My Photo

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

BlogStats


« Taxes Fair Enough Already? | Main | Ruminations – 30jul12 »

28 July 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f86f2ad8833016768e1fb70970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Circling the Barn on Gun Control (Addended):

Comments

TomKenworth

" Never mind that not even a deranged mass murderer can use more than a miniscule fraction of such a stockpile for the most meticulously planned dastardly deed."

If it wasn't for the jamming of the drum, and remarkably close placement of the PD, the Colorado killer might have gone onto using way more of his stockpile.

The man we have to thank the most was the range owner who had the sense to feel the hair on the back of his neck rise when the killer tried to make use of the range. An experiment with the drum might have let him know that he had a problem, and he would have made sure he had at least one good drum of 100, and possibly more before proceeding. For all of his careful planning, ignoring the location of the gendarmes was one heckova an oversight.

Tonite, coming home to NSJ, I was treated to more on coming traffic than I've ever seen on the road, folks coming back from the North Columbia School House Storytelling Festival, a good 30 minutes from the Rood Center, even if you are going like a bat out of hell. One of the problems with these nut case events is that the next one always learns something from the previous one. Just as we have improved underwear bombers (and we do) so we have an armored to the nines dude this time. It has been done before, I recall in an LA shootout some years back, one of the first times the cops plaintively noted that they were outgunned by armored tormentors.

My schemes detailed before and now also at farstars.blogspot.com do not restrict the guns at all, and if you are a good citizen, enabke you to stockpile ever increasing amounts over time, but slowly, over time.

My bounty scheme for bounties for gun store employees goes right along with Greg's suggestion that we be more on the watch for such crazies.

Yes people can always resort to other means, but usually they are much more complicated than simply buying weaponry and ammo. On the day of the shooting, the saddest sack was the FBI dude wanting to know where this kid had learned all about bomb making, who taught him, must be coconspirators, the FBI dude obviously having never taken any of the chemistry required for premed or neurosciences. Heck, I nearly blew out my bedroom windows in 8 th grade, paying with oxidizers, etc.

Now as to: " Never mind that not even a deranged mass murderer can use more than a miniscule fraction of such a stockpile for the most meticulously planned dastardly deed." are you so sure?

And as for being able to take on the USA military, without mass defections, I really don't think so. 300 million handguns and rifles and shotgun, really are not going to last too long, against USA military firepower. You have to remember, other than military communications, the first thing a rogue government would do would be to secure all means of communication, by whatever means necessary, including blasting it to pieces. Line up all 300,000,000 on a beach and have them shoot at an aircraft carrier, two miles out. Now wait for the response. You see George, it's a great Heinlein fantasy, I loved them all as a kid, but it just doesn't work in real life.

And it sure as hell is piss poor excuse for not at least getting the ammo under control.

Todd Juvinall

The deranged person who wants to murder fellow humans will use the weapon available. It has to do with the brain not the cold piece of steel propelling lead shards through space. The most prolific serial murderer in the 20th century was a Russian. He killed over one hundred over many years. He used knives and strangulation. The result was the same as if he murdered all at once.

The gun is a tool and if a person has no ill intent they will not use it in a way to kill as the Aurora killer did. The 2nd Amendment protects the rest.

TomKenworth

A gun is the most efficient killing tool on the planet, for individual use. Moving one's finger less than 3/4 of an inch can end at least one other persons' life instantly. It is also quite selective, and involves the least harm to the operator. Staging head-on collisions and making up explosives are fraught with far more dangers, as are strangulation and knife use, if the other party gains the upper hand in the struggle. Yes, a gun is a tool of many purposes, but it's prime purpose is to take the life of another, be it a duck, a bear, or over 13,000 humans every year in the USA alone. Anyone hunting game knows the advantages of the rifle or shotgun for that purpose. The handgun primary purpose is for use against another human, and how many of them do we have? And what will it take for you to appreciate the need for a few roadblocks like preventive over time restrictions on ammo purchases for you to understand that, a death in your own family? That's called "learning the hard way." I wouldn't wish it on anyone, which is why I have taken such a pro-active approach, note the editorial in Saturday's The Union newspaper.

And for the nitwits who think I have no experiences with fire arms, I own three, kept in a secure 600 lb safe, in a residence with gates, fences, sensors, dogs, pop-on lights, and plenty of space to allow plenty of time and warning to get to them, and enough deterrent effects in place to probably reduce the odds of having to go for them to near zero, despite being thoroughly rural. To keep mind, eye, and hand steady, beyond using my camera constantly, I am an archer, which is far more soothing to the peace of the neighborhood, than going bangity bang bang bang every day or two. It's cheaper too, and doesn't give away your location in the dark.

George Rebane

The debate on the original intent of the Second Amendment quickly goes into its predictable groove. The liberals’ position can always be summarized as ‘Government is good, resistance is futile.’ They inevitably paint the ludicrous picture of civilians with hunting rifles and shotguns holed up against the advance of massive mechanized divisions supported by a sky filled with unimaginable air power, all arrayed by the government to put down any opposition to its methods and means.

What is missed in such arguments (e.g. TomK’s 1203am) is that a tyrannical government does not rise through the co-opting of its military and turning it against its own people. Autocracies begin with bureaucratic thugs from NGOs and government agencies which are subverted one by one. These are usually security, intelligence, and regulatory enforcement agencies whose minions arrive surreptitiously at your door in the middle of the night to either execute you on the spot for ‘resisting’, or simply make you vanish. By the time the military is turned, those kinds of revolutions are over.

However, the small arms against tanks scenarios are common with people with little or no military experience. As an Army officer in a combat unit facing the Red Army, we often talked of the role of the militaries in maintaining the power of tyrannical regimes. Sooner or later the question would always come up, ‘Can it happen in America?’ And in my experience and the broader experience of others in such conversations, the answer was always no. None of us could conceive of any lawful order that would have us assault American civilians, even if they were firing at us, it was unthinkable. Such orders simply would not be followed. Dealing with civilian unrest was a political problem to be solved by our political leadership and their internal organs of power.

It is against the rogue political elements and the armed thugs that armed citizens can muster par force as the determining factor. It is then when par force (including just its presence) can make the unequivocal statement that the country will not fall to subterfuge in the dark of night; that whatever differences brought us to that point of contention, they will not be resolved with a one-sided use of firepower, but will be forcefully brought back into the light of day for a negotiated solution according to the mandates of our Constitution.

TomKenworth

Further notes on taking out a rogue government: In the early 1800's, the weapons the government could muster, were not really that much more advanced than what the private citizen had, and back then a band of private citizens stood a chance, when the government was a 6 week sail across the pond, or even local, with horseback riders for communication.

These day there is no way in heck citizens can compete with the half trillion a year they've been arming the government with for the last 60 years. Do the math. Add up the value of the citizens' net worth in arms, ammo, and armor. Now do the same with the government. The only thing the citizens have going for them is numbers, but only if ALL rose up. The NRA has all of what, 4 million members. The USA armed forces are all of .5 million. The 4 million outnumber the .5 five million, but the .5 million are a very, very, heavily armed, armoured, and communicating group. Good luck with that. As I pointed out before, a rogue government would start by taking over all communications channels, and silencing any remaining ham or cb units out there. You need to review, "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming." The rogue government would not announce a takeover in advance, sorry about that.

Or maybe you really do consider the Obama administration to be such a "rogue government?" Are you going to have a coordinated attack if he is re-elected? Just how is that going to work? Maybe you should try listening to your fellow countrymen, who support a great deal of what he proposes and is doing. The last thing I want to see is a repeat of the Civil War, even if your side would lose so quickly it would be all over in six weeks, and much more likely, in six days.

TomKenworth

"It is against the rogue political elements and the armed thugs that armed citizens can muster par force as the determining factor. It is then when par force (including just its presence) can make the unequivocal statement that the country will not fall to subterfuge in the dark of night; that whatever differences brought us to that point of contention, they will not be resolved with a one-sided use of firepower, but will be forcefully brought back into the light of day for a negotiated solution according to the mandates of our Constitution."

This only works if 80 to 90 % of the citizenry agree with you, and you have a sudden precipitating event. The scenario you are faced with is the warming to boiling of the frog, and at no point does the frog become galvanized to respond, especially with our current majority culture. The bureaucratic and corporate takeover is a slow but inevitable process, and the dumbing down of our schools, especially by the denigrating of science by certain religious power groups, and the concentration on the bottom line quarter by quarter for maximum near time profits will be what doomed this country, if she goes down. Unregulated capitalism is too stupid for its own long term health, and the purchasing of Congress and the Presidency are the obvious signs of this inherent cancer. "Make it safe for me and my money, screw the rest of the citizenry," is no way to run a country that will endure.

TomKenworth

"the answer was always no. None of us could conceive of any lawful order that would have us assault American civilians, even if they were firing at us, it was unthinkable. Such orders simply would not be followed."

Which is why no protestors have ever been hurt of killed, even those who are not armed and are not shooting. What exactly do you think would have happened if OWS was an armed and shooting crowd?

NEXT!

Ben Emery

2nd amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first half of the second amendment always seems to be left out. The purpose behind the well regulated militia was to prevent the need of standing armies in times of peace. Standing armies were feared to create mischief and were the oppressive enforcers of the rulers. An example of this is the disgusting Christian slaughterer Oliver Cromwell.

We are conservators to an elderly gentleman from Galway, Ireland. He says there is folk lore in many Irish towns about Ned of the Hills. Here is one of my favorite bands "The Pogues" who wrote a song about the Cromwell and the deeds he did to those who didn't believe in his version of the bible.
"Young Ned of the Hills"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-y2ox2HPnc&feature=related

This statement is very good "The deranged person who wants to murder fellow humans will use the weapon available." This is why automatic, semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazine's should not be available to ordinary citizens. I am a supporter of the second amendment, I learned before the age of 10 to handle, shoot, maintain, and store a gun properly. Military grade weapons should not be at the finger tips of any citizen who can fill out an online form properly, which seems to be the case for the latest mentally disturbed mass murderer in Aurora.

Ben Emery

George,
Here is where you tragically do not understand American history or choose to ignore big chunks of American history. We are supposed to be the government so our future revolutions will be fought at the polling places not the battlefields. That's why it was a radical idea. The revolution wasn't fought for the US to have no government it was fought so that the US would have representative government of the governed. Government through the consent of the people. This is where I don't get your conservatarian thought process. It seems you want a small few people controlling the government, which I think in your logic means small government. That might be so but small government doesn't mean benign government but in many cases the exact opposite. Little services for those outside of the elites but massive oppression to prevent common people having leisure time to philosophize and act upon the rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

George Rebane

It appears that the discussion has settled in its traditional groove with the erection of straw men, their attribution to the opposition, then concluding with their summary dispatch while the 'Government is good, resistance is futile' banner is rehoisted.

Meanwhile, a more careful attendance to the debate of the day will produce examples like this morning's NPR piece on the historical red/blue division of the country in which no correspondent could envision any pre-election compromise in Congress, and very little afterward. The pundits' wisdom appears to be that whichever side wins will make life hell for the losing side.

The Founders anticipated such contingencies and provided for their peaceful consideration and resolution. It is when such peaceful means are rejected that violent alternatives rise to the forefront.

Paul Emery


George

In you're interpretation of the Second Amendment do I have the right to possess chemical and biological weapons consistent with those possess by the US military? If not what limitations do you place on the citizenry?

George Rebane

PaulE 1242pm - Right on time Paul. You clearly did not read my par force paper, so the straw man you have erected is delightfully extravagant. The 'par' in par force is with that of the local constabulary. And it's purpose is not to defeat, but to delay until the grievances get broad enough of a hearing to either develop broad support, or let the resistors swing in the wind.

TomKenworth

" It is when such peaceful means are rejected that violent alternatives rise to the forefront."

How will this state of affairs be determined and by whom?

Possibly simply by those with the most guns? NRA for President?

Todd Juvinall

I get a laugh every time this issue comes p and the left tosses a "tank" or a "nuke" into the mix to make their point against the pistol and long guns. The SCOTUS finally said the 2nd means what it says and the individual is part of the mix. I see BenE left out the comma as all the liberals do. I find it more honorable for a American to defens all the Amendments rather than pick and choose as the Emery's seem to do all the time.

Paul Emery

So Todd, my question stands and it was for George but you can take a crack at it. What limits if any do you support

TomKenworth

"The universal possession of force on par with local state authorities should be sufficient to prevent such perverted authority from quickly snuffing out or ‘containing’ the griev-ance."

Gee George,

So far the sheriff hasn't ever tried to shut me up, as much as L.W. would like him to. I don't see your point at all with this. Between blogging, letters to the editor, and speaking out in public when appropriate, I've had no trouble getting my grievances across. The only time I'd like to use "par force" is when I'm on talk radio and the host does use a volume slider to shut me up just as I am making salient points and blowing his arguments out of the water. That why I seldom go there anymore.

You make the sheriff sound as though he comes from Nottingham.

George Rebane

TomK 135pm - I do believe that you really don't know. Welcome to the Constitution, Article 5, and the 'inalienable right of secession' articulated in our Declaration of Independence.
http://mises.org/daily/3427

TomKenworth

I'm trying to picture this. I don't like the new green dumpsters, and I say so on Facebook. The sheriff comes to the gate and says, "shut up about that." He points a gun at me, just as I drop down my secret hatch hole to my radio transmitter, and I get all my buddies to drive over and start shooting at the sheriff from his rear so that I can get my message out even further, and so more folks will come, and back up the first group.

This is just plain weird!

TomKenworth

And yet this is what you use to justify blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment?

George Rebane

TomK 159pm 205pm - It appears that as with the Great Divide, a reasoned discussion of the Second Amendment is also not accessible to you. I think the last pair of your straw men just escorted you out of this discussion.

TomKenworth

Secession is the plan? Well, first you have to get enough like minded people to all move to one state and become the majority in that state, and then go from there. Good Luck, please leave CO UT WY and ID alone. I like the skiing there.

Paul Emery

Well Spoken Tom. Timothy McVey , a militia movement sympathizer, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco Siege, as well as for the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. Was he exercising his 2nd Amendment option? Does any individual or group have the right to make that judgement and what about the rights of those that don't subscribe to the remedy?

Let's also include the question about the secession of Southern States leading to the Civil War.

TomKenworth

So if I have this correct, the two most recent mass movements with grievances, the Tea Party and OWS, only got to ove forward because the local sheriffs and their allied CHP, etc alliances, were afraid that if they told folks to shut up, they be met by armed protestors, who might beat them in a shootout? In the middle of a ghetto riot, one or two LE might be out gunned, but ultimately, the local gov keeps on calling up more and more force until the USA military IS in the fray, and guess who loses, 2nd amendment or no.

George Rebane

PaulE 220pm - Your McVey et al comments are a joke, correct? Recall, rights are permissions to act granted by a jurisdiction that has the power to enforce them.

Did the 13 colonies have the right to revolt? No such right was granted by the Crown which did its best to make sure the Revolution would be a failure.

The War of Southern Secession was a similar matter. The southern states thought that the Constitution gave them the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln and (most of) the North thought otherwise, and forcefully revoked whatever right the South thought they had. Their revolution failed, and they paid a terrible price.
http://etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

As ever, might determines (existential) right.

Todd Juvinall

PaulE. I guess I don't think like liberal because I haven't given it a thought about what the term "arms" means. You and I probably agree a person should not have a nuclear device and maybe if I gave it some more thought a jet fighter or a tank might be suspect too. I do know you have to have special permits to buy the components MCVeigh mixed to make his bomb and I may not agree those chemicals are considered an "arm". Same with other chemical weapons, I doubt the Founders knew about C-4 but they did allow black powder, a chemical mix, so maybe they did. Hmmm. Also, Botulism and sarin gas and ricin might be on my banned list too, Maybe ebola too. Hell, you got me PaulE, I guess I just don't know what I would agree with. LOL!

Russ Steele

Question: Who commenting here have acuturaly read what the Addendim to this post? Paul? Tom? Ben? It seems to answer most of your questions!

Gregory

Here's a repost from last November... for Ben:

""Does that mean an organized National Guard or does that include private militias and neighborhood protection militias even a minority of residents feel is necessary for self defense."

The National Guard is just an arm of the Federal DoD, the standing army. An organized militia, like the US Army.

But you should note, the 2nd amendment doesn't cover the formation of militias, only that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed *because* a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state', and that is a direct translation of an elegant 18th century Constitutional grammar into 21st century conversational English. Personally, I can't think of a better regulation of an Army in a Free State than to make sure the rabble can shoot back, and may well be a big reason why our Republic has lasted as long as it has."

It should also be noted that U of Colorado allows concealed carry of weapons on campus. It's telling that this UC student chose an off campus venue to shoot up, one whose owners thought declaring it a gun free zone meant homicidal nutcases would go elsewhere. No, homicidal nutballs prefer such places.

No one ever did make a guess as to which state university was debating whether freshmen should be able to demand a roommate who wasn't packing heat; no, it wasn't Colorado.

Paul Emery

I did read it Russ. At the time the Constitution was drafted an armed citizenry could pose a reasonable threat to a standing army. Extrapolating that to the present time seems to me to include possessing equal tools of force to be effective.

George, Timothy McVey, in his mind, was a revolutionary against a tyrannical government Also he was a war hero and was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in the first Gulf War.

McVey wrote

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."


Gregory

Sorry Paul, but the 2nd doesn't cover mass murder, sedition or treason and the only defence possible for those is actually winning a revolution. McVey lost.

TomKenworth

I thought it was Morgan State, and stated as much, but couldn't find evidence for it. They had an aspiring engineer who turned cannibal. Must be a stressful occupation.

"As ever, might determines (existential) right."

" but the 2nd doesn't cover mass murder, sedition or treason and the only defence possible for those is actually winning a revolution. McVey lost."

So if McVey had enough co-conspirators to succeed, he would have been a moral patriot, how nice.

TomKenworth

"only that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed *because* a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state',"

So obviously we have to very much opposed interpretations of the Second. One say that the citizenry shall be armed to regulate the standing militia, and the other says that they shall form said militia. Most talk show hosts seem to prefer the latter interpretation, yet here among our learned Rightys we seem to have a preference for the former. Can any of you provide further background info to support your position?

I note that it take inverting the order that is found in the original to create Greg's logic, which would seem to argue against it, but I'd like to see documentation that the framers thought that was, and just used reverse sentence order for the style of it.

Gregory

1) Morgan isn't a US state that I know of. Checking, Maryland isn't a 'must issue' state for carry permits and it's unlikely a college freshman would be able to prove they had 'good cause'.

2) It worked for the founding fathers, but they weren't delusional nutcases.


George, do you really think this sock puppet will ever participate in a conversation. or will they just keep following the same pattern of leaps of illogic the guy with his hand up his wahoo is known for?

George Rebane

PaulE 631pm - was there a point to your comment? If not, I'll just ditto Gregory's 717pm.

TomK 730pm - I'm afraid that you are right in that McVey "would have been a moral patriot" in precisely the same vein that David Ben-Gurion was when he bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 where 90+ people were killed and 40+ injured. He became a hero because his terrorist act was supported by enough like-minded Jews to join the fight and found the nation of Israel.

During the early course of what became our Revolution, hundreds of British administrators and colonial Tories suffered similar fates at the hands of then terrorists cum later patriots.

That is also why we must acknowledge and believe the Islamic terrorists in their uncompromising zeal to murder our friends and relatives whom they consider the scum of the earth. And for that reason, and that reason alone, we must fight them as despised raghead enemies, and not count them as some sanitized and faceless "militants" or "activists" whom we dehumanize as cold statistics on a drone strike scorecard. But that is another revolution and another story out of our current scope.

Gregory 756pm - I don't hold much hope for meaning from these exchanges, but do take heart in that we engage in this tete a tete for the sake of those readers who are still seeking direction.

THEMIKEYMCD

Having unknowingly relocated to an area rife with commercial pot organizations (not the free-love-hippie types) I am thankful for the right to protect my family via gun(s).

In regards to militia vrs army... I pray that our men/women in uniform remember the oaths they took.

TomKenworth

http://www.morgan.edu/ Morgan State University what did I miss? you didn't specify that it had to be named after a state.

If you wish to be a yeoman warder, you might just announce your choice of state university. You are so coy sometimes.

TomKenworth

" Tories suffered similar fates at the hands of then terrorists cum later patriots."

"cum" is Latin for "with" What exactly did you mean here?

TomKenworth

Have yet to hear about historical evidence for the interpretation of the 2nd that logicizes that the citizens need to be armed in order to regulate the militia. Do please tell more.

TomKenworth

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:

The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.
The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.
The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.

Where the Supreme Court Stands:
The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because Miller is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.

The D.C. Handgun Case:
In Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which may soon address the meaning of the Second Amendment. Almost any standard would be an improvement over Miller.

Crapshot, IMHO, L.W. Goodknight.

Paul Emery

So what is the threshold for the use of these arms in the defense of liberty and who calls the shots so to speak? Would it be some kind of IRA Irish cell organization or, at the given moment armed opposition would sandbag their houses and wait for the tanks to roll. Talk is cheap but the price of action is colossal. One groups revolution or resistance may not be anothers so what happens to the uninvolved bystanders? Under what set of circumstances would a Second Amendment solution be justified and who would lead it? There are so many questions.

Reasonable firearm possession by trained owners for self defense against criminal activity doesn't require military assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition.


TomKenworth

Some related gun control proposed legislation:

" Identical to a separate bill introduced by amendment sponsor Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), the senators’ amendment to the Cybersecurity Act would ban the sale or transfer of large capacity feeders like magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment was introduced amid growing outcry from police and gun control advocates who want Washington to take a stand on gun control. New York City Mayor Bloomberg prominently demanded action hours after the Aurora theater shooting. The White House pledged to strengthen existing gun rules but has since clarified that the administration will not promote new legislation.

24-year-old James Holmes, the prime suspect in the Aurora shooting, purchased a 100 round drum magazine. Jared Loughner, who shot former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) in 2011 along with 18 others, used an extended magazine that held 33 bullets, and police found two more 15-round magazines in his pockets. Under the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, these two killers could not have legally purchased these large capacity ammunition feeding devices. On the state level, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York all prohibit the sale of high capacity magazines."

TomKenworth

One of the reasons we have the ban in California, was the 1979 shooting of a bunch of SE Asian children in a schoolyard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre

billy T

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

TomKenworth

Yes it is BillyT. I wonder when H. U. W. GoodNugget the III will figure that out. So far no crank calls from the letter published in The Union Saturday, that's a good thing. I guess the Scoggins have moved on to greener pastures. I wonder how many millions each nutcase shooting requires the Republicans to raise to counteract the effects? Two or three more between now and 100 days from now, and even Rove's $1,000,000,000 war chest for his Superpac will not be enough to stop an Obama landslide. I also note that even Sarah Palin is feeling the effects of the drought, and admits that there is indeed global warming, a cosmic mentalquake for her, but I doubt she even notices it, business as usual. When will the NRA call for the right to use depleted uranium bullets? And nobody has tackled that sticky problem of local law enforcement calling in for re-enforcements, all the way up to the full military might of the USA, thus voiding out, "par force," and leaving it a gedanken experiment with no basis in reality?

Paul Emery

"With their bullets - Finally, when a citizen or group feels that their government has al- ready been perverted beyond normal remedy, and needs to be radically and/or summarily changed in order to regain the ‘blessings of liberty’, then the use of force against gov- ernmental authority must remain an available option. Individual force is the last, desper- ate, and very costly resort of the citizen still hoping for a better life in the land that he lives."
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/04/par-force-an-un.html
Download ParForce080331.pdf.


A question worth asking is how this "option" empower the Timothy McVeigh's and Eric Robert Rudolph's in our country.

George Rebane

PaulE 906am - The McVey factor (it did not involve par force per se) in this discussion was addressed in my 828pm.

***

What should now be apparent to the seeking reader perusing this comment stream is how the liberal mind seeks crisp answers to imponderables in a complex and dynamic mix. For them such answers can and must only be sought from the voluminous stacks of established regulations put forth by scribbling legions in big government bureaucracies. It is a seminal characteristic of the liberal mind that it struggles to fathom unpredictable, serendipitous, and spontaneous action arising from a people with a shared need.

Such queries are akin to asking what specific threshold was passed, and which animal made the decision to start the large herd on the Serengeti plain moving to a greener pasture. For them, until such answers from a higher source are provided, the herd cannot move and must needs starve in place.

Paul Emery

In McVeigh's twisted mind he was indeed exercising "par force" to the best of his ability.

Rudolph was a Christian soldier

"Even though the conception and the purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is the promote the values of global socialism as perfectly expressed in the song "Imagine" by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games — even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these despicable ideals, the purpose of the attack on July 27th was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand."

Asking for a threshold in gun control is a perfectly reasonable question that I am astounded you trivialize. There is a huge difference in gun possession as self defense against crime and the lawful possession of arsenals and military weapons. You tell me George, where does it stop?

TomKenworth

It is not logical, Paul, "Happiness is a Warm Gun." you might as well be trying to take Linus's blanket away from him. Good show, Snoopy.

Todd Juvinall

Did I miss PaulE's position on guns? How about Keachies? Are you two in favor of individuals owning weapons? Of so, what is the upper limit of type, size and caliber?

George Rebane

PaulE 1001am - McVey did not represent a widespread national need when he blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, and for that he paid the ultimate price. Ben-Gurion's 1946 explosion did, and for that he became the father of his country.

"..., where does it stop?" Not to worry - it hasn't started yet. (More in my next post.)

Gregory

Paul, the Colorado shooter didn't have any military weapons. Research it and I think you'll find no American has gone into combat with a semi-automatic version of the M-16.

The Grass Valley Police Department has the real thing, or at least had as of a decade ago. M-16's. Machine guns. Feeling safer?

Paul Emery

Todd

I have never been opposed to qualified individuals owning guns for recreation and self defense. I believe they need to be licensed annually and trained to insure as much as possible public safety. I don't know enough about guns to recommend a threshold of legality as to size, caliber, etc . Certainly the arsenal available for James Eagan Holmes should not be legal because it far exceeds reasonable self defense and sporting needs. That's why I've been asking questions from my fellow blogsters about what is a reasonable threshold. What's you've view on that Todd?

Paul Emery

OK Gregory. It was a semiautomatic variation of the military’s M-16 rifle . But while we're on the subject should automatic rifles be available to the general public and under what, if any, regulations?

Gregory

Paul, as far as I can tell the 'arsenal' Holmes amassed was not at all remarkable for folks active in the shooting sports. There may be hundreds of homes in Nevada County that exceed that stockpile.

What was remarkable is his apparent mental illness. No amount of gun owner control will make up for a deranged individual intent on inflicting harm, especially when the individual is exceedingly intelligent.

Gregory

Paul, more to the point, Holmes had the civilian variant of the M-16 rifle.

Since the '30's, to legally own an automatic weapon in the US, one needed to:
1) live in a state that allows it
2) be investigated by the FBI and pass what amounts to a Secret clearance security check.
3) purchase a tax stamp from the Feds

The tax stamps were frozen in number during the Clinton administration but, since there were no criminal uses to speak of before that time it is unclear if limiting the number of legally possessed automatic weapons has done anything to increase public safety.

That's been the primary law for the past 75 years and seems OK. Do you disagree? I've never fired one nor have I wanted one, but anyone who wants the experience can go to any number of big cities in Nevada (just one of the states where they are legal), go to a tourist firing range and put down a few bucks to be Rambo for a few minutes. Some even have souvenir t-shirts you can make Holy and wear back home. Very popular among Canadian and Japanese tourists.

Paul Emery

Thanks Gregory for your thoughtful response

Gregory

Paul, you're welcome.

Of course, that's only the rule for the rabble. Even in California, iirc it's been common for active duty police officers to be allowed to buy assault rifles (the real thing) and assault weapons (not the real thing but still illegal in California) and keep them into retirement. A year ago the California AG argued the law banning such things applied after retirement and the continued possession violated the letter of California law as currently written, but it's unclear whether he's still of the same mind since being sworn in as Governor.

TomKenworth

Looks like this one will need yet another addendum,and why don't they call it a code, "Moron" instead of code "Maroon?"

Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:44pm EDT

(Reuters) - Multiple people, including law enforcement officers, were shot on Monday when a gunman opened fire near Texas A&M University, police in College Station, Texas, said.

"We have multiple people who have been shot," police spokeswoman Rhonda Seaton told CNN, adding that law enforcement officers were among those.

Police had the shooting suspect in custody, according to the university's website. The extent of victims' injuries was not immediately clear.

The university issued a "code maroon" shortly after noon, warning students and employees that an "active shooter" was in the area west of campus and asking them to stay away.

The gunman fired shots from inside a home about two blocks from the campus, according to the university's alert.

"We have been told to stay put," said Keith Randall, a Texas A&M employee who was in his office. "They just asked us to stay where we are."

(Reporting by Jim Forsyth; Writing by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Doina Chiacu)

TomKenworth

They were all wrong:

OfficePoolShootings copy

George Rebane

For the record - the gunman was a distraught resident who was being served an eviction notice by a constable. The residence happened to be near Texas A&M. Out of hundreds of millions of people, in tough times some of them run into problems that exceed the threshold of reason, and they become unstable. This is not a phenomenon encountered first in recent years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444184704577587443964969080.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

TomKenworth

I couldn't have said this better:

By Mike Thornton:

"This is for all of you who think that 150 people in a dark, crowded theater full of tear gas, should all be armed and opening fire.

"Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said that nine bystanders had been “wounded or grazed” and taken to hospitals. The mayor said that some of the injured may have been hit by police bullets during the confrontation with the suspect, whom Mr. Kelly identified as Jeffrey Johnson, 58, a former clothing designer at Hazan Imports. Mr. Kelly said the two officers fired a total of 14 rounds and he believed that some of the shooting victims had been shot by the officers “based on the number of people shot and the capacity of”’ the shooter’s weapon."

Mind you, these cops are trained to shoot and look what (apparently) happened...."

TomKenworth

Maybe it is just me watching too much Fox 40, but it seems like brazen smash and grab burglaries are up these days, videocams be damned. I suppose that just by listening to the scanners the baddies cn figure out when LE is well occupied, and then go for it. In time armed business owners doing nightwatch, in times armed thieves returning fire, hellova way to run a society, jails overflowing.

George Rebane

TomK 1054am - MikeT's imported logic here is a fevered as usual. No one recommends the hyperbolic scenario he uses for his argument. But having one or two legal CCWs in such an audience would cut the casualty count from a murderous rogue who otherwise would proceed systematically to kill everyone within range. In this light, the new policy of the police responding to such incidents now requires them to charge into the scene and do what's necessary to bring down the shooter. Even if it means hitting some innocent victims, the expected death toll is minimized. The Israelis have known this for decades.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad