Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country. I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years. Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.
The Second Amendment is a very concise 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.” http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow. However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection?
The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation. Don’t they?
Bud, you may have misread. The first guy is just a scofflaw. Habitual DUI offender with no insurance tooling around in a car for more than twenty years, racking up added fines and some occasional jail time. But still driving a 3,500 pound potentially deadly weapon.
The second guy has no sense and a short fuse. Sheriff seized his guns, and says if he ever gets them back from the Sheriff, then he is going to use them to shoot the Sheriff.
My point was there are people like the first guy who could give a rat’s patoot what the law says, they will just do what they want to. Register guns or buy insurance–not a chance. And will not until they are get caught like the second guy. Most of the ones who would ignore the law are otherwise fully law abiding citizens who are not about to do anything they perceive as risking their guns being taken from them, or tracked by the “gummint.”
Tootie
Nice job on cooling the rhetoric. As usual.
My questions.
Why didn’t the college notify the sheriff and he notify all gun stores to not sell to this guy? Might have helped stop him.
Why did the first Walmart that turned him down because of his behaviour not call the second Walmart and alert them and the sheriff’s office? Might have helped stop him.
Why shouldn’t high volume clips be banned – again? Might have limited the damage. VA Tech massacre – 100 bullet holes and that was just in the victims.
Surely there are some things to change that can be agreed on by a majority of gun owners.
“…but reasonable might…” in above post.
TYPO: reasonable people might….
Otteray Scribe 1, January 10, 2011 at 5:31 am
You mentioned two very interesting cases. The first case of a guy who wants to buy another gun after his are ceased by the sheriff. Wowww. Something is very very wrong here. This is the type of person that should be given a psych test, and black listed.
The second guy wants to blow the sheriff away… These are the people that the public must be protected from.
The insurance idea is simply this. Unless he or she can afford the insurance when they buy the gun and/or the ammo, they can’t have the goods. Why did I say pay it to Uncle Sam? So that money would go into a protected fund (paid for only by gun owners) to partially protect innocent victims… Not to make another government program. Although I admit that’s what it looks like.
The majority of gun owners are responsible people. I don’t see my views as punishing those people. Yes they are an inconvenience, but reasonable might agree that these are reasonable measures. Not intrusions.
The conceal/carry law that Arizona has recently passed must just scare the hell out of every law enforcement agent in Arizona. I would really like to hear what FFLeo thinks about that.
Thanks for your response Otteray.
I understand the next two days will be critical for Ms. Giffords. May God bless her and her family.
———————————————
The government controlled media (in this case the NY Times)is now blaming the Libertarians for the pot-smoking leftist scum-bag (they didn’t call him that) accused of murdering 6 two days ago (including one child). I’ve provided a link to the story via Lew Rockwell, a Libertarian website.
Libertarians loath murder. I guess that doesn’t matter to the jerks at the NY Times.
It is the Democrats (along with the NY Times) who led the nation to a century of bloodshed and war in the 20th century, and it’s the Libertarians who want such imperial bloodshed stopped. Yes, the NY Times stills beats the wardrums as we speak.
Who then supports violence? Certainly not the Libertarians.
And how odd it was that CNN jumped right into insinuating Tea Party types into the Arizona tragedy before they knew more info on the shooter.
Okay, so it’s not odd about CNN doing that since they are generally a bunch of anti-intellectual, totalitarian, police-state pigs.
Among the young man’s favorite books (supposedly) is the Communist Manifesto. You know, that’s the same stuff Obama and his Marxist totalitarian friends like Van Jones and Anita Dunn are so fond of. Oh, and there is Mr. Obama senior. Don’t forget him.
He was fond of Marx too.
I’m sorry, but Tea Party people don’t like that book. Neither do Libertarians. Democrats and the accused assassin do.
He liked Mein Kampf. Hitler was a National Socialist. Call me surprised. In fact he was leader of their party. Technically, it was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
Sure, he used the socialists for his own police-state purposes until they could be eliminated, but that’s what is always so bad about all Marxists/Marxism. It destabilizes governments and leads to subjugation, dictatorship, or tyranny.
Obama knows this exceptionally well. He was schooled on this topic. He is even familiar with the redistributive French Revolution. It was there also that forced economic “equality” led to dictatorship (via the destabilization it always causes).
Obama is no dummy. Or so they say. Yet, honestly, isn’t it kinda stupid to whack the goose that is laying the golden eggs?
Anyway.
The Marxist contemporaries continue to portray Hitler as a crazed right winger like Christians are in America. Yes, I know, it’s insane, because Hitler couldn’t even stand Christianity. But, no matter. The lie has to be told as many times as the Marxists pigs can tell it.
And so it was that the Marxists in America would write the official history of WW2 and its aftermath. It was written by the Marxists at the NY Times and the Marxist intellectuals in academia. Our colleges and universities have been riddled with these monsters for nearly half a century. They are guilty of pointing the finger at Hitler while trying to get us to not see the three fingers pointing back at themselves, Mao, and Stalin.
They taught this coverup to several generations of American school children (including me) who grew up thinking Hitler was the worst man last century. He wasn’t: Mao and Stalin were worse.
And low and behold these are the ideological playmates of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the NY Times, and virtually all of the Ivy League colleges and universities in Ameria. And, now, perhaps our alleged murderer.
But it’s the Libertarians fault.
Just like Hitler, the American left loathes Western Civilization. It was the left that chanted on campus “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go!”.
And go it is.
It appears our assassin isn’t much fond of WC either considering his alleged fondness for the Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Both strike at the roots of WC.
On the otherhand Libertarians uphold the best of Western Civilization’s values, especially liberty and freedom. You won’t see Obama or the Democrats upholding these either. Nope. Certainly not the ones that count in terms of government policy. It’s not part of their plan.
It never is for the Marxist. Ergo: sexual assault of innocent civilians by government officials at transportation “checkpoints” in keeping with the best traditions of Mao and Hitler.
Tea Party folks, on the other hand, disagree with that. And they disagree with Hilter and the Democrats about Western Civilization. They like WC. In fact, they prefer it. And they don’t want it to go.
Libertarians don’t care, they just like free markets (a very western value) and liberty. Oh, yeah, that is real scary stuff. Scarier than being surveilled by the Marxists totalitarians in the Obama admin as I write.
Uh huh.
Hitler was a tree-hugging vegetarian as well. Tea Partiers are not too much into that sort of thing. Libertarians don’t care what you do. They are into freedom.
Say, when will the Marxist food shortages begin anyway? You do know they always begin sometime or another? Right?
How else will government get your guns if they cannot give you a loaf of bread in return for it? Just don’t let them touch your junk in the process. That will get them all excited and we don’t want that.
So perhaps this action yesterday was an attempted Marxist purge from the bottom up (purges are a tradition among Marxists). Perhaps it is a warning by the grassroots Marxists on the left. It is unlikely that you will see a DHS warning go out against the Marxists.
Ms. Giffords was, by all reasonable standards, a moderate, pretty, and polite Marxist. And perhaps this didn’t sit well with the accused assassin.
There was the nitwit sheriff who spoke on Saturday and scolded folks about media people allegedly inflaming the public and causing such tragedies.
The old buzzard sherriff didn’t seem to think that public officials like him could ever be guilty of inflaming the public with their own comments about inflaming or their own conduct as government officials.
Perhpas he thinks that would be impossible.
Perhaps, only if you are a government official like a cop does it become impossible to inflame. Strange, but, I think such an attitude by cops would indeed inflame the public.
What appears to have been inflamed on Saturday was a discontented Marxist–a fellow ideological traveler of the president. Will we see CNN or the NY Times report that?
And now we might know why the president wants to label loyal Americans as dangerous extremists (though Harry Reid did that real well the other day in an essay he wrote). He has to to distract from how bad disloyal Americans like himself are.
This is all the same old Marxist trick of labeling others as being bad so as to take the attention off yourself, who is worse.
Yet the Tea Party folks are relatively harmless. They, infact, dearly love America and spent virtually their whole lives as law abiding citizens following the rules and working hard.
What they don’t like is government not following the rules. And they don’t like it when government pretends others are overthrowing the government when it is really the government that is overthrowing the government.
But that doesn’t count for anything to the despots at the Deparment of Homeland Security or the knuckleheaded neanderthals at CNN. They’ve a Marxist revolution to attend to and nothing should stand in their way.
So to cover up their own villiany, the Marxist media and politicians must demonize and portray relatively harmless individuals who REALLY support the government, as anti-government monsters.
If anyone, it is the Marxist totalitarians in government and media (mostly Democrats) who are inflaming the American people. Everyone else is just responding to it.
If the leftists/Marxists at the NY Times, CNN, and in government don’t like the verbal sparring going on in public then they should stand down and stop dividing the country. It takes two to Tango and they started this dance a long time ago.
They should man-up and tolerate the raging discussion which they provoked decades ago when they chanted that Western Civ has got to go. It’s the original provocation for which they don’t seem to have the stomach for seeing through without being dishonest about who is really causing all the trouble.
Apparently, screaming and shouting that Western Civilization needs to be eliminated and being committed thereto for over a generation thereafter is not inflaming anything we need to worry about.
Uh huh.
If Libetarians are inflaming, then so are the Marxist pigs at the NY Times.
Friedrich Hayek wrote:
“We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past. Although we had been warned by some of the greatet political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by De Tocqueville and Lord Action, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the directions socialism. And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgoten the warning that it scarecely occurs to us that the two things may be connected…
…The Nazi leader who described the National Socialist revolution as a counter-Renaissance [Hey, hey, ho, ho Western Civ has got to go!] spoke more truly than he probably knew. It was the decisive step in the destruction of that civilization which modern man had bult up from the age of the Renaissance and which was, above all, an individualist civilization.”
Road to Serfdom. Page 16 and 17. Paperback. University of Chicago Press 1994.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/74977.html
Perhaps I missed them but in all this fascinating discussion it seems to me little attention as been given to “self-defense.” There are a few items but most entries seem to deal with aggressive use of guns when I suspect, but have no facts to prove, most of the estimated 200 million guns in private hands in the US are owned for defensive purposes and that leads me to another point.
Even if you call 911 on an intruder the police may not be able to get to you before something terrible happens to you, the intruder or both (threats do have their place). it is worth remembering that the police have no duty to protect you, the individual citizen, but to protect the “public safety.” If they do not come to your aid, you have no recourse. (I understand that if you are dead, recourse is not a big worry.) I do not have the citation for the Supreme Court case holding this but I think I can find it and I don’t think it’s anything recent (i.e. reflecting the current make up of the Court).
And lastly, trying, as at least one comment does, to suggest that semi-automatic and automatic weapons are effectively the same thing merits just trying them to see for one’s self. As a Vietnam vet, who carried an M-16, military equivalent of an AR-15, with a selector to change it from semi-automatic to full automatic, I believe I can attest that those two settings are different with quite different effects.
Treating semi-automatic and automatic as effectively the same just contributes to the Second Amendment supporters’ ire and vitriolic response (as does talk of “assault weapons” as if they differed from semi-automatic weapons other than cosmetically).
All of this comment is really meant to argue for dealing with these controversies with precise language and careful thought, in part to “get it right” and in part to lower the heat in our contemporary debate.
Bud: Some very good observations that I cannot disagree with. Unfortunately Raff, in his comment just above, hits on the biggest bump in the road. Insurance is a good idea, an excellent idea in fact, but in practice it is unworkable. Now, I have insurance–seven figures worth of insurance–however we all live in a real world of folks who ignore laws. Case in point; while interviewing a fellow the other day, I asked him how he got to my office. He told me he drove, so I asked if he had a current and valid driver’s license. His reply was, “Naw, I ain’t had one since ’87 when they took ’em from me.”
Then I asked him how much he owed in fines and he said, “Somewheres about twenty or thirty thousand, I ain’t sure exactly.” Then I asked him if he had insurance on his car and he said he could not afford it. This fellow has repeated DUIs, no license, no insurance and he continues to drive. My point is that this is exactly what will happen if we require insurance on guns, training, licensing or other similar regulation. As for ammunition, it is easy to reload used brass and make your own. I can cast lead bullets and make my own ammunition by recycling brass cartridge casings. Heck of a lot cheaper than buying them new.
In point of fact, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed tomorrow and new gun control regulations were implemented, the vast majority of gun owners would ignore them just like my guy the other day. And BTW, I have heard that same identical story too many times to count.
Funny gun story from about a few years ago. I had a guy in my office tell me that if he was able to get his guns back from that G**D*** Sheriff he would shoot the SOB. So as soon as as I finished interviewing him I called the Sheriff to get the rest of the story. Seems the guy pointed a gun at our Sheriff during a domestic violence call and ended up getting very lucky because the Sheriff just arrested him instead of killing him. Then took his guns. Sheriff told me the guy was not going to get his guns back. They were in the evidence room and that was where they were going to stay.
Bob,
I will respond to your last point first. I did expect a meaningful discussion even in these hard times and for the most part I think we had one. That emotion of the moment that you mention has been repeated over and over again throughout my life and that is why I wanted to have this important discussion.
Bob, I do understand that an automatic weapon is technically a machine gun, but when I read machine gun I think of the Tommy Gun discussed above or the 50mm machine gun from the military or the BAR from the WWII movies or Uzi’s or the SAW that the Marines use now. For what it is worth, I think of AK’s and M-16’s as automatic rifles. I am not a gun purist, and I made that clear early on in the discussion. Finally, and to be fair, don’t you think the sharp stick comment is carrying it a little too far. I do agree precision is good, but I think the point got across to most of what I was trying to convey. Thanks for explaining your thoughts! I appreciate it.
Bud,
I like your ideas, but maybe Bob,Esq. can check me on this, but some of what you suggest is already being done in some localities. I like the insurance idea, but if people call providing affordable health care for all to be socialism, I can only imagine what your idea of insurance to the government in order to own a gun will be called. Thanks for sharing.
Blouise and Elaine, it is too late to be talking about food. You will make have to raid the refrigerator! Have a great week!
I’ll bet that if the Laws were changed to require every American to possess a loaded weapon at all times, the crimes against the average citizen would drop to a stand-still.
“BTW, my husband cooked up a big pot of his fabulous Italian wedding soup for me today. It’s so hearty and so tasty–especially served with freshly grated Romano cheese.” (Elaine)
Oh … one of my favorites … I should send you my recipe and you can compare … this recipe is not a quick one but it is superb.
Thanks for the thoughts concerning Tex … tomorrow they will shock his heart and then, hopefully, he will be able to come home on Tuesday. It has been a most horrendous New Year.
I must sign off now and get to bed … up early tomorrow.
How’s your cold … steak helps 🙂
Blouise,
My husband and I rarely cook steak at home. I ordered the Grill of My Dreams–a grilled 8 oz. filet of beef tenderloin with potatoes au gratin, asparagus, and brandy peppercorn mushroom sauce. My daughter had the same. Our male companions had the grilled Black Angus sirloin with onion strings, garlic mashed potatoes, and cabernet shallot sauce. We all shared a plate of Oysters Danielle (oysters on the half shell baked with garlic butter and bacon).
BTW, my husband cooked up a big pot of his fabulous Italian wedding soup for me today. It’s so hearty and so tasty–especially served with freshly grated Romano cheese.
I hope your husband is doing well. I will keep him in my thoughts.
Sorry … that was to Buckman … my apologies for the quick misspell
Bda,
I have no problem with collectors for a well made gun has a certain beauty … an acquaintance of my husband collects cannons … the regulations are incredible but he loves ’em so he pays his money and follows the rules
Elaine,
Excellent … was it as good as your own?
I’m so glad you are back as I miss your posts when your off having fun!
As the owner of a FULLY AUTOMATIC thompson sub machine gun and a card carrying member of the ACLU, I must interject my thoughts.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was instituted to regulate ownership of fully auto weapons, silencers, short barrel weapons and destructive devices. The act came about due to the flood of criminals using stolen and legally purchased(a fully auto Thopmpson with drum magazine and carrying case would set one back around $250 in 1922) auto weapons (Model 1921 or 1928 Thompson SMG’s and Browning BAR’s immedlately come to mind) The ’21 or ’28 Thompson is a submachine (“submachine” as it uses a pistol cartridge, the 45 auto colt pistol)gun . In order to purchase a fully automatic weapon in 1934 or today in 2011, one must pass a series of metrics such as be a law-abiding citizen as verified by the county sheriff or other chief law enforcement authority in your domicile. Other data such as the reason why a fully auto weapon is needed, criminal background questions, mental issues, are attested to, etc. Then the filled out document is forwarded to the BATF in West Virginia (shades of the late Sen. Byrd’s pork projects)and a FULL bankground check is done. Four months later you recive an up or down decision. If approved, your document, with its’ $200 stamp attached (hasn’t gone up since ’34) is sent to the dealer and you receive your weapon. Since Fully auto weapons are very expensive, think mid $30K for a good thompson, you are NOT going to see them in illegal venues. If you take your weapon out of state you must notify the BATF or it can be siezed and you end up in the can plus a hefty fine, and finally the weapon destroyed. These items are for collectors and represent an interesting and fascinating part of american history. Of the 15,000 Thompsons made by Colt in the 20’s, perhaps a thousand or less are legally available for purchase and enjoyment today. So why shouldn’t I have one if I jump through all the hoops? A Thompson is a beautiful piece of precision machinery and woodworking, capable of firing 800 rounds per minute, or about a drum of 50 rounds in 3 seconds. (I shoot pumpkins at 25 yards.). So it goes.
Bud,
This child made the news but ask any cop, any emergency room nurse, any paramedic … we have an epidemic of little ones falling victim to random gun violence … they are just as innocent, just as sweet and loved just as much … it’s a national tragedy and should shame us all.
But your ideas were constructive … they’re good ideas and they are workable!
Bob,Esq.,
I wasn’t attempting to blunt your sarcasm about knowing the laws regarding machine guns … I was highlighting your life long shooter & gun owner status and the expertise that spending one’s life shooting and owning guns could bring to those of us who have never participated in such activities. Thus hoping you could bring the cold, hard facts of logical reality to the warm, mushy, feebleness of the emotional moment.
Now in the fairness of full disclosure, I have to admit to knowing a bit about hunting. (If hunting was part of your shooter experience) My relatives and their friends hunted all the time and I went on my first hunting trip at a young age. But my relatives stated most emphatically that guns were for sissies. We hunted with bow and arrow and we ate what we shot. My fletchings are still pretty good and I can still notch well but the arm … well not so great anymore. Oh, I also have a truly wicked knife that my uncle bought me 40 years when he was visiting Spain … great for skinning.
I’m armed … but not particularly dangerous though my tolerance for pure bullshit is similar to your own. There’s a distinctive aroma to it … wouldn’t you agree?
Blouise,
Thanks.
I just can’t see this issue being one way or another.
Politicians won’t/can’t scrap the second.
Gun owners won’t allow them to.
I just hope someone really really smart comes up with a real honest to goodness reasonable and fair solution for everyone.
To have an innocent child killed, tells the world horrible things about the USA. It shouldn’t happen again.
Bud,
No howls of condemnation from this citizen. I like everyone of your ideas.
Well, ok, maybe not that keen on leaving the fantasy builder otherwise know as the Second Amendment alone but I accept the political reality of what you write … and survivalists might run amuck without their beloved Second to take to bed at night. (Seriously, I take your point and grudgingly agree)
Hot damn my man … I don’t know you well but there’s some very real depth and common sense to you.
Sex, drugs, and rock&roll usually take care of themselves … at least that’s been my life experience.
Thanks for the ideas.