« The Iron Lady 87, RIP (addended) | Main | Windows 8 and PC Sales »

09 April 2013

Comments

Russ Steele

In the 1990 working for a company that was developing laser defense systems. You do not have to cut steel on the fast flyers, only poke a hole in the front windscreen and the in rushing air takes out the pilot.

fish

Not just Texas and Nevada. Colorado wants in too!

http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/09/colorado-lures-california-businesses

Joe Koyote

Signs of a new future upon us. --Naomi Kline in her book "Crisis Capitalism" talked about just such things. I heard firsthand reports from local firefighters who went down to SOCal to fight that huge fire around Big Bear a few years ago telling of private fire trucks that would pull up to a house, foam it, and then sit there while the rest of the neighborhood burned down. They were being paid for the one house and nothing else. It is also true that during infernos like that, fire companies routinely pick and choose which houses on a block to try and save on based on roof type, vegetation, siding type, etc.. basically which houses have the best chance of saving.

Aren't gated communities already similar to Detroit in nature, given the private security forces most large developments have? Most have dues or fees or some such shared method of paying for those guards, not to mention the higher real estate prices gated communities command.

Left wing conspiracy theorists would postulate that forcing private citizens to pay out of their own pockets for police or fire protection is all the result of the "starve the beast" doctrine for privatization of public services. If governments can no longer afford to provide services, then the private sector will step in and take over. If the privatization of prisons is an example, it's a given that government run prison systems aren't the greatest but privately operated prisons are worse, then perhaps this is still not a road we want to go down.

If burglar alarms are tax deductible so should mercenaries. Come on.. we can't deduct all of our medical expenses or any of our consumer interest any more.

George Rebane

Please check out Addendum3 of 'In the Beginning was Code' for an expanding discussion of Intelligent Design from the Mormon Transhumanist perspective as reported on Ray Kurzweil.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/03/in-the-beginning-was-code-aka-id.html

Fuzz

I watched Bill Whittle on gun control and was not impressed. First off, the vast majority of proposed gun control legislation is not about the "common" gun; sidearms that would normally be used for concealed carry or rifles with "normal" magazines. Nobody is talking about taking those away. You get concern when you modify these arms with aftermarket devices that turn them into killing machines. You will always have the "one on one" murders with "regular" over-the-counter rifles and handguns because we have the Constitutional right to those. However, that right has limits. The courts, probably starting back at Miller v The United States (1939) set that limit at weapons that were in common use for lawful purposes. The National Firearms Act (1934), which served as justification for the court, came about because of the infamous St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the public outcry over the use of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles. Now, you COULD use those for self defense; they do function as weapons, but the court found they lacked the "common use" quality that qualified them to be part of a "well regulated militia". Fast forward to today. The AR-15 is probably the most sought after gun in America. There have been well over 3 million sold. Is it in "common use"....yes! Is it in common use when it's fitted with a Slide Fire stock and a 150 round drum magazine.....NO! Outfitted in this way, you can fire all 150 rounds in approximately 12 seconds. That is a "functional" machine gun. True machine guns are HIGHLY restricted and illegal in many states. Do you want to let a deviant, with no prior record, arm himself this way? It takes just a second or two to pop that magazine in. I guarantee that any armed school personnel, paid or voluntary, will not have time to react and will probably not even get to the scene of the shooting before its all over. This is what gun control is about! I have watched videos that show a Glock 9mm fitted with a 100 round magazine that turned it into a machine pistol. The Glock would easily fit in a coat pocket and the magazine in a school backpack. When you watch the rate of fire out of that setup, no school security would ever react fast enough to stop it. This is what Diane Feinstein is talking about. You don't want to allow a "common use" weapon to be modified into a highly dangerous "uncommon use" weapon. You either have to bar the dangerous accessories or bar the weapon. Now, regarding concealed carry, if you have a legitimate reason to carry a concealed weapon, then you should have that right. Do I want to enter Safeway and see everyone packing heat under there shirts? NO! There are lots of irrational people in this world and I don't know who they are just by looking at them. If an elderly person, who's been packing heat for a long time, starts to get mentally "drifty", I don't want him getting the wrong idea about me when I bump into him on aisle 7. The NRA doesn't want any regulation of firearms at all, unless you're barred for legal or mental reasons. They want EVERYBODY packing heat...."more guns, less crime". You might have been sane when you got your concealed permit, but how are you doing now? I guarantee that if you allowed unlimited carry, open or concealed, (except for legal and mental), you would see lots of packin' people who would really make you nervous, and you would never know what's on their minds. Let's just hope they wouldn't be having a really REALLY bad day. If you're a female college student, heading into a big parking lot at night, I would let you have a concealed permit with proper instruction. A businessman regularly carrying large amounts of valuables, OK, but not Joe Lunchbox, who's mowing my lawn and fixing my toilet. Let's keep this all real.....and don't get me started about this nonsense about fighting a "tyrannical" government. If you actually started having armed citizens having multiple shootouts with local law enforcement, over some perceived "tyrannical" grievance, you're going to have armed citizens from the other persuasion backing up the police. It won't be citizen v. government, but citizen v. citizen. Forget that and let's deal with the here and now mass shootings. Let's bar gun accessories that make it possible for deviants to have massive firepower, and provide more intervention and treatment for troubled individuals who could go tragically bad. Does it really ruin your day to be restricted to a 10 round magazine? If all the criminals have 30 round mags, do you want a 40? How about when they have 100 round mags; do you want a 150? Where does it end? I would rather a deviant had to reload ten times with a 10 round mag, than once with a 100 round mag.... and no Slide Fire stock to make it full auto! Let's give his efforts a chance to jam, or drop, or be jumped by someone nearby, or confronted by security. The Tucson shooter was using a 33 round mag but when he tried to reload a woman wrestled the mag away from him. Then he was jumped and held down. If he had been using a 10 round mag, a six year old girl would be alive today. Magazine size does matter! ..... I rest my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62m7yOhgRY
(Imagine this used in a school setting.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tmrggqzwhFc
(After the first part, you'll see the ridiculous lengths people will go with even a handgun)

Michael Anderson

I like what Fuzz has written here (though I wish he would shave his whiskers), and I look forward to reading cogent rebuttals.

George Rebane

Fuzz's 1123pm anecdotal observations, lamentations, and prescriptions are regrettable in their ability to lull the reader from linking gun control-then-confiscation to the fundamental reason the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution. The 'it can't happen here' shibboleth still rules in the minds of many.

E.g. all the discussion about AR-15's and magazine capacities with the frosting being 150 rounds discharged in 12 seconds, that's more than 12 rounds/second from a legal semi-automatic. Check the cyclic rates of the full auto versions of this weapon for comparison.

Bottom line, any civilian 'gun violence' metric has been and will be unaffected by the availability of 'assault rifles' and magazine capacities. However, par force will be significantly affected. Very few seem to be concerned about the recent DHS buy of over 2,600 MRAPs for in-country use by local constabularies.

Finally, when we consider the bevy new gun prohibitions being considered in Sacramento today, none of them will have any effect on the new mantra of reducing 'gun violence'. But every one of them will constructively roll back Second Amendment rights, which, after all, has been the objective all along.
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2013/feb/07/gun-ammo-bills-pending-in-the-calif-legislature/

TheMikeyMcD

Andy Swan"Senate to debate whether Constitutionally guaranteed right should be dependent upon test given by entity it was written to protect us from."

fish

My Fuzz what a screed. Did you type that in one breath?

Anyway I can't get "Breaking Bread" so I'm sure there will be an error or misunderstanding here or there but here we go.

Point by point:

1) First off, the vast majority of proposed gun control legislation is not about the "common" gun; sidearms that would normally be used for concealed carry or rifles with "normal" magazines. Nobody is talking about taking those away.

Nonsense! The Brady Campaign started out as Handgun Control Incorporated and it was their stated goal to "ban and confiscate all handguns". That hasn't changed it has merely been deferred. The ultimate goal is complete civilian disarmament. There is far too much evidence in earlier promotional literature, surreptitously collected video, and various and sundry quotes where democratic pols or gun control proponents were feeling expansive and probably said more than was politically expedient.

2) The National Firearms Act (1934), which served as justification for the court, came about because of the infamous St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the public outcry over the use of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles.

You might want to plumb the history surrounding this law and the court case and the follow on Miller case.


3) The AR-15 is probably the most sought after gun in America. There have been well over 3 million sold. Is it in "common use"....yes! Is it in common use when it's fitted with a Slide Fire stock and a 150 round drum magazine.....NO! Outfitted in this way, you can fire all 150 rounds in approximately 12 seconds.

The proprietor already addressed the technical aspects of your hyperbolic claim but in addition I'd like to mention that magazines of this capacity are notoriously cantankerous and jam prone. Anyone halfway competent with the AR style rifle can drop an empty and reload in under 2 seconds. A guy with a fanny pack full of loaded 10, 20 or dare I say 30 round magazines is going to be far more lethal than the guy who selects appurtenant equipment (super high capacity magazines) after watching shoot-em-up movies.


4)That is a "functional" machine gun. True machine guns are HIGHLY restricted and illegal in many states. Do you want to let a deviant, with no prior record, arm himself this way? It takes just a second or two to pop that magazine in. I guarantee that any armed school personnel, paid or voluntary, will not have time to react and will probably not even get to the scene of the shooting before its all over. This is what gun control is about!

Who is a deviant? Someone who disagrees with your political positions? Under what grounds would you deny someone with "no prior record" access to to firearms? And you armed school personnel wouldn't have time to react if there was a knife, hammer or barrage of harsh language attack if they happen to be across campus at the time. The last "machine gun" incident that I can recall was the North Hollywood Shootout and they were armed with "functional machine guns" AKA machine guns but hey, they just ignored the law and made their own. Criminals are funny that way.

5)This is what Diane Feinstein is talking about. You don't want to allow a "common use" weapon to be modified into a highly dangerous "uncommon use" weapon. You either have to bar the dangerous accessories or bar the weapon.

Dianne Feinstein is a "functional moron" and legitimate hypocrite. Her last assault weapons ban criminalized handles and barrel shrouds and flash suppressors while doing virtually nothing to address the issue with which she purported to be concerned. In short, like most democratic legislation it was little more than concern trolling and feel good "look at me" nonsense.

I'd keep typing but your fallacious arguments and TEAM BLUE talking points have plumb wore me out.

At least at the end of the day abortion proponents have achieved in general what they set out to achieve, access to abortion. Gun control advocates wallow in constant "FAIL". Gun control types and their pet politicians have been the absolute best salespeople for gun manufacturers! Smith & Wesson stock price: up, Sturm-Ruger stock price: up, Colt (and other manufacturers of AR-15 style firearms) stock prices: UP, UP, UP.

I suggest reopening your "case", I'm unconvinced!

Fuzz

George, my most recent response appears on the blog, but then quickly disappears. Is there something going on with TypePad?

George Rebane

Fuzz 833pm - We've had a problem with comments disappearing after posting a couple of times in the past. TypePad has acknowledged the problem and fixed it - apparently it's back. Shutting down your browser and restarting it has helped commenters in the past, try it. It's interesting that you were able to post the current comment.

Fuzz

Still doesn't work. I would say it's about the same length as my first post, so shouldn't be a problem unless there is some sort of maximum length limiter.

George Rebane

Fuzz 925pm - yes, length has been a factor in the past. Try cutting it into two consecutive pieces.

Fuzz

George 9:31..... that rate of fire is with a Slide Fire stock installed. Did you watch the first video? One article I read said it could put out 900 rpm. Another said 100 rounds in 7 sec. One reviewer on MidwayUSA said his shot timer recorded 640 rpm out of a 30 round mag. (That translates to 128 rounds in 12 seconds.)

Fish, my points on your points:

1. "Nobody is talking about taking those away." What I'm meant by that is nobody, who can actually cause that to happen, is talking about that. The recent Congressional hearing had none of that. The historical use and possession of guns will always remain, but I'm dealing with a particular configuration of particular weapons. If the only thing that would fit an AR-15 is a 10 round mag, case closed! Sadly, they can be turned into something vastly more devastating in the wrong hands

2. I'm not a lawyer, but the court ruled...

".....In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Fast forward to the present. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, addressed the Brady Campaign in a speech in October, 2012. In that speech he stated:

".....the Court had made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because the protected class of weapons was limited to those in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the 'common use' requirement."

The point is the idea of "common use". Former Astronaut Mark Kelly, and his wife, Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head in Tucson, are both shooters. They formed a gun control group called "Americans for Responsible Solutions". The ARS website says, "Congress should act to limit the sale of high capacity magazines, which are not needed for hunting or self-defense, but have proven very lethal." They want gun control based on a certain level of lethality. Are they "functional morons" too, Fish?

3. In what way is my claim “hyperbolic”. The shooter in the video suffered no jam. Do you want to risk a real world test with a 100 round drum? A guy with a backpack full of 10 round mags has to reload. In the adrenalin rush and panic of the moment, he has more opportunity to cause a jam, drop it, get jumped, etc. As I said, that's what happened at Tucson. A 100 round drum that doesn't jam, in a crowded room, is potentially far more lethal.

....continued

Fuzz

4. My use of the term “deviant” has nothing to do with politics, but someone contemplating mayhem. I happen to be an Independent, and am happy to hear opinions of all stripes. I said nothing about denying someone, with no prior record, access to firearms. My point was that there are many troubled individuals, contemplating perhaps a murderous rampage, who have no prior criminal or mental record that would trigger a denial of firearm purchases. A troubled high school senior, who never had a run-in with the law, may be secretly keeping a diary of his planned attack at school. Nobody may know until the day it happens. You stated, "...your armed school personnel wouldn't have time to react if there was a knife, hammer, or barrage of harsh language attack if they happen to be across campus at the time." You compare that to this firearm?? I'll take a barrage of "FU's" to this firearm any day. You also stated, "....they were armed with "functional machine guns" AKA machine guns but hey, they just ignored the law and made their own. Criminals are funny that way." The Slide Fire is a legal way to make your own. Do you want to make it easier for them?

5. I don't agree with everything that Ms. Feinstein says or endorses. Her classifying a weapon as unacceptable because it has, for instance, a forward handle or not, is irrelevant. The point is the rate of fire the weapon is capable of delivering, usually in a modified form.

Do you really think my "screed" is "fallacious", Fish? Do you really think that? Do you want to present my "screed" to the Sandy Hook victims, have them watch both videos, and then tell them it's all just "fallacious"? The best of all possible worlds would be that every single person contemplating murder would somehow get "found out", but, sadly in too many cases, it doesn't happen. I want every person who needs counseling and mental health treatment to get it. Until then, I don't want them to have the weaponry that can turn a tragedy into an outright massacre.


Michael Anderson 11:50...... regarding my whiskers, when I used to work in Alaska (carrying a 375 H&H magnum for bear protection), I would be out in the bush for about 8 days straight. No showers were available. My nickname became "Filthy Fuzz". (filthy, but loveable :) I once had a "tug-o-war" with a brown bear, and was briefly holding my own until the rope broke.

George Rebane

Fuzz 940pm - I'm glad you got the whole comment in.

On your topic, I notice the usual tack of basing gun laws only on the criterion - minimize deaths from the rare event of an insane person committing mass murder. The constitutional purpose of the Second Amendment is passed over as if it doesn't exist, as is the persuasive statistic that gun homicides have dropped precipitously over the last twenty years during which an 'assault rifle' ban had no measurable effect on the murder rate.

As history has demonstrated, the rare insane killers cannot match the millions of deaths that a tyrannical government can inflict on its own people. But those rare massacres are the cost of being able to live free.

The argument for taking the guns always goes from the synoptic to the lurid topical.

Fuzz

George, I'm not denying that the 2nd Amendment has an aspect to it of protection against a tyrannical government, as well as protection of the country and self-defense. However, you seem to be implying that the average citizen's chances at turning the tyrannical tide rests on whether you can have 30-100 round clips in your AR-15 vs.10. Against my opposition to 100 round clips and Slide Fire stocks, the rebuttals take the tack that a skilled shooter can change clips in a heartbeat, so it makes no difference about clip size. OK, if that's true, then what's the big deal at just having 10's? It's a win-win: you get to keep your “standard” AR-15, and I get to make it harder for a mass shooter. I've read your theory of Par Force; I understand your intended points but the US is not, and never will be, Nazi Germany. If the US tried to ban ALL guns, a) nobody would give them up, b) law enforcement at the local level would not enforce it (Oathkeepers), c) protest would be so massive it would shut down governmental operations, d) the next election cycle would throw everyone of that persuasion out, etc etc. Washington D.C. tried to ban all handguns and I believe it was the Heller decision that said you can't ban an entire class of gun. However, it was conservative Justice Scalia who wrote: “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right (2nd Amendment) was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose.” He states further, “another important limitation was contained in the justices 1939 decision in Miller v US. Miller said that the sorts of weapons protected were those in 'common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'.” I believe my argument rises to this level of limitation. Besides, if the “brown shirts” are marching up my driveway, and all I've got is an AR-15, then I'm in serious trouble no matter what the clip size. I realize that the vast majority of gun homicides in the US don't involve “assault” rifles. I grieve when an individual, especially the young, gets killed in gang action or common crime. We have got to work more diligently to keep weapons out of these people's hands. But when you get 20 children and 6 adults massacred all at once, with the future prospect, based on device modification, that the next massacre could be 50 children and 10 adults, you start saying, “Enough is enough.” I enjoy shooting just as much as the next guy. I'm not anti-gun, as you should have deduced. But I don't accept, prima facie, your position that “those rare massacres are the cost of being able to live free”. There are certain limitations that can make it more difficult.

Ben Emery

Fuzz,
"I'm not denying that the 2nd Amendment has an aspect to it of protection against a tyrannical government, as well as protection of the country and self-defense."

Not our own government, the government they just fought the British to create.

earlcrabb

So if you woke up one morning and found out that your own government had declared marital law and suspended the Constitution, you'd be cool with that?

George Rebane

Fuzz 730am - First, thank you for the thoughtful remarks.

I believe the difference between the positions each of us espouse is 1) in the nature and likelihood of the threat, 2) the function of broadly available firearms in civilian hands, and 3) the minimal specifications of those firearms in order to perform that function.

Without reprising the countless arguments on these pages that expand those points (reread them if interested), I assess the likelihood of murderous tyranny arising as almost certainty in an America whose economy crumbles, money is repudiated, unemployment skyrockets, and its ability to remain as hegemon disappears. You apparently see it as very unlikely.

Therefore you are primarily concerned about cleaning up society around the edges by seeking topical ways to reduce (by an insignificant percentage) the death rates in our society. And where better to start than under the poster of little children gunned down by a lunatic using a weapon so widely available in our land.

As far as ideas like 'par force' for maintaining an armed citizenry enter the argument, you seem to discount with the simple 'it can't happen here'.

Others of us see incidents like Newtown as an ongoing cost of freedom (which has never been free). We respond with circumscribed working solutions (as opposed to Feinstein et al). We understand the numbers involved in gun, medical, traffic, industrial accident, ... deaths, and we know that government tyranny has always dwarfed those numbers to almost insignificance throughout history.

The progressive (your?) side, as admitted by their own academics, reacts primarily through populist and publicized incidents that fall under their larger heading of "issues activism". For reasons much expounded and cited here, that side dares not debate the tenets of its considerable ideology. And this puts it in distinct opposition to the way that, say, a conservetarian enters such debates.

Ben Emery

Bob,
Not the point. In not a single letter between founders, draft documents, or official documents was the second amendment a solution to overthrow the newly established United States of America, that is the point.

Ben Emery

Here is the Great Divide rearing itself once again.

The government isn't an other it is US!

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Todd Juvinall

Well BenE, you have now shown us all your supreme ignorance on this issue of "arms". Your 8:59 is defeated by just this one statement,

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

Also, this link will assist you in coming out of your ignorance if you choose. Here is quite a number of additional words on "arms" from men in the beginning.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

There are many more. When you make a foolish statement BenE, be prepared to be called a fool.

Ben Emery

Todd,
I do not see anywhere in your statement that Jefferson is talking about taking up arms against the government he helped establish. Can you please produce the entire letter so we can see the context of the quote you picked up from Free Republic.

I perfect example of taking inspiring quotes out of context is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial.
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

I cannot tell you how many times those from the religious right use this quote as proof Jefferson was a Christian who wanted a Christian nation. Here is the link to the entire letter so you can see the context of the quote. Fun reading
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl134.php

The protection we have from tyranny in the United States of America is by having separation of powers and democratic republic where the people will elect their representatives through elections. The problem we are facing today we have a Supreme Court that recognizes money as free speech, which has corrupted every aspect of our government including the fourth estate. The answer isn't taking up arms against the government but rather the real means to changing the government is we vote the bums out of office.

Joe Koyote

Given that we live in an age of the continuous monitoring of our phone calls, emails, and with GPS and google earth, our locations, it is foolish to think that a citizenry armed with deer rifles, shotguns, and AR 15s is going to rise up and revolt against an evil government armed with drones, tanks, and cruise missiles, to do so would be suicide. To quote the founding fathers in support of such nonsense is like quoting Nero about fire suppression. We no longer live in the 16th Century in case you missed it, times have changed and much of the wisdom of 250 years ago is no longer relevant.

Ben Emery

Todd,
Just because I don't like you.

What the founders established in our federal government with the Constitution of the United States of America was a limited government that was made up of representatives from the people.

I know this goes against what you are told from your misinformed right wing elitists tools such as CATO, Free Republic, Heritage, and so on. Maybe one day you will actually have an opinion of your own on the founding of our nation and our government in general. Your opinions are ignorant regurgitations of those who are paid to manipulate idiots like yourself to vote and fight for policies against their own best interests.

WAKE UP!

Todd Juvinall

Ben Emery, you are the typical liberal sap. You make a statement that no founder made a statement on arnms and the government, I find a bunch of them then you deny. Are you missing a few pieces of gray matter? I have debated you loony libs over the years and came to the conclusion you cannot tell the truth even when we quote you.

Go back to your sand box and platy with the kiddies.

George Rebane

JoeK 1005am - You continue to raise the tired and irrelevant argument that a group of ragtag citizens with AR-15s can't beat government forces in a pitched battle. That is truly a leftwing echo that no one on the Right has ever proposed. What the Left never wants to address is the Founders' exhortations about keeping a careful eye on their government (as I have summarized in the 'par force' paper). That seems to be a point none of you want to debate, and understandably so.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Ben Emery

Todd,
Provide the entire letter to the quote you pulled off of the right wing website.

The founders were talking about the governments that existed in the day of the founding of our country, which our government was created to rectify of what existed and on what/ why the American Revolution was fought.

Never did they talk about the US government being overthrown by its citizens. What most of these quotes you guys are throwing around as proof is us justifying our revolution against tyranny of a foreign power. That threat weighed heavily on the minds of those in the beginning years of our country. The war of 1812 is the type of tyranny those quotes are referring. Our invasions and occupations of foreign nations today is the tyranny they were talking about. You support tyranny every day in the absolute ignorance that your tyranny represents freedom and liberty if only the subjects at the end of the barrel of our guns would just let us come in overthrow their government against their will, destroy their nation, kill their citizens, and put in the very policies that caused the US to take up arms against Briton. Some of but not limited to Corporate Cronyism, Military Oppression, and Taxation to support both of those policies.

I fight everyday against the domestic enemies that have corrupted our government thus threatening the US Constitution, large (transnational) corporations.

Gregory

George, your Gandhi quote was a valuable addition to the thoughts of our own revolutionaries, but I couldn't help but think of this short parody piece, "Gandhi II" from UHF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIIBmXjwhM0

The wretched excesses of the Brits in the waning years of the Empire's presence on the Indian subcontinent should be remembered, and I'd forgotten the Brits had barred their access to arms.

Todd Juvinall

Ben Emery, give it up man, you have been spanked. Admit you are wrong and move on.

fish

uzz,

I hadn’t seen the Slide Fire stock video....hadn’t heard of the product either....I will concede the point that with that modification you have in essence a “functional” machine gun. I will be interested in seeing how long the item in question remains on the market as a legal product. There have been items in the past that allowed greatly increased firing rate (the silly hand cranked trigger operators springs to mind) that I thought were illegal but are still available, e.g. the Nano Crank. I’m not sure that I would want one attached to any firearm I might own even if my intent was to simply waste ammunition.

As a more general insight as to my opinion on the matter:

http://elborak.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-i-dont-give-anti-gunners-inch.html

Not my blog but I endorse all the points the author makes.

My points regarding your points about my earlier points.

You may get your wish and get a 10 round limit on new magazines. That will do very little to eliminate the hundreds of thousands already in existence. I suspect that manufacturers are already ramping up production to produce inventory that can be sold after the bill could be signed into law much like was done in 1994 with the first “assault” weapons ban. I guess we’ll see.

If I’m bound to cause mayhem and destruction and I choose to use a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches I’ll just make one before I leave the house.

Again the proposed legislation has nothing to do with machine guns (your Slide Fire Stock is a separate issue) and the proponents of the legislation admit that there is nothing they can do to eliminate the thousands of the high capacity magazines already in circulation. You may get your “feel good” legislation passed but I don’t see it doing any good deterring future Sandy Hook incidents.

I think the Giffords are acting out of emotion rather than logic and I suppose they can be excused for taking the position they now espouse. My “Functional Moron” claim stands as it pertains to Senator Feinstein. It only remains to be seen if DiFi earns this years “Functional Moron” Award with the Dianne DeGette cluster.

cont.

fish

cont.


As I mentioned I should have watched the video you posted before I commented. I still think that the claim can be made and supported that the ultra high capacity magazines are usually more trouble than they are worth. I don’t remember the last time one of this type was used in a crime like Sandy Hook. As far as making it easier to turn a semi auto into a full auto, the technical hurdles are not a significant impediment to an individual with a modicum of mechanical talent and the motive to make those modifications.

As soon as the government can use a casual and flip remark like, “god I’d love to kill that guy.....” or “He needed killing.......” crass but in reality non-threatening or the fact that someone has at one time or another been under the care of the mental health system to deny firearm rights they will. You can count on it and in the case of medication or psychological counseling it’s already happening!

The “therapeutic state” is positively itching for this kind of power.
If there is a truism that can be taken from the gun control argument it is that the “Law of Unintended Consequences” is alive and well.

Ben Emery

Todd,
I have been spanked? You called a me lib and won't provide the entire letter for context. I don't mind being proven wrong. Everything people have used to back up this absurd notion of US citizens taking on the US government with rifles when looked into has been either false of massively misrepresented and taken out of context.

Please show me a letter or document that had any influence on on the US Constitution where they are describing when the US government becomes tyrannical we must have an armed citizenry. I am not a expert by any means on the second amendment but I have checked up on many claims and they have all been proven false or taken out of context.

I find it ironic that you support tyrannical policies such as preemptive invasions and occupations of sovereign nations, torture, spying on citizens, military industrial complex, and special interests forcing the masses to live under their control by corrupting our republic with highest bidder elections. Man, your idea of freedom and liberty is twisted.

fish

We no longer live in the 16th Century in case you missed it, times have changed and much of the wisdom of 250 years ago is no longer relevant.

Atta boy Joe....sniff the glove!

Fuzz

Fish 11:57.....

I share your frustration! It's a balancing act between our stated Constitutional rights, and how the populace and the legal system interpret those rights. Regarding the legality of the Slide Fire stock, here's an excerpt from their website:

“Slide Fire® products have been approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) and we provide a copy of the approval letter on our website www.slidefire.com to any interested individual. Slide Fire® has not been notified by any individual state that our products conflict with any state laws.”

It would appear that under California Penal Code Section 32900, it “may” be illegal in California. (..and all the guys on calguns.net want somebody else to try it first to see if they get arrested :)

"32900. Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170."

Time will tell.

Michael Anderson


I think y'all will enjoy this...M.

"Congress Is Socially Insecure
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: April 12, 2013
When it comes to congressmen behaving badly — and such a list it is, my friends — the prize this week goes to Representative Greg Walden of Oregon. Although I am sorry to say that his bad behavior does not involve any interesting new illicit sex issues.
It’s surprising that we never noticed him before. After all, Walden has a long legislative background, including being a founder of the House Small Brewers Caucus, as well as the first member of the House to contract swine flu in 2009. But our mission today involves his role as the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee — the member in charge of getting other Republican members elected next year.
When President Obama released his budget, Walden put on his NRCC hat and homed in on the much-publicized proposal to reduce the way cost-of-living raises are computed for Social Security. It was, the congressman from Oregon claimed on CNN, “a shocking attack on seniors.”
“I think he’s going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well,” Walden said.
Consider the poor American public. They were already being flung into a debate that involves long discussions about the impact of “chained C.P.I.” Now they have to figure out what to make of the leader of the Republican re-election effort attacking their president for doing something the Republicans have been demanding for years.
And it was awful for the Democrats, who generally spend their political lives defending Social Security from any changes whatsoever. Most of them rolled their eyes, muttered soft, low moans and tried to change the subject. One, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, successfully diverted all attention from entitlement issues by tweeting Cyndi Lauper “couldn’t believe how hot u were” after a show at the White House. We will take this matter up again when we revisit the importance of having elected officials restrict their social media visits to moments when they are under the strict supervision of staff members.
But then the Republican House leaders started to come down on Obama’s side. Asked about Walden, Speaker John Boehner said: “I’ve made it clear that I disagree.” And the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, announced that Obama’s concessions left him “cautiously optimistic” that there could be a bipartisan budget deal.
What’s going on here? People, are you hopeful that the great partisan stalemate is actually wobbling? Or does Ryan’s cautious optimism make you wildly pessimistic? Do you think the Republican leaders are really hoping to put an end to the march of the fiscal cliffs? Or are they just worried because people have started to compare the House of Representatives to North Korea? Historically, when it’s in a period of implacable nonproductivity, the House has always been compared to a kindergarten class. Pyongyang does have a similar tendency to call everybody out to dance around in colorful costumes for special occasions. But it’s not what you could call a step forward.
To be fair, Washington has already come a long way budgetwise, compared with say, last year or the year Alexander Hamilton had to deal with the Whiskey Rebellion. The House and Senate have already passed their own versions, which are largely detail-free Big Thoughts. (Ryan’s plan expresses concern about the future stability of Social Security and decrees that “both parties must work together to chart a path forward on common-sense reforms.”) The president’s budget, however, is required to be detail-dense, and Obama proposed new spending for infrastructure repair, research and schools along with specific tax increases and spending cuts.
All the attention, so far, has gone to the Social Security change. Obama has been offering this deal to Republican leaders for ages, yet there seemed to be a tacit agreement on the part of everyone to ignore it. When the president began having dinners with the Republican senators last month, they walked out expressing amazement that he was open to such a thing. This continued in some circles long beyond the point at which the plan was up on the White House Web site.

So what do you think? There are some arguments on every side, except of course the one on which Representative Walden is swinging.

But if you take it in concert with the rest of the budget, Obama’s proposal does speak, in a very modest way, to the fact that this country currently spends a ton of its resources on the elderly and relatively little on the young. I’d trade a dramatic new commitment to funding quality early childhood education for a change in the way cost-of-living increases are computed for Social Security, as long as the oldest and neediest of the recipients are protected.
However, anything that makes Paul Ryan this enthusiastic is scary."

George Rebane

MichaelA 1146pm - I think you missed my admonition on long 'copy/paste' comments to another commenter. Please post another comment with your thoughts about Gail Collins piece and a link to it. (I'll then remove the above and this comment.) We are interested in your thoughts, no matter how 'comprehensive', but having to scroll through a long pasted article to get to previous comments is a bit wearing. Thank you.

fish

I’d trade a dramatic new commitment to funding quality early childhood education for a change in the way cost-of-living increases are computed for Social Security, as long as the oldest and neediest of the recipients are protected.

Yeah that'd be great...except most of the studies show that "Head Start" (and similar early development programs I imagine.) really don't do that much. Whatever benefits accrue seem to have a short shelf life.

Hope you've been saving your pennies though Michael, you're likely to get the second part of your wish.

Douglas Keachie

With respect to the the topmost topic on this list, regarding CARB, I wish to note for Walt, who spent a a fair amount of time libeling me here as a diesel tractor owner lawbreaker, that he has been and IS, completely wrong. Please note that from the California Farm Expo held this Spring, we have the following: http://www.norcalvaluation.com/agriculture-2/carb-tractor-rule-rumors-reality/ Otherwise, I'm back to other spaces, unless formally and politely invited back. BTW, since I left, I do not even lurk here. It amuses me to think of how many have been accused of being Keachie's latest sock. FAIL! Notice, BTW, during this brief visit, other socks, including Fuzz et al. Thought that was against your policies?

The comments to this entry are closed.