Home

Details

Cars are involved in 50% more deaths than guns. About 1/3 of car fatalities involve a driver under age 21. Most lethal car accidents involve multiple casualties. If it's unreasonable to allow someone under 21 to handle a handgun, it is positively insane to allow them behind the wheel of a car, with 6 million times the potential energy, where a SINGLE error or act of will can kill dozens. 

No reasonable person can object to raising the driving age to 21, and improving our background checks--no one with a history of mental illness or psychotropic drug use should ever be allowed to drive a car. Likewise, anyone with a history of anger-related violence is a threat to those around them.

Ultimately, we need to ask the hard question: Who really NEEDS a car? Certainly urbanites with access to mass transit have no need for a personal vehicle, given the inherent dangers and cost to society.

The fallacious response to this is to argue that "cars aren't meant to kill." But, if they are not meant to, but are 50% more lethal than handguns, no reasonable person can argue against tighter restrictions.

Details
My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.
 
"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."
 
No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of a less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.
 
Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.
 
And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.
 
Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.
 
And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.
 
So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.

My point about the "Second Amendment isn't absolute, of course it doesn't apply to nukes" argument is it's a straw man, that's always presented for reductio ad absurdum, and a slippery slope.

"Of course no one would defend the right to own a nuke," but then the next statement, always implied and usually stated is, "So since the right is not absolute, let's see how far we can shove it up your ass and claim 'reasonable.'"  To such people, nukes are not "reasonable" and neither are tanks and planes and artillery and machine guns and "Deadly semiautomatic weapons of mass destruction killing machines that rapidly and accurately spray fire from the hip and can kill 30 kids in a matter of seconds from a high capacity clip."

No facts, just bullshit, dishonest soundbites and attempts to blame close to 100 million honest people for the actions of less than 10, and to compare the ability to wipe out cities to the ability to defend one's home.

Yes, and we also need to do something about the Jewish Bankers who own the media and finance and governments, yadda yadda.  After all, they killed Jesus.

And don't forget that because of liberals, illegal aliens cross our southern border every night to unplug our comatose women.

Oh, and all liberals want to send everyone to gulags, and all free speech activists endorse child porn.

And most blacks are drug dealers and hookers.

So, yes.  I have a right to own a nuke.  While you jabber in mock fear over the unlikelihood of that ever happening, keep in mind that a rifle, or even a machine gun, isn't a millionth of a nuke.  Trying to play that card just makes you look like a panicky idiot.

Details

I need to keep mentioning this because it's important:  If you aren't well-trained in a subject, it's dangerous and foolish to try to legislate it.  Consider all the internet "equality" and "freedom" and "safety" acts to come out of Congress.

One of the items during so-called "Assault Weapon Ban," is being bandied about for renewal—a ban on "high capacity clips," by which the proponents mean a ban on standard capacity magazines that they don’t like—because 30 round has been standard for AK rifles for 65 years and for AR rifles for 45 years, for example.

Here's the problems: 

The military regards magazines as expendable.  It's desirable to hang onto them and bring them back, but in combat, or even a field exercise, it's expected that some will get dropped and lost.  During an engagement, one should be shooting, communicating, moving and reloading.  "Remembering to secure your partial or empty magazine and stow it back in a pouch somewhere" is a dangerous pain in the ass.

But of course, while there was a civilian ban on new mags in effect, they had to be controlled items, and completely accounted for.  So this law did, in fact, hinder military combat readiness.

Of course, billions of existing magazines were grandfathered and in existence.  So new standard magazines had to be marked with a date and "military and police" or similar nomenclature.  And so did guns during that time.

Here's the wrench in the works:  When the ban went away, millions of mags could be and were surplus sold, as were millions of guns.  All of them marked "military/LE use only," but perfectly legal for civilians.

So, if there's a new round of restrictions, there will have to be a new round of dates stamped on things, and a new round of "ILLEGAL" markings.  In the meantime, some states still have restrictions and their own markings.  Which means there will be an entire catalog of markings to determine what is legal and what isn't.

So, you can expect lots of stuff to slip through the cracks, and lots of people to get falsely accused/detained/arrested/have their property confiscated due to misreading of marks.  It's also entirely possible most cops will just say, "Fuck it" and not bother, especially as one pretty much has to have the magazine in hand to read the marks.

And of course, once again, the military will be required to account for an expendable item as a controlled item, which means troops will be learning to retain their mags rather than engage the enemy.

Given the billions of grandfathered mags, and the millions more being sold every day right now, in case there is such a restriction, it will have no effect whatsoever on crime.

BTW, I said in 1994 that the ban would have no effect, and I was right.  When it expired in 2004, and there were screams of "Blood will run in the streets!" I said nothing would happen, and I was right.

Why did it even exist in the first place?

Charles Krauthammer was at least honest: "The claim of the [ban's] advocates that banning these 19 types of 'assault weapons' will reduce the crime rate is laughable," he wrote. "Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents daren't enunciate. . . . Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity (sic) of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. . . . The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first. . . .Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. . . . The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go."

The purpose is to define an acceptable level of control over a civil right.

I decline.

Details
Steven Barnes: We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There are now proposals that we "Compromise" on any weapon more advanced than the 1870s.
I am unwilling to compromise. I have a right to own a nuke and a Minuteman III.
Regardless of how my friends may perceive me, it means one, simple thing:  My position cannot be assailed or deconstructed.  "Keep and bear arms" = "Own and carry weapons."  I don't see an "Except what some people don't like" in there, anymore than I do in the First Amendment.
I demand a right to antimatter once its containment is developed, too.
As far as any small arms--they are so ridiculously easy to make, I regard any firearm law as a complete waste of time and resources.  There are laws against murder.  Murder is wrong whether its done with a kitchen knife, ball bat, gun, car, poison or explosive.
Most of the people I know in code enforcement would rather be chasing real criminals.

We "Compromised" and lost warships and artillery and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on auto and silencers and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" on imports and gained nothing.  Then we "Compromised" again on autos and gained nothing.  We "Compromised" on certain cosmetic features that complicated the matter, and gained nothing.  There are now proposals that we "Compromise" on any weapon more advanced than the 1870s.

I am unwilling to compromise. I have a right to own a nuke and a Minuteman III.

Regardless of how my friends may perceive me, it means one, simple thing:  My position cannot be assailed or deconstructed.  "Keep and bear arms" = "Own and carry weapons."  I don't see an "Except what some people don't like" in there, anymore than I do in the First Amendment.

I demand a right to antimatter once its containment is developed, too.

As far as any small arms--they are so ridiculously easy to make, I regard any firearm law as a complete waste of time and resources.  There are laws against murder.  Murder is wrong whether its done with a kitchen knife, ball bat, gun, car, poison or explosive.

Most of the people I know in code enforcement would rather be chasing real criminals.  I propose to enable them.

  1. Post to a Friend: Shootings and Statistics
  2. How A Rational Debate On Guns Actually Goes:

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home