialogue, should raise siren alarms. The dialogue and exchange are pretense for Trojan horses. Considerations of the Constitution are nearly always for the purpose of overriding it. Interfaith dialogues are always introductions to heresy or Islam. ...A national conversation on race, Hillary Clinton's call for dialog when confronted by her evil at Benghazi...

They don't want dialogue, discussion or consideration. They want our surrender.

Screw that and them.
Nate November 14, 2013 10:02 AM: "So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None?

Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs?

What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?"

In US vs Miller the SCOTUS decided that the only weapons that the federal government could regulate were weapons with no military value.

So... theoretically the government could regulate... muzzle loaders.

I agree with this assessment completely. Nothing short of nukes in private hands.
Roundtine November 14, 2013 10:03 AM: O’Sullivan’s First Law: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time.

I've actually thought about this problem before after seeing so many institutions be taken over by leftists. The key point for liberals to understand is that we're not talking about political organizations. Take a university. For generations its mission was to teach students and was relatively unchanged. Then all of a sudden, the leftists show up and turn it into a political mission. Guns & Ammo is about guns and ammo. Leftists show up and want to talk about gun control. Take the Boy Scouts. When they go leftist, they'll stop being about merit badges for tracking, starting fires or tying knots, it'll be about recycling and gay advocacy.

It's a conundrum because the right views institutions as an end. Leftists want to turn the bowling club into a force for social justice. Thus, you either have to explicitly be right wing (Sullivan's First Law) or explicitly ban politics because the left will not stop and you have no natural defense. Even if you resist now, the threat will never leave, and once one weak link goes, your institution is dead and has been assimilated into the leftist borg.
YIH November 14, 2013 10:03 AM: I looked at the mea cupla from the Editor and here's what jumped out at me:
''No excuses, no backtracking''
and
''Plans were already in place for a new Editor to take the reins of Guns and Ammo Jan.1. These recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.
Translation: I'd already tendered my resignation and was looking forward to Thanksgiving and Hanukkah with my family so when those ''cattle'' started emailing me with their silly complaints I just had to write a damn CYA letter!
You know, for me resume and all. Damn ''cattle''!
Giraffe November 14, 2013 10:04 AM: or a gun-grabber seeking to become the voice of the gun media,

I don't think that is the case. He's been there a long time and the culture moved out from under him.

There has been a change in the gun culture. Ten or fifteen years ago, the second amendment protected gun rights. Because hunting. Now, it has become no-compromise "shall not be infringed". Some of the old guard missed the memo. Like Jim Zumbo, who failed to catch black rifle disease. He caught it damn quick, but it was too late.

What he said was extremely stupid, given what happened to Zumbo.
VryeDenker November 14, 2013 10:04 AM: What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?

I don't want to be rude, but it's common knowledge that any US citizen with a spare $250k lying around CAN in fact purchase one as easily as a shotgun.
Titus Didius Tacitus November 14, 2013 10:05 AM: JartStar: "What Conservatives don't want is the "exchange of ideas" coming internally as it destroys the institution from the inside out."

It would, but that's not what happens. The left gains power and purges or silences all those it judges politically incorrect is what happens.

The more institutions that are subverted, the less room there is for freedom of speech. That is one of many reasons non-leftists have to police their institutions vigorously.
John Regan November 14, 2013 10:09 AM: Infiltration and subversion is a favorite commie tactic. Bella Dodd recounted it sll with respect to both the US and the Catholic Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxEwBxmS5c
Josh November 14, 2013 10:09 AM: It's a conundrum because the right views institutions as an end. Leftists want to turn the bowling club into a force for social justice. Thus, you either have to explicitly be right wing (Sullivan's First Law) or explicitly ban politics because the left will not stop and you have no natural defense.

Hell, look what happened to freaking pro football talk.

If you're going to have a non political group, you have to explicitly ban politics and be ruthless about enforcing the ban. Rule 1 for any non political group should be "There's no politics in _____". Doesn't matter if it's a knitting circle or software design forum.
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 10:10 AM: "O’Sullivan’s First Law: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time."

It's not really a left/right thing, it's really a human nature thing. Those that build, are followed by those that destroy. It's the cycle of history. What we refer to as the "Left" is really just - for the most part - a group of naive people with little undrstanding of history and human nature.
Josh November 14, 2013 10:10 AM: It would, but that's not what happens. The left gains power and purges or silences all those it judges politically incorrect is what happens.

Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Titus Didius Tacitus November 14, 2013 10:13 AM: The gun rights advocates do police their institutions, which is a reason why they are winners.

Those that don't aren't.
Daniel November 14, 2013 10:13 AM: I was extremely disappointed when I visited a nuclear free zone and found out that that there was a surcharge on delivery.
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 10:15 AM: @rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:59 AM

I would correct you slightly.

[Some Americans currently have the government they deserve.]

Those that don't deserve it plan on remaining well armed.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 10:15 AM: I don't want to be rude

No worries, you’ re not being rude, saying silly shit that obviously false, ya, you’ re doing that, but I wouldn’t call that rude.
Daniel November 14, 2013 10:16 AM: ...besides, I'm only interested in an unhealthy exchange of ideas: people who "just like to stir the pot", "like to get conversations going," "get a rush from the back and forth" should be shot on sight. Devil's advocates? They can live, but the healthy exchangers belong on cattle cars.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 10:20 AM: In US vs Miller the SCOTUS decided that the only weapons that the federal government could regulate were weapons with no military value.

So... theoretically the government could regulate... muzzle loaders.

I agree with this assessment completely. Nothing short of nukes in private hands.

No so, Nate, as Muzzleloaders once had military value.
Nate November 14, 2013 10:21 AM: Why do we need an exchange of ideas? its not like firearms regulations are some new novel concept.

The ideas are the same on each side.

Liberals: Guns Bad. Government Good.

Not Liberals: Government Bad. Guns Good.

There is nothing to talk about.
bw November 14, 2013 10:22 AM: but leading with suspicion is an overreaction and counterproductive.

Not at all, as the pattern over time and in history is easily seen and recognizable, as VD points out with his years/decades truism.
Roundtine November 14, 2013 10:23 AM: It's not really a left/right thing, it's really a human nature thing.

It is a left/right thing to a certain extent, at least in modern times. You can't look at institutions that existed for decades or centuries and then when the leftists show up, all of a sudden change their mission. Right-wing tends to compartmentalize, while the left thinks everything is political. Maybe it would be different in a theocracy. Maybe in Iran, there are people saying the bowling club is not sufficiently following the Koran. But even then, they're still going to be bowling.

And the left doesn't support right-wing institutions, they try to shut them down or get the leadership fired. You don't see the right-wing organizing to get university presidents fired for saying all the leftist bullcrap they say. No, the conservatives send in their checks to support the uni because they're being good citizens.
Josh November 14, 2013 10:24 AM: It's not really a left/right thing, it's really a human nature thing.

I disagree. The left are the ones making the political personal. Always have been. Because politics consumes their life. It doesn't for the right. Which is one of the reasons leftism marches onward. The right isn't consumed by politics in the same way the left is because we're too busy building things and making stuff happen. We can also look at something for what it is without turning into a discussion about how it effects saving the third world lesbian codependent whales.
dh November 14, 2013 10:25 AM: Nate--

Miller is about to come up, probably this term or next term, for review. I think that we are pretty close to getting there. In the Heller decision several comments were made to suggest that the NFA could be under view very shortly.
TDal November 14, 2013 10:27 AM: Vox said It's very hard for normal people to comprehend this...

I think what normal people comprehend, that you are missing, is that it's possible to be a gun owner, support the right to bear arms, and believe in limited gun control.

Plus, guns and ammo is a magazine about guns and ammo, not an ideological rag. Or it should be, too bad that turned out to not be the case.
Feh November 14, 2013 10:29 AM: If we've learned anything about Conservatives and the tin-foil-hat Right, it's that an exchange of ideas is out of the questions.

If we've learned anything about the Left, it's that when they call for "an exchange of ideas" they really mean "shut up while we lecture you on how evil and stupid you are."

Gee, you think the Brady Campaign will hire a pro-gun writer so there can be a healthy exchange of ideas in their publications?
Josh November 14, 2013 10:30 AM: I think what normal people comprehend, that you are missing, is that it's possible to be a gun owner, support the right to bear arms, and believe in limited gun control.

You've completely missed his point.

See that thing going woosh above you?

That was his point.
TDal November 14, 2013 10:32 AM: Thanks for clarifying Josh, that was a useful comment on your part.
dh November 14, 2013 10:32 AM: And the left doesn't support right-wing institutions, they try to shut them down or get the leadership fired. You don't see the right-wing organizing to get university presidents fired for saying all the leftist bullcrap they say. No, the conservatives send in their checks to support the uni because they're being good citizens.

Two problems:

Problem #1 is that is that most right-wing stuff sounds crazy, and when pressed, many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe. Leftists have very little problem saying what they believe.

"Segregation now, segragation tomorrow, segregation forever". Infamous. And hard to defend.

"Why can't we all just get along." Famous. Sounds good. Easy to defend.

Second problem is that Americans will say, "I am an a conservative", but then when pressed on specific issues, lean leftward. I remember reading the results of a focus group and it asked a group of right-wing voters how to balance the budget: they suggested zeroing out funding for foreign aid, NPR, ACORN and Planned Parenthood. Which would go about 1/1000th of the way to balancing the budget. When asked about things like Medicaid spending, or Medicare, or military spending, even for conservatives, it's almost always "more".
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 10:33 AM: @Josh November 14, 2013 10:24 AM "The left are the ones making the political personal... [b]ecause politics consumes their life. It doesn't for the right. Which is one of the reasons leftism marches onward. The right isn't consumed by politics in the same way the left is because we're too busy building things and making stuff happen."

Once civilization and prosperity are established, fools proliferate and have leisure time to destroy it. Civilization plants the seeds of its own destruction.
Josh November 14, 2013 10:36 AM: Problem #1 is that is that most right-wing stuff sounds crazy, and when pressed, many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe. Leftists have very little problem saying what they believe.

That's because nobody breaks out the metaphorical torches and pitchforks when leftists say what they believe.

It happens to conservatives all the freaking time.
Roundtine November 14, 2013 10:39 AM: Problem #1 is that is that most right-wing stuff sounds crazy, and when pressed, many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe. Leftists have very little problem saying what they believe.

This is the nature of the political environment. In Iran, leftists don't speak out much. In America, simply saying there are differences between the sexes can get you fired (see Larry Summers, neoliberal, Clinton and Obama adviser).

The problem is the right doesn't want to fight politics. You will find a few people who see it, but the right is generally apolitical towards apolitical institutions. If the left makes an institution political, then to fight it you must engage in a political battle. After the leftists takeover a university, if a group of conservatives say they want to purge the leftists and have a moderate system focused on education, the leftists scream persecution and most right-wing people don't go along with it because it is seen as overtly political.
NateM November 14, 2013 10:43 AM: "What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?"

Of course. What if your family were starving and a herd of deer, elk and/or buffalo wandered by your house?
Athor Pel November 14, 2013 10:45 AM: "Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 10:15 AM

@rufusdog November 14, 2013 9:59 AM

I would correct you slightly.

[Some Americans currently have the government they deserve.]

Those that don't deserve it plan on remaining well armed."

I've said this before but it bears repeating.

These questions are for everybody. I'm not expecting an answer, I just want you to think about them.

How many current laws or regulations, federal, state, county, city or home owners association, have you had direct hands on influence in writing and implementing? One, two, none?

How many taxes, federal, state, county, or city, have you had direct hands on influence in writing and implementing?

How many government institutions or agencies have you had direct hands on influence in creating?

Then assuming you also believe in consent of the governed being where government gets its authority why do you believe those laws, taxes and institutions apply to you since you had no hand in their creation?

All or almost all of these laws, taxes, and governments, came into existence before you were born or before you were an adult in the eyes of the law; or they came into existence without your direct consent. Nobody asked you about them, nobody got your ok, they were created by others for others.

Why do you think the apparatus of government we currently live with is at all legitimate? Where does the authority for that government come from? Does it really come from where you think it does?
redsash November 14, 2013 10:46 AM: James Gurthry must have turned in his grave.
Nate November 14, 2013 10:46 AM: "I think what normal people comprehend, that you are missing, is that it's possible to be a gun owner, support the right to bear arms, and believe in limited gun control."

No it isn't.

That's like saying its possible to be a little gay. You either sucked a dick your didn't son. Which is it?
Giraffe November 14, 2013 10:46 AM: That's because nobody breaks out the metaphorical torches and pitchforks when leftists say what they believe.

It happens to conservatives all the freaking time.

It is also because what dh said is true. There is a "get your government hands off my Social Security" set, and it isn't insignificant.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 10:47 AM: "Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs?

What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?"

The requirements for purchasing and possessing them should be the same as for voting.

You want further restrictions, then amend the constitution with something that overrides the 2nd amendment. (good luck with that) Otherwise it's not rule of law, but rule by might makes right cuz' the state has the most guns and money. The line between those is fuzzy and thin even under best circumstances.

Until the 1930's NFA there were no Federal restrictions on priviate sales or purchases of those kinds of weapons. The laws are primarily revenue enhancers. There were not then nor since then been significant numbers of instances of people killing each other in the US with those kinds of weapons. A few sensational instances are always enough to stir up fear in the populace to call for big mama gov't to pass more laws and "saves us cuz' we're skerd...."

Oh, and there are civilians who have gone through the current legal loops to own those weapons now...........it's just expensive.......see revenue enhancement.....
IM2L844 November 14, 2013 10:48 AM: many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe.

This is due to MPAI (including conservatives) and decades of social conditioning. The liberal propaganda Grand Wurlitzer machinery is vastly superior, far more expansive and pervasive than the conservative's.
Huckleberry - est. 1977 November 14, 2013 10:48 AM: What if your family were starving and a herd of deer, elk and/or buffalo wandered by your house?

And they were craving a venison-flavored milkshake?

Modern Progressivism (sic) is an unending succession of Bills of Attainder

Those were the days.
TDal November 14, 2013 10:49 AM: Nate, I own guns legally in a state and municipality with fairly restrictive laws, that I support. So you are wrong. go drink more buzzy bear. Also I've never sucked a dick, you? I ask because you bring it up a lot.
VD November 14, 2013 10:50 AM: So what restrictions should be placed on weapons? None? Specifically, should citizens be allowed to own grenades or RPGs? What about weapons like the M134 minigun, should anyone be able to purchase one of those?

None. Yes. Yes. If the government or the police can own it, the citizenry can too. Also, you forgot to ask about nuclear and biological weapons. The answer concerning those is also yes. What, precisely, do you think any government is going to do once individuals have those weapons? Then begins the age of the truly sovereign individual.

How does what you're calling for differ from the recent "the new rules of engagement" regarding Athol Kay? You believe the right and religious should police their institutions with firings and outings but became angry when it was done to someone else in a private institution that no longer wanted someone around, aka policing their institution.

The policing attempt, such as it was, came from OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. Moreover, it was an indication that the long truce concerning employment in non-ideological professions is now ending.
Spoos in August November 14, 2013 10:52 AM: @dh: It's interesting to note that the Miller decision was wrong on the facts, since short-barrelled shotguns were, and are, of military use, e.g. breaching. As excited as I am at the prospect of an overturn of the NFA, I'm not going to hold my breath, because the Roberts Court is unduly deferential to the legislature.
cailcorishev November 14, 2013 10:52 AM: Why do we need an exchange of ideas? its not like firearms regulations are some new novel concept.

Exactly. The debate has been had, the idea has been tried, and the facts are in. Anyone who says we still need to "discuss" gun control is really saying, "If we keep talking about this long enough, the people with jobs and families to take care of will wear down, and we'll get what we want."

A feminist, goddess-worshiping nun was asked why she didn't leave the Catholic Church she so clearly loathed. Her answer: they had all the copy machines. You can do far more damage inside the fortifications than you can by going outside and attacking from there.
JartStar November 14, 2013 10:53 AM: dh,

The largest problem Conservatives and small government libertarians types face is that for all of the lunacy of the left's policies the progressives tell people they want to help them with specific programs. The Conservatives have to sell someone on the idea that a free market and smaller government will help them somewhere, somehow, down the road. If that person doesn't believe it, the Conservative idea dies right then and there.

Since most people's time preferences are very short it's almost an impossible sell, which is why you have Conservatives back things like SS and Medicaid--even they can see the direct immediate help to them even if they begrudgingly admit it may blow up later.

The old guard Conservatives understand this better than libertarians who seem not to understand what they sell almost nobody is interested in buying thanks to human nature. I think it's why libertarians are constantly looking forward to a political reckoning to be able to say, "See, I told you so".
VD November 14, 2013 10:53 AM: "Segregation now, segragation tomorrow, segregation forever". Infamous. And hard to defend.

It's not at all hard to defend. It's not only true, it's inevitable and it is science.

"Why can't we all just get along." Famous. Sounds good. Easy to defend.

And also stupid and impossible. Basically, all you're pointing out is that stupid leftist rhetoric appeals to the stupid and unthinking. And because MPAI, stupidity will always win in a universal, or even quasi-universal democratic system.

This is why all sustainable societies strictly limit the franchise. "Let everyone vote" sounds good too. Great. I support genuine universal democracy. Let the ENTIRE WORLD vote in every US election. And you're a racist hater if you don't support Senegalese children voting for president.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 10:55 AM: saying silly shit that obviously false, ya, you’ re doing that

Please demonstrate how Brother Thomas statement:
[Some Americans currently have the government they deserve.]
Those that don't deserve it plan on remaining well armed.
is "obviously false."
Josh November 14, 2013 10:55 AM: It is also because what dh said is true. There is a "get your government hands off my Social Security" set, and it isn't insignificant.

Absolutely agree.
Salt November 14, 2013 10:55 AM: The Miller case. It's interesting that two SCOTUS justices, being on the court in 1939 (Miller), had military experience. How they could ignore, without any question, that a sawed off shotgun has, or potentially has, military application is telling.

This group includes future justices whose names will begin to sound more familiar. Stanley Reed (1938-1957), Hugo Black (1937-1971), Fred Vinson (1946-1953), Frank Murphy (1940-1949), Sherman Minton (1949-1956), and Earl Warren (1953-1969) also served in the Great War. Warren, the future reformer, never made it over to Europe before the War ended. Murphy decided he would stay in Europe after the war -- and, so, briefly studied in England and Ireland.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 10:56 AM: @BT: "Once civilization and prosperity are established, fools proliferate and have leisure time to destroy it. Civilization plants the seeds of its own destruction."

Priceless.
Nate November 14, 2013 10:58 AM: "How they could ignore, without any question, that a sawed off shotgun has, or potentially has, military application is telling. "

There was no evidence supporting that claim submitted. Miller's lawyer didn't even bother to show up. They didn't believe they had the authority to consider their personal experience. Only evidence actually submitted.
Vic November 14, 2013 10:58 AM: "It's very hard for normal people to comprehend this, but leftist parasites will readily devote years, even decades, to quietly worming their way in before showing their true colors."

Paul warned of the same thing concerning the Church:

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-20

Still nothing new under the sun.
JartStar November 14, 2013 10:59 AM: the long truce concerning employment in non-ideological professions is now ending

This should make people on both sides of the aisle nervous as it is a portent to civil conflict and violence.
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 10:59 AM: "A healthy exchange of ideas" ONLY means one thing......

It means we are going to hold court and challenge every justification and argument in favor of the organization position in the hope that the worm can convince you to give up your evil ideas and surrender quietly.
JDC November 14, 2013 10:59 AM: So... theoretically the government could regulate... muzzle loaders

I love muzzle loaders - black powder season is coming soon, and although I go out during rifle season, I prefer muzzle loading because there are less apple knockers in the woods. My 50 cal CVA Wolf is accurate to about 150 yds (a far cry from the original black powder rifles). One can also load them in about 20 seconds if you need to. Sorry - off topic a bit, I am just having a hard time getting to work...my mind is already in the woods...
Titus Didius Tacitus November 14, 2013 11:00 AM: dh: "Problem #1 is that is that most right-wing stuff sounds crazy, and when pressed, many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe."

Ask Jason Richwine why.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:01 AM: This is why all sustainable societies strictly limit the franchise.

Note the leftist rhetoric when any regulations on voting are proposed. They start shrieking about racism and Jim crow and slavery. Even though they want to do even more to regulate guns, which is something that has explicit protection in the constitution (unlike voting).
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:02 AM: I don't think individuals should own nukes. Contra Nate, that doesn't make me gay. I think weapons that kill indiscriminately like chemical biological etc, are not what the framers had in mind. They wanted us to be able to kill our government, not wipe the planet clean. The cheaper weapons of mass destruction are especially dangerous because the likelihood of a suicidal crazy obtaining them are higher.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 11:02 AM: "If you don't actively look for them and root them out, sooner or later, they will take over. Always pay particular attention to those who are unusually eager to help and happy to lend a hand..."

Especially in churches. Although I've noticed a tendency to over commit with words not followed up by much substantial action. Lots of discussions and meetings...... Although I've been guilty of this due to inattention and laziness.....(not paying attention to the details of what I said I'd do...) ...
swiftfoxmark2 November 14, 2013 11:02 AM: THE PEOPLE. Sheez you just so badly miss the boat. Our current corrupt evil government is just a reflection of us. If the people pulled their heads out of their collective asses (one hell of a loud pop), it would stop, my goodness man, stop playing the victim card.

American currently has the government it wants and deserves.

You'd think that except for a few factors:

-For one, the representation of the people versus representatives in the House is highly diluted. There are 435 House members for 310 million people. The ratio is 1 House member per 712643.6781609195 people. The constitution, by the way, requires that ratio to be 1 in 30,000. And before anyone says that things won't get done with 10,000+ members in the House, keep in mind that Congress should not be passing so many laws to begin with. Especially when they can't even pass a damn budget plan.

-The court system is full of ultra-feminist communists and gammas. Effectively, they often times override the will of the people, like gay marriage in California.

-The police are suffering from a huge collective form of Milgram's Obedience test. Essentially, they are literally believing that they have to do what their superiors tell them, despite it often being completely unconstitutional or just plain wrong. More and more, they seem to be enjoying it.

-A huge swath of voters has incentives to keep the government big. This is because they are either part of the looter class or the moocher class. Between government workers and government contractors alone, you have over half the population right there who has a conflict of interest when it comes to voting.

The people can do little in a system that allows everyone and their dead relatives to override the decisions of a few good people.

Tell me, what recourse do we have against, say, Obamacare? Besides going to jail, which is ultimately what happens when you defy the State. And that's the best case scenario.
Alexander November 14, 2013 11:03 AM: At a bare-ass minimum,

The police, despite what they might like to imagine, are civilians. Any weapon accessible to the police force should be eligible to all the citizenry.

Going up towards the actual military and military-grade weapons still out the hands of the police... one notes, not entirely tongue-in-cheek that is is cheaper to buy a Senator than a nuclear weapon, or a tank, or a jet fighter and Senators have proven to be much more deadly to the average Joe than any of those, foreign and domestic.

Yet another point on how multiculturalism is so toxic an ideology. Just as we must believe that if you could import thousands of Somalis and they would mix seamlessly into Middle America, because people are nothing more than people. it follows that if middle-class westerners are given access to weapons they will behave no differently than the denizens of Mogadishu.
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 11:03 AM: A conservative seeks to understand the past. He seeks to learn from the past. And he seeks to build upon the knowledge of the past. He understands man’s flawed nature and deals with it accordingly. He attempts to live in harmony with the reality around him.

A “Progressive” seeks to expunge the past and reality itself. He wants to remake man and the world in his own image.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 11:04 AM: I don't think individuals should own nukes.

Leave aside ownership for the moment. Should individuals control nukes?
Krul November 14, 2013 11:05 AM: Why should there be any federal gun control laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the states can pass any gun control laws they please, provided it's allowed by their state constitutions. Why not just leave gun control to the states? The more left leaning states would pass restricitve laws, the more right leaning states would pass more tolerant laws and the people could live where they choose. How is this a bad plan?
Josh November 14, 2013 11:07 AM: Why should there be any federal gun control laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the states can pass any gun control laws they please, provided it's allowed by their state constitutions. Why not just leave gun control to the states? The more left leaning states would pass restricitve laws, the more right leaning states would pass more tolerant laws and the people could live where they choose. How is this a bad plan?

Because the second amendment doesn't specify which level of government is allowed to infringe.
Nate November 14, 2013 11:09 AM: "Nate, I own guns legally in a state and municipality with fairly restrictive laws, that I support. So you are wrong"

Very strange... as this statement doesn't refute my point at all. You may consider yourself pro-2A... just like a midget may consider himself tall.

It just makes you delusional.
Peter Garstig November 14, 2013 11:10 AM: That's like saying its possible to be a little gay. You either sucked a dick your didn't son. Which is it?

Don't answer. It's a trap!
Nate November 14, 2013 11:11 AM: "I don't think individuals should own nukes. Contra Nate, that doesn't make me gay. I think weapons that kill indiscriminately like chemical biological etc, are not what the framers had in mind."

I don't think free speech actually applies to the internet. Having the ability to say something and spread it all over the world instantly is not at all what the framers had in mind.

Also... it was a metaphor. I didn't call anyone gay.
Krul November 14, 2013 11:12 AM: Krul - Because the second amendment doesn't specify which level of government is allowed to infringe.

So? The states aren't suboordinate to the FedGov, at least in theory.

I could see federal restrictions on the gun industry when it involves interstate commerce, but other than that it makes sense to leave it to the states.
Peter Garstig November 14, 2013 11:13 AM: Aaah Nate, now you killed all the fun.
James Dixon November 14, 2013 11:14 AM: > I think what normal people comprehend, that you are missing, is that it's possible to be a gun owner, support the right to bear arms, and believe in limited gun control.

Yes, cognitive dissonance is well recognized phenomena.
Feh November 14, 2013 11:15 AM: Problem #1 is that is that most right-wing stuff sounds crazy, and when pressed, many conservatives are afraid to say what they believe. Leftists have very little problem saying what they believe.

This is only true if "crazy" is determined by majority vote of the herd and right-wing ideas are automatically held up to ridicule.

If "crazy" is determined on the basis of "what is irrational, false, and unworkable as a matter of logic and actual practice" then most Left-wing ideas sound crazy.
Dystopic November 14, 2013 11:15 AM: None. Yes. Yes. If the government or the police can own it, the citizenry can too. Also, you forgot to ask about nuclear and biological weapons. The answer concerning those is also yes. What, precisely, do you think any government is going to do once individuals have those weapons? Then begins the age of the truly sovereign individual.

Vox, can you explain your reasoning about the nuclear and biological weapons more? I understand your point about the truly sovereign individual, and I agree with you about tanks, RPGs, etc... But I also think that weapons of mass destruction might be a bridge too far. Still you're usually right about these matters. What is the justification that would outweigh the potential for an individual to, say, destroy a city?
NateM November 14, 2013 11:16 AM: What, precisely, do you think any government is going to do once individuals have those weapons? Then begins the age of the truly sovereign individual."

If people would just learn the weirding way, this would all become moot.

"Venison flavored milkshake"

Is it weird that this made me hungry? Besides saves you the time slaughtering all those animals. Wouldn't want the meat to go to waste. if its hot out, some would turn before you got to it.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 11:16 AM: The states aren't suboordinate to the FedGov, at least in theory.

True, they are, however, subordinate to the Constitution. It's a distinction with a huge difference.
James Dixon November 14, 2013 11:17 AM: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the states can pass any gun control laws they please, provided it's allowed by their state constitutions.

Not once the 14th amendment was passed.
Stg58/Animal Mother November 14, 2013 11:19 AM: The arguments in favor of owning an M134 minigun don't make sense to people like Rufusdog because he has been told, and believes that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is about hunting or self defense.

The purpose of the Amendment is identified in the text of the Amendment!

"Being necessary to the security of a free state".

Which weapons are necessary for a well regulated militia to possess in order for it to ensure the security of a free state? Also remember that the term "well regulated" in 1789 meant something completely different than it does today. A modern translation of the term is "well trained, armed and supplied and in proper working order".

If you look at the amendment from the perspective of guaranteeing the country's security it makes sense. It makes even more sense if you consider that the militia is charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the union, suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions.

Duck hunting has Nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:19 AM: Leave aside ownership for the moment. Should individuals control nukes?

I'd say the two key system like they have in the movies would be best. So no, if their is any way to avoid it.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:19 AM: So? The states aren't suboordinate to the FedGov, at least in theory.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. So if it says states can't do something, that means that the states can't do it. Like enter into treaties with other countries or ban guns.

Now, if a damn Yankee liberal commie state wants to ban guns, they can...after they secede.
Scotty Binter November 14, 2013 11:21 AM: "None. Yes. Yes. If the government or the police can own it, the citizenry can too. Also, you forgot to ask about nuclear and biological weapons. The answer concerning those is also yes. What, precisely, do you think any government is going to do once individuals have those weapons? Then begins the age of the truly sovereign individual."

This sort of thing could only be written by someone who has no concept of how societies work or are structured. It's so idiotic as to be breathtaking. When was the last time there was a "truly sovereign" individual...one that hadn't given up some rights for the benefit of society? Really? When was that time? Can you name it? Of course you can't. You can't even describe such an age.

What an idiot.

If anyone ever needed evidence as to why Vox Day deserves to be dumped back in a remedial education class along with other slow learning 10 year olds, this is it.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 11:21 AM: Not once the 14th amendment was passed.
That's been the interpretation since the 14th was interpreted by the Supremes to apply bill of rights to states. However, Constitution was always supreme law of land and, as Josh pointed out, 2nd Amendment does not specify which level of gov't is prohibited from infringing on the natural right to bear arms. Contrast this to the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."
Alexander November 14, 2013 11:23 AM: Let's have some fun with this. To paraphrase the baby-butcherers.

If you're against people's choice to own a nuke, then don't own a nuke. Nobody is FORCING YOU to own a nuke.

You might not want to own your own aircraft carrier, you might not *like* the idea... but you have to respect the right of others to choose to do so.

It's not a tank. It's just a random mass of metal and electronics.
Krul November 14, 2013 11:24 AM: Silicho and Josh,

Thanks. It looks like it really is an all-or-nothing situation.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:26 AM: To quote iron man, you could consider all guns to be detachable prostheses. After all, it says ARMS. So unless you think the government can go amputating all willy nilly...
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:26 AM: I don't think free speech actually applies to the internet. Having the ability to say something and spread it all over the world instantly is not at all what the framers had in mind.

Also... it was a metaphor. I didn't call anyone gay.

Bull. They wanted to protect political speech. The means of speaking is irrelevant.

I understand that applies against my position: The means of killing our government wasn't specified. There are just too many people commiting suicide by cop to allow one of them to get ahold of sarin gas.

Geeze, the boys at NSA are going to pop a vein reading this thread.

Also, I know you weren't calling anyone gay. It was a joke.
NorthernHamlet November 14, 2013 11:27 AM: Vox,

The policing attempt, such as it was, came from OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION.

The tattle-telling came from outside; but the policing came from inside, from those with similar ideological leanings (you note the internal ideology aspect). Guns & Ammo was at least partly about the outside as well given: "The editor of Guns & Ammo magazine apologized to readers."

Moreover, it was an indication that the long truce concerning employment in non-ideological professions is now ending

About five years ago, I personally started seeing some of the same stuff you've pointed out, so I just started treating all public places as ideologically/politically charged. Luckily, in most cases, it's pointless to argue politics or religion with most people, so I just don't.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 11:28 AM: I'd say the two key system like they have in the movies would be best. So no, if their is any way to avoid it.

Ah, so it's ok if two individuals collectively control nukes....you see where this is going. Also, on the sane/insane continuum, where would you rank various leaders of countries that have (or may have or may soon have) nukes? Leaning sane or leaning insane (sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.) ? Obama? Putin? Li'l Kim? Mullah X? Netanyahu? Hollande? Merkel? Does being elected by the masses make one more or less likely to be sane and trustworthy?
Josh November 14, 2013 11:29 AM: There are just too many people commiting suicide by cop to allow one of them to get ahold of sarin gas.

There are too many people killing themselves with cars to allow them to drive cars, ever. Because if it saves just one life...
Alexander November 14, 2013 11:34 AM: Giraffe, I think Nate was on your side there. He was mocking the 'framers had in mind' argument.

That said, no doubt some statist across time has said,

I don't think free speech actually applies to the printing press/telegraph/radio/television. Having the ability to say something and spread it all over the world quickly is not at all what we had in mind.

This really applies to everything: The framers of the constitution were well educated men, living a time of massive progress in the western world. Any argument that assumes that they would have a static concept of technology is outrageously stupid. Yes, they might not have known about the internet or the machine gun, but they damn well knew that state-of-the-art late 18th century was going to be one day obsolete.
Stickwick November 14, 2013 11:34 AM: Dystopic: But I also think that weapons of mass destruction might be a bridge too far. Still you're usually right about these matters. What is the justification that would outweigh the potential for an individual to, say, destroy a city?

Looking forward to Vox's answer on this, too. But, principles aside, if an individual has the financial means and the connections to obtain such weapons, the legality of his owning them seems kind of moot.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 11:36 AM: Please demonstrate how Brother Thomas statement

Buzzt, wasn't talking to BT Stilicho, what I bolded was a really heavy hint who I was responding to.
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 11:36 AM: Abe......"If we've learned anything about Conservatives and the tin-foil-hat Right, it's that an exchange of ideas is out of the questions. Orthodoxy is the name of the game whether its in a political space (the tea party), the media (Guns and Ammo and FoxNews) or on blogs (VP)."

First, what is this "we" crap? You speak for yourself, Abe, and so will everyone else. Do not say "we" in mixed company.

Second, the Left and the Right have been exchanging ideas all my life. I have heard very little that has not already been said many times. In short, this is hardly a new idea and it has been tried many times.

Thirdly, the Left does not want a public debate with the Right. What they want is to control both sides of the debate. The more popular trend lately is for Leftists to paint themselves as Conservative, with the cooperation of the media. We see this especially in the debate on "immigration reform", where a crowd of people with spanish surnames get together and claim to be "a conservative organization" for purposes of promoting the Left's version of immigration reform.

If the Left wanted to have a debate with the Right, it would be easy to arrange. And we could eliminate all the showboating and rhetoric by having the negotiations and debate in private instead of in the New York Times or Oprah. But that is not their purpose or their goal. They are not interested in a "free exchange of ideas" and they definitely are not honest about their own intentions.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:38 AM: There are too many people killing themselves with cars to allow them to drive cars, ever. Because if it saves just one life...

Not the same. Just as a gun can kill multiple people, so can a car. But you have to aim at and shoot each one, and you have to purposely run over each one. This gives people time to stop you. You can pop a nuke and Los Angeles is gone.

A gun, a tank, an aircraft carrier, even a thousand pound bomb is useful for maintaining liberty because they can be used more or less discriminatingly against those who would deprive you of it. The other is less so, because it also is going to deprive many innocents of their liberty and lives.
civilServant November 14, 2013 11:40 AM: ‘I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms,’ Mr Metcalf wrote, ‘but I do not believe they have a right to use them irresponsibly.’
The offending column did not say that people should be barred from owning guns. It argued that gun owners should be required to pass a certification similar to owning a car.

The horror. But I am certain you agree with him.

Or am I wrong? I ask again. Would you tolerate your enclave's allowing just anyone who passed through to be armed as they themselves saw fit?
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:41 AM: Giraffe, I think Nate was on your side there. He was mocking the 'framers had in mind' argument.

I think Nate is on record saying that individuals should own nukes. If I am wrong, Nate, let me know.
August November 14, 2013 11:42 AM: I don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but from what I understand, Guns and Ammo is already owned by an anti-gun guy, so this whole episode is more likely to be manufactured so that they can complain about not being able to have 'the conversation' rather than anything else.
dh November 14, 2013 11:42 AM: It's not at all hard to defend. It's not only true, it's inevitable and it is science.

VD, fine, let's setup an oxford style debate. That will be the proposite "Now, tomorrow, forever". At the start, we'll take an audience poll, and at the end, we'll take a poll. The one who wins the most minds will be declared the victor.

Of course the against side will have a hard time winning, since the initial vote will be 100% against. So if you change 1 mind you'd win. But it will still be 1-100 against.

The point obviously wasn't that it isn't easy to defend, but to defend and convince people you are right.

This is why all sustainable societies strictly limit the franchise. "Let everyone vote" sounds good too. Great. I support genuine universal democracy. Let the ENTIRE WORLD vote in every US election. And you're a racist hater if you don't support Senegalese children voting for president.

The problem is that this statement is stupid and sounds stupid, even to people who don't know why. You have to go from this, above, to:

"Let's not let the nice black couple down the street who don't make much money but are nice people, but who don't own any property or pay much in taxes, vote. Because segregation."

That is a leap that is not supported. And, basically, the argument *is racist*. The argument is essentially that not all races can support self-government at this point in time. Right?
Josh November 14, 2013 11:44 AM: A gun, a tank, an aircraft carrier, even a thousand pound bomb is useful for maintaining liberty because they can be used more or less discriminatingly against those who would deprive you of it. The other is less so, because it also is going to deprive many innocents of their liberty and lives.

Wouldn't a nuke be the most useful, then, since it would instantly threaten most of DC?
Josh November 14, 2013 11:46 AM: That is a leap that is not supported. And, basically, the argument *is racist*. The argument is essentially that not all races can support self-government at this point in time. Right?

It's not just, or even mostly, about race. Take sex or age.

I would gladly give up my "right" to vote if everyone my age was also barred from voting.
Roundtine November 14, 2013 11:48 AM: Liberals have already complained about other states' gun laws, same with abortion, gay marriage, etc. Thete will be no peace.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:48 AM: Ah, so it's ok if two individuals collectively control nukes....you see where this is going. Also, on the sane/insane continuum, where would you rank various leaders of countries that have (or may have or may soon have) nukes? Leaning sane or leaning insane (sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.) ? Obama? Putin? Li'l Kim? Mullah X? Netanyahu? Hollande? Merkel? Does being elected by the masses make one more or less likely to be sane and trustworthy?

They don't live under our constitution or control. I don't have a problem with countries having nukes. You can hardly prevent it. It becomes problematic when individuals have them. What should Putin do if Nate goes crazy with his nuke and bombs Russia? Not an official act of our government but I be he holds us collectively responsible. Which we can't be if he owns them legally.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 11:49 AM: The constitution, by the way, requires that ratio to be 1 in 30,000. And before anyone says that things won't get done with 10,000+ members in the House, keep in mind that Congress should not be passing so many laws to begin with. Especially when they can't even pass a damn budget plan

See I'm more of a small government guy...10'000 house members, LOL, no thanks.
Nate November 14, 2013 11:49 AM: "I think Nate is on record saying that individuals should own nukes. If I am wrong, Nate, let me know."

Not only do I believe people have the right to own nukes... I believe individuals owning nukes is the only thing that will ever actually make a libertarian form of government possible.
dh November 14, 2013 11:50 AM: I would gladly give up my "right" to vote if everyone my age was also barred from voting.

True, but that's not what's being discussed generally. Or maybe it is? Talking about specifics of who you would weed out is almost pointless because it's so remote as to be impossible.

But age isn't a great factor either. Washington wasn't an old man when he was fighting the revolution. He was quite strapping.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:52 AM: What should Putin do if Nate goes crazy with his nuke and bombs Russia?

Lovers quarrel. So I guess it would be considered domestic violence.
JDC November 14, 2013 11:53 AM: Gun control legislation, much like the ACA is about one thing - increasing the populace's dependence on government, thereby strengthening government's power. Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements such as - fear, surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to protecting the children. I'm just surprised that liberals aren't going after sling-shots - as this VIDEO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES Sling shots can kill!

Do you want your child to be injured by a sling shot? Don't you love your children? Don't you want the government to protect them? Please, love your children!!

WARNING: Video is quite graphic -
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:53 AM: Wouldn't a nuke be the most useful, then, since it would instantly threaten most of DC?

Sure. But I'd rather have 50 million men with rifles threatening DC. If it comes down just one guy, liberty is dead already.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 11:54 AM: "It argued that gun owners should be required to pass a certification similar to owning a car."

There are no Federal laws prohibiting anyone with enough money walking into any dealership in the country and buying any vehicle they want. No certification or license required. No waiting period, no back-ground check.

He's right, that would be a step in the right direction....
Nate November 14, 2013 11:54 AM: "What should Putin do if Nate goes crazy with his nuke and bombs Russia? "

Look it may make you feel better to pretend that governments aren't run by individuals but they are.

Like it or not... one man has control over those things.

There literally no difference in governments owning nukes and private citizens owning nukes.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:54 AM: True, but that's not what's being discussed generally. Or maybe it is? Talking about specifics of who you would weed out is almost pointless because it's so remote as to be impossible.

Generally the discussion on this blog has centered on limiting the franchise according to property ownership, not race. If that nice black couple meets the property requirements, let them vote.
Desiderius November 14, 2013 11:55 AM: VD,

"'Segregation now, segragation tomorrow, segregation forever'. Infamous. And hard to defend.'

It's not at all hard to defend. It's not only true, it's inevitable and it is science."

De Jure or De Facto?
Mark Call November 14, 2013 11:55 AM: There's a Biblical principle at work here as well:

(see the entire Book of Exodus)

People who won't abide by the Rules get KICKED OUT of the camp!
Josh November 14, 2013 11:56 AM: De Jure or De Facto?

De Facto, since De Jure violates freedom of association.
Stg58/Animal Mother November 14, 2013 11:56 AM: Male Land owners should be the only ones voting.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 11:58 AM: @G: "What should Putin do if Nate goes crazy with his nuke and bombs Russia? Not an official act of our government but I be he holds us collectively responsible. Which we can't be if he owns them legally."

Anyone with the money and means to build or purchase nukes and defend them will have them no matter what any law says. (fortunately Nate doesn't qualify, yet....) The nukes vs. firearms discussion is stupidity and silliness...
Giraffe November 14, 2013 11:58 AM: Not only do I believe people have the right to own nukes... I believe individuals owning nukes is the only thing that will ever actually make a libertarian form of government possible.

What about the majority of men having a libertarian mindset? The only way that happens, is if we outbreed the statists. Homeschool ftw.
Josh November 14, 2013 11:59 AM: Male Land owners should be the only ones voting.

I'd be ok with this. How much property would you set the limit at?
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 12:01 PM: @Josh:"I'd be ok with this. How much property would you set the limit at?"

An acre of land or a 1911....crap.....Nate still qualifies... ;-)
Giraffe November 14, 2013 12:03 PM: There literally no difference in governments owning nukes and private citizens owning nukes.

I disagree. If Obama orders the military to nuke Nate, they have the opportunity to refuse the order if they think he's gone banannas.
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 12:04 PM: Alexander....."The framers of the constitution were well educated men, living a time of massive progress in the western world."

You are continuing with a false notion, specifically, that the "framers of the constitution" were of one mind and basically agreed on many of the questions of the day. That is false, of course. The framers of the constitution cobbled together a bundle of unpopular filthy compromises and half measures that satisfied very few people. The only thing MOST people could agree upon is that the constitution was an improvement over the articles of confederation. There was opposition, even fierce opposition, to a good many of the ideas written into the constitution, even some that remain serious points of disagreement even today. The founding fathers represented every imaginable stripe and hue of political thought and they were not united in their political philosophy in the least. Over time, they mostly became convinced of the need to declare independence from the British Crown and mostly agreed to the advantages of continuing a rough alliance of separate states going forward. Beyond that, there was very little agreement.
Desiderius November 14, 2013 12:05 PM: "Moreover, it was an indication that the long truce concerning employment in non-ideological professions is now ending."

It ended a long time ago. The non-Left is finally waking up to that fact.
cailcorishev November 14, 2013 12:05 PM: See I'm more of a small government guy...10'000 house members, LOL, no thanks.

Aren't you smart enough to see that the size of government is not dependent on the number of people making the laws? It's quite possible -- I'd say likely -- that a 10,000-member Congress would spend less money than the current 435 do. Or look at it this way: is there any doubt that Bush/Obama would have spent even more money if they'd been solely in charge without the other branches to slow them down?
rufusdog November 14, 2013 12:06 PM: The arguments in favor of owning an M134 minigun don't make sense to people like Rufusdog because he has been told, and believes that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is about hunting or self defense.

No and I’ve said nothing of the sort. LOL, not even bothering to try to straw man, just make shit up, wonderful.

Which weapons are necessary for a well regulated militia to possess in order for it to ensure the security of a free state?

Nukes and VX gas, Duh.
Desiderius November 14, 2013 12:07 PM: "De Facto, since De Jure violates freedom of association."

Aye, that's where I was heading, but of course when it comes to immigration you're on the opposite side of the fence.

Curious for Vox's take.
Nate November 14, 2013 12:11 PM: "I disagree. If Obama orders the military to nuke Nate, they have the opportunity to refuse the order if they think he's gone banannas."

yeah... because no soldier ever said, "I was just following orders."
rufusdog November 14, 2013 12:11 PM: Aren't you smart enough

Hmmm, just don’t want 10’000 new members of the federal government, I’s plenty smart.

Wait, or, OR, we the people could just hold the current government we have accountable, shocking I know, but we could give it a try. But the really hard ugly truth that none of you seem to be able to face is Obama and what comes with him is what America currently wants. Don’t have to like it, but it is what it is.

LOL, Obama won reelection…right?
Giraffe November 14, 2013 12:15 PM: "I disagree. If Obama orders the military to nuke Nate, they have the opportunity to refuse the order if they think he's gone banannas."

yeah... because no soldier ever said, "I was just following orders."

Yeah, I'm sure no soldier has ever refused an illegitimate order either.
Josh November 14, 2013 12:15 PM: Aye, that's where I was heading, but of course when it comes to immigration you're on the opposite side of the fence.

What's my position on immigration? How can you determine if it's on the opposite side if I haven't articulated one?

And immigration restriction doesn't violate free association any more than restricting voting to citizens violates voting rights of non citizens.
Josh November 14, 2013 12:17 PM: The wary this whole nuke thing mushroomed has really clouded the rest of the discussion...
Stg58/Animal Mother November 14, 2013 12:18 PM: I would argue just for a mortgage. That would free people in states with one big city from the tyranny of that city, such as MA, WA, NY and IL. The progressive voters that hold their fellow citizens hostage would be handicapped in their power because none of them even own an apartment. They all rent
Daniel November 14, 2013 12:19 PM: Heh. I highly doubt a nuke would have much impact on Nate. I bet he's got a basement.

They'd have to send in ground troops. That's where things might get interesting, especially since their radiation suits would be government-issue.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 12:22 PM: @rd:"Hmmm, just don’t want 10’000 new members of the federal government, I’s plenty smart."

" The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand"

Doesn't require more, sets a maximum.....I know you didn't claim it did, just FYI....
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 12:23 PM: refusdog....."LOL, Obama won reelection…right?"

I do not recall any of the Leftists or Liberals walking around in a daze mumbling nonsense about how Bush was re-elected, and therefore that is what the American people wanted, and therefore it would be wrong to be critical of anything that Bush says or does. Quite the opposite actually. So STFU about how we are all supposed to be good little Nazis and swallow whole everything that the gifted liar has to say. The same goes for the conservatives too. They whined and complained and puffed for eight long years when Clinton was president. BOTH the Left and the Right have said ugly things about the president and the administration, depending on who was in the White House. But do not ever tell me that I have to STFU and go along with who the American people elect every four years.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 12:24 PM: I would argue just for a mortgage. That would free people in states with one big city from the tyranny of that city, such as MA, WA, NY and IL. The progressive voters that hold their fellow citizens hostage would be handicapped in their power because none of them even own an apartment. They all rent

There is a town near here that has a bunch of lots that are like 8 foot by 10 foot. They were trying to inflate the number of lots so they could be the county seat. Didn't work. But still, if you don't put some limit on it there will be people buying 1 inch by one inch lots just for voting rights.

They'd have to send in ground troops. That's where things might get interesting.

They'd get him... eventually, but I bet he makes them pay.
Josh November 14, 2013 12:25 PM: I would argue just for a mortgage.

Gee, great, the big four banks would have more than half the votes...

Obviously kidding. Of course paid for property would also suffice, yes?
Stg58/Animal Mother November 14, 2013 12:26 PM: Good point, Giraffe. I was looking at just a mortgage on even an apartment because if you had to own an acre, even 0.5 acres, no one in NYC or other cities could vote.
Josh November 14, 2013 12:28 PM: no one in NYC or other cities could vote

That's a feature, not a bug.
Stg58/Animal Mother November 14, 2013 12:29 PM: Josh,

Yes of course. A deed or mortgage. Hell, I could care less about the land. Gender is more important.

One caveat: all 9mm owners are excluded from voting.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 12:29 PM: The nukes vs. firearms discussion is stupidity and silliness...

Hold on just a gal darn minute, you’z not callin Vox no stupid nor silly are ya. Cuz that just ain’t right he’s a bone-a-fid genius, lots of fancy book learn’n an such. And if’n you be a think’n he sounds crazy, well, he be smarter than you, so you’z just shut up. He be brilliant…and I loves him.
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 12:31 PM: no one in NYC or other cities could vote

Josh....."That's a feature, not a bug."

Thomas Jefferson would be delighted. He despised the idea that landless masses who live in cities can vote in elections. (And he is not the only one who feels that way.)
Daniel November 14, 2013 12:31 PM: No, rufusdog. I believe he was calling your position stupid and silly. Nukes/firearms is a distinction without a difference.
Kentucky Packrat November 14, 2013 12:32 PM: I've mentioned this before, but let's say it again: the law hasn't prevented a single person from owning a nuclear device in the US.

There are all kinds of regulations that control the technology needed to refine nuclear materials, but most of the equipment is multi-use, and getting around the regulations is possible. There are laws against stealing radioactive material, but if you can refine it yourself, getting the ore is possible.

If you have enough money to buy the material or make it yourself, you don't care about the law. You can buy the pieces and parts on the open market yourself.

The real reason there hasn't been a non-governmental bomb in the US is that no one really cares. It's too impractical for anyone but a true crazy, and they are usually too broke to afford to use anything but Other People's Toys (read: jet planes, etc.).

Current US law hasn't stopped a single person who wanted a gun from getting a gun. It just provides another crime to charge any surviving perps if they live.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 12:33 PM: One caveat: all 9mm owners are excluded from voting.

Well... What if they also have a .45? And a .44?
ThirdMonkey November 14, 2013 12:33 PM: Voting should be determined by firearms proficiency. Have a series of targets corresponding with the candidate/issue. If you miss, you're vote doesn't count. If you hit the wrong target, sucks to be you.
Brother Thomas November 14, 2013 12:34 PM: Currently psychopaths and sociopaths in governments around the world control thousands of nuclear weapons. Somehow the very unlikely possibility of my neighbor owning a nuclear weapon doesn't concern me that much. There are two reasons for my lack of concern, (1) my neighbor is a rather nice fellow and (2) if he could afford a nuclear weapon, he wouldn't be living in my neighborhood.

If not for the massive taxing power and central authority of the state, possibly, there would be no nuclear weapons at all.
FP November 14, 2013 12:34 PM: Here's a link to Metcalf on Guntalk this past Sunday via twitter:

http://t.co/JlWGekKfzB

He tried to walk it back. He's basically a long suffering Illinois resident who is shortsighted because the "political reality" in Illinois means training requirements that he doesn't like but will live with.

His point is understandable give where he lives but he's still wrong. This proves it:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/shannon-watts-open-carry-protesters-taliban/

An outright lie used against people merely demonstrating their right to bear arms. The anti-gunners, lefties etc. are not going to stop just because you give into training requirements.
? November 14, 2013 12:41 PM: is there any doubt that Bush/Obama would have spent even more money if they'd been solely in charge without the other branches to slow them down?

The other branches slowed them down?
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 12:42 PM: Anyone with enough money to own a nuke, if they wanted one, they would have one already. It is by no means necessary for them to build it from scratch or steal the material.

The USA has foreign enemies that have nuclear weapons. Do you imagine it impossible that any of those countries would ever (for an amount of money or political considerations) provide a nuke to a US private citizen? I do not see it as impossible at all and requiring a permit is not going to be an effective way to control for that sort of thing......any more than declaring certain buildings to be a gun-free zone will mean that nobody will violate that rule. (snicker)
rufusdog November 14, 2013 12:45 PM: I do not recall any of the Leftists or Liberals walking around in a daze mumbling nonsense about how Bush was re-elected, and therefore that is what the American people wanted, and therefore it would be wrong to be critical of anything that Bush says or does.

You’re missing my point. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be critical or fight for what we believe in. What I am saying is (IMHO) we have lost the majority of America. THAT is the real, very hard to deal with problem. It just seems that people get lost bitching about the government and politicians and fail to realize that the real problem is the American people. If I thought it was as simple as changing a few politicians it would be one thing, but it’s not, the problem is much larger and harder to fix.

And, just have to point out, your use of Bush REALLY shows what I am talking about. The “conservative” guy, supposedly our guy, was just a white, tad bit more moderate, poorly spoken version of Obama. When we win we get a mild liberal, when we lose we get an extreme liberal…but we always lose, you get that right?
Sigyn November 14, 2013 12:46 PM: Why are you guys so worried about individuals owning nukes? I mean, seriously. Do you really think Mossad wouldn't send in assassins to nail you and steal it if you had a nuke? It's like a balance of power or something. You could own one; you just wouldn't for long.

...On a more serious note, though, nukes are expensive to buy and maintain. Only the wealthiest would own one. But there's a downside to that: Most of the "wealthiest" are in bed with the government and way too happy to do its bidding, so unless/until nukes become affordable, maybe it's better this way. It's fun to speculate, though.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 12:48 PM: Buzzt, wasn't talking to BT Stilicho

My mistake.
YIH November 14, 2013 12:48 PM: You can pop a nuke and Los Angeles is gone.
Gee Giraffe, you make that sound like a bad thing.
TWS November 14, 2013 12:49 PM: Not sure I want _anyone_ to own nukes, weaponized smallpox or ICBMs. Jim Jones killed an awful lot of people with crossbows and kool aid. Tanks sure, RPGs artillary battleships okay, but a superflu that can kill hundreds of millions? Fuck that.

I've been shot at by automatic weapons and while it does make one think about life insurance and if you can hug your wife and kids enough, the very thought of Applewhite or Jones having nukes or a bioweapon makes me think of Revelations and Ragnarok.
VD November 14, 2013 12:52 PM: What is the justification that would outweigh the potential for an individual to, say, destroy a city?

It is inevitable. You cannot stop the spread of technology once it exists. Do you really think anyone with an IQ over 150 can't figure out how to turn genetic flags into a weapon of genocidal destruction? Nukes are trivial by comparison.

There is literally nothing stopping even a moron from poisoning water supplies on a large scale. The only reason these awful things don't happen isn't because someone passed a law somewhere, but because no one wants to do it. Not even the crazies and psychos.
rufusdog November 14, 2013 12:52 PM: No, rufusdog. I believe he was calling your position stupid and silly. Nukes/firearms is a distinction without a difference.

Daniel, I be think’n you might not be follow’n along, or maybe you be confused, “distinction without a difference”, that’s might fancy talk’n you got right there, you must be genius to, just like Vox be. See I was mighty confused, thinking nukes and firearms was different, but I sees now they aint. Thanks, this be why I keep cum’n back, for da learn’n I’s get for free!!
JCclimber November 14, 2013 12:52 PM: I also would fully support individuals owning a nuke device.

Anyone who could demonstrate the amount of self-control required to amass the fortune required to acquire the materials to construct one, the engineering knowledge to machine it and build it, and most of all, maintain it, is someone who could be trusted to have the self-control to not blow it up spontaneously.

In short, an individual much more trustworthy with such a weapon than a bunch of government workers, entrusted with weapons developed by others and paid for by others.

And currently, any crazy with enough cash can buy one on the black market anyway. The maintenance and delivery are the sticking points preventing that one from being a problem yet.

Seriously, do some of you think nuclear devices are simple, cheap, and as easy to maintain as a movie bomb? Idiots.
Stilicho November 14, 2013 12:56 PM: What should Putin do if Nate goes crazy with his nuke and bombs Russia? Not an official act of our government but I be he holds us collectively responsible. Which we can't be if he owns them legally.

What should Putin do if Obama goes crazy and nukes Moscow? Collective guilt? Regardless of the form of government, the INDIVIDUALS in that government who actually control the use of the nukes are still just INDIVIDUALS, subject to the same failings as all individuals. Or do you really believe that Obama is more responsible and trustworthy than Nate?
The fact is, your objection is to the illogical, indiscriminate, and/or insane use of nukes. You don't want the crazies to have them. Problem is, being part of a government is at best neutral on that issue and likely to increase the odds that you are one of the crazies.
JCclimber November 14, 2013 12:58 PM: I don't believe an event like that seen in "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert, or "The Stand" by Stephen King is going to happen.

God's angels are holding back the winds of strife. Local outbreaks, sure. Even larger ones like the Spanish flu and the Black Plague didn't lay waste to a majority of any population.

Until God decides that it is time for HIS final plagues to hit the world, in which case governments will be completely helpless as they have always been in the face of the Almighty.

It does make for interesting speculative fiction, though, like "Under a Graveyard Sky" by John Ringo.
Jack Amok November 14, 2013 12:58 PM: ...the conservatives send in their checks to support the uni because they're being good citizens.

Exactly. Being good citizens. On the Right, that means contributing to your community. But that's the big difference between Left and Right. The Left thinks Government is the Community. The Right thinks there's something else.

The libertarian alternative to Big Government isn't Every Man For Himself. It's civic society - voluntary institutions. You join the Boy Scouts and give them money if you like what they're doing. If you don't, you spend you time and money somewhere else.
People on the Right end up supporting civic institutions because that's how you do things together on the Right. Obama said Government is just what we call it when we do things together. That's a Leftist view, that people have to be forced to work together. Natural for them, I suppose, since Leftists tend to be profoundly selfish. But folks on the Right get together voluntarily to do things.

The Boy Scouts are an immensely valuable organization that took a century to build. It was specifically created to give boys and young men the sort of challenges and experiences necessary to develop in to emotionally healthy men that urban and suburban life didn't have. That is even more necessary today than it was 100 years ago, but the Left doesn't give a rat's ass. They're happy to destroy a civic institution because every voluntary organization is an affront to their Government Religion.
Giraffe November 14, 2013 1:00 PM: Gee Giraffe, you make that sound like a bad thing.

I'm not saying their aren't plusses to go with the minuses.
Sigyn November 14, 2013 1:01 PM: Anyone who could demonstrate the amount of self-control required to amass the fortune required to acquire the materials to construct one, the engineering knowledge to machine it and build it, and most of all, maintain it, is someone who could be trusted to have the self-control to not blow it up spontaneously.

Anyone who can amass that kind of money nowadays is not likely to use the nuke for Second-Amendment purposes.
JCclimber November 14, 2013 1:04 PM: Ah, I get it.

People are opposed to individuals owning nuke devices because they have bought the Hollywood lies.
The movies always portray them as psychopathic loonies who don't mind or even crave wiping out large masses of humanity.

Completely ignoring that those people would never amass the resources and allies and technology and materials to assemble and test a working nuclear device. In real life anyway.

Fantasies coming out of Hollywood that some terrorist group is going to acquire a nuke device somewhere and somehow transport it around the world and be able to detonate it.....are just fantasies. The masterminds in terrorist organizations have enough brains to NOT want to turn the entire world against their cause, even if they have enough flunkies crazy and intelligent enough to carry the operation out.
JCclimber November 14, 2013 1:07 PM: @Sigyn,

yes, and anyone who can accumulate that kind of money and expertise is also smart enough to realize there will always be blowback on them, their organization, their families, their causes, and their legacies.

They have to be long-term thinkers to gather the necessary resources.
Josh November 14, 2013 1:10 PM: There is literally nothing stopping even a moron from poisoning water supplies on a large scale. The only reason these awful things don't happen isn't because someone passed a law somewhere, but because no one wants to do it. Not even the crazies and psychos.

As you've said many many times, people refuse to face reality. They'd much rather pretend that unpleasant facts don't exist.

Whether it's politics, intersex relations, economics, or theology, you're always going to have a majority of people covering their ears and shrieking "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" because reality is somehow too hurtful for them to face.

Say, I believe some Greek chap named Plato wrote about this, something about a cave?
ajw308 November 14, 2013 1:14 PM: Most of the cannons used in the early days of the War for Independence were owned by towns or private citizens, so it worked in the past.
Some of the Browning potato diggers the Rough Riders had were purchased by parents of some of the unit members.
patrick kelly November 14, 2013 1:16 PM: @Daniel: "No, rufusdog. I believe he was calling your position stupid and silly."

Yes, this. Vox didn't bring up the comparison between firearms and nukes as a reason why the gov't should be able to keep anyone from owning a machinegun.

" Nukes/firearms is a distinction without a difference."

No, they are different, but the fact that they are different or treated differently doesn't justify infringing on citizens ability to purchase and own machine guns or rpg's or anything else an infantryman would typically carry into battle. Don't bring up suitcase nukes, they are mostly a myth, even as mystically described require several people to carry and operate, and are not "bearing arms" the same way carrying an M16 is. Claiming it is is silliness and stupidity IMAO.

Of course someone will start debating the meaning of "is" about now....
Sigyn November 14, 2013 1:16 PM: yes, and anyone who can accumulate that kind of money and expertise is also smart enough to realize there will always be blowback on them, their organization, their families, their causes, and their legacies.

They have to be long-term thinkers to gather the necessary resources.

And in the government's happy circle of friends. What I'm saying is that, in practice, this is no different from the government acquiring them, except there's no accountability to the people like the government (nominally) has. Who prosecutes crimes?

If nukes were cheaper/easier, and Joe Average down the street could get and keep one, then it WOULD be different, but it's not.
Cajin November 14, 2013 1:17 PM: "Also remember that the term "well regulated" in 1789 meant something completely different than it does today. A modern translation of the term is "well trained, armed and supplied and in proper working order".

If I was long term planner and had the influence to do so, I bet that over a long enough time period (maybe even a wide enough saturation point), through magazines, books, and TV; I could make specific words mean something different than what they were originally intended to mean. And it would be very a difficult thing to prove.

I wonder if Google word trends cross-referenced with the publishing agency for specific words would allow us to determine who pushed for a word redefinition. The difficulty would be determining usage analysis, but I wonder what and who we might find.
civilServant November 14, 2013 1:18 PM: I believe individuals owning nukes is the only thing that will ever actually make a libertarian form of government possible.

You mean individuals detonating nukes is the only thing that will ever actually make a libertarian form of government possible.

Completely ignoring that those people would never amass the resources and allies and technology and materials to assemble and test a working nuclear device.

Indeed. It is a collective effort.
cailcorishev November 14, 2013 1:19 PM: Wait, or, OR, we the people could just hold the current government we have accountable, shocking I know, but we could give it a try.

We'd have a lot more influence with them if they didn't represent so many people. Who knows, maybe we'd even be able to out-shout the donorists, whose money would be spread far more thinly.

You may be right that a majority of Americans now prefer big government. But they didn't always; they had to be trained to that dependence, with a constantly increasing dose of bread and circuses over multiple generations. That would have been more difficult to do if the power hadn't stayed concentrated in the hands of so few.
civilServant November 14, 2013 1:23 PM: There is literally nothing stopping even a moron from poisoning water supplies on a large scale.

From making the attempt no there is nothing stopping them. From succeeding in the attempt yes there is much to stop them. The logistics alone required to poison a water supply to a degree that might be considered successful are quite formidable. This has been well-noted in previous studies.
Jack Amok November 14, 2013 1:26 PM: The logistics alone required to poison a water supply to a degree that might be considered successful are quite formidable.

Right, and the logistics of making a nuke are a piece of cake.
Dystopic November 14, 2013 1:27 PM: The only reason these awful things don't happen isn't because someone passed a law somewhere, but because no one wants to do it. Not even the crazies and psychos.

I suspect there are some Muslims who would disagree with that. But I see your point. In a reasonably civilized society, nobody would want to do those things. That's the trick, though, isn't it? It's a good argument for keeping savages as far away from our nuclear stockpile as possible.
DonReynolds November 14, 2013 1:28 PM: refusdog..... "What I am saying is (IMHO) we have lost the majority of America. THAT is the real, very hard to deal with problem. It just seems that people get lost bitching about the government and politicians and fail to realize that the real problem is the American people. If I thought it was as simple as changing a few politicians it would be one thing, but it’s not, the problem is much larger and harder to fix."

I gently disagree. The same electorate that voted in 2012, provided Obama with a re-election, but it also gave Republicans a controlling majority in the House of Representatives. Not a small achievement and it was by direct election, not Electoral College votes. You may be mistaken in your opinion since it may not square with the facts. There are 30 Republican Governors. It may be premature to write off the voting majority in this country just yet.

Can they bring in enough foreign hispanics to create a permanent Democrat majority? Certainly.
TWS November 14, 2013 1:30 PM: The bomb itself I can only speculate about but ICBMs I do know a little about at least the American ones. They require organization and maintenance.

It's not easy to produce a weaponized bioweapon or even a decent mail-bomb. If it were Kazinski (sp) would have killed more people. Two of my friends were working in a mailroom where the unabomber sent a bomb. The only reason they are alive is because he miss-addressed it and they needed to open it see where it really went. They couldn't open it with pry bars and set it to the side forgetting about it. The batteries died and when it was finally opened it didn't go off.

When it was desroyed the hole was big enough to fill as a fish pond for a kids derby for years afterward.
Sheila November 14, 2013 1:30 PM: Rufus Dog: "But the really hard ugly truth that none of you seem to be able to face is Obama and what comes with him is what America currently wants. Don’t have to like it, but it is what it is."

If one assumes that the current voting populace and/or those who voted in the last election are "Americans," then this is a true statement. I, for one, do not support that assumption.
Sigyn November 14, 2013 1:30 PM: I believe individuals owning nukes is the only thing that will ever actually make a libertarian form of government possible.

Considering human nature, IS it possible?

1 – 200 of 274 Newer› Newest»

Rod Walker	Nick Cole
Martin van Creveld	Jonathan Moeller
John C. Wright	Rolf Nelson
Mike Cernovich	David the Good
David VanDyke	B.V. Larson
Jerry Pournelle	Cheah Kai Wai
Peter Grant	Sarah Salviander
Ivan Throne	Steve Keen
Tara McCarthy	LawDog

Vox Popoli

CONTACT

VOXOLOGY

PRINT AND AUDIO

CRYPTOFASHION

CASTALIA BOOKLISTS

Topics

Voxiversity

Interviews

Interviews of Me

SITES OF INTEREST

Voxonomica

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Police your institutions

274 Comments:

Post a Comment

DAY TRIPS

CASTALIA EBOOKS

BOOK OF THE WEEK

CASTALIA AUTHORS

NON-FICTION DOWNLOADS

DOGGEREL

BOOK LIST 2017

ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS

Dread Ilk sites