The new horizon of gun control, Part 4. “Wolves at the door”

posted at 9:46 am on December 21, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Today, in the final installment of this series, we will eschew a review of the “nuanced” strategy currently being employed by the wolves in sheep’s clothing working toward new gun suppression legislation and their willing media allies. That was covered well enough in the previous three columns, and links will be provided at the end in case you missed them. Forewarned being forearmed, as the saying goes, we should close out with a look at what is truly going on under the covers, what we should expect to see as this battle moves toward the halls of Congress and what – if anything – we, as a nation, can do to forestall an unfortunate result which currently appears far too likely.

For a good look at what you are truly up against, you need do little more than listen to the openly offered words of one of the chief architects of the current push for a gun grab… one Michael Bloomberg. He’s been making the rounds of every media outlet from Morning Joe to the full slate of Sunday gab fests, usually parroting the lines we featured before about “not wanted to take anyone’s guns” and respecting the first amendment. But he might have gotten a bit tired by the time he showed up for Nightline, and he let the mask slip fully from his face. Check this out. (Emphasis mine.)

“I think the public has finally come to the conclusion that, what the Supreme Court said you can do is have reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, is something that our society finally has woken up and said, ‘We are going to do this whether you like it or not,‘” Bloomberg said…

But if he had his preference, Bloomberg said he would go farther than the 1994 ban and outlaw all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. The mayor said magazines shouldn’t be allowed to contain more than five or even three rounds.

“If you haven’t hit the deer with three shots, you’re a pretty lousy shot. The deer deserves to get away,” he said.

Yes, he’s still repeating the “Second Amendment = Hunting” meme which we fairly well demolished yesterday, but Mr. Mayor is offering us far, far more in this interview. He’s not talking about only AR-15 style rifles. He’s looking to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons. That would include handguns and all. Further, the latest expected proposal, promised by Dianne Feinstein, regarding magazine capacity is for an already insultingly low ten rounds. But if he had his preferences he would try to lower it to three. He knows he can’t… yet. But if he manages to help ram through a limit of ten, you now know where the next goal post will be set. As Matt Lewis reminded us recently, sometimes the slippery slope is real.

Another glimpse into the mind of Bloomberg and company comes with the complete lack of seriousness on display when he gloats over his coming victory in the effort to disarm America. In one moment he is solemn and serious. In the next, he’s cracking jokes about two of the actually decent things Barack Obama accomplished during his first term, only moments after mourning the dead in Newtown.

What else should we be expecting? For one thing, more formerly Second Amendment supporting officials will be bailing out like rats fleeing a sinking ship. One of the latest is Bob Casey… yet another traditionally gun rights friendly Democrat who is putting his finger to the wind and deciding it’s time to jump.

Furrowing his brow and casting his eyes downward, Casey expressed regret that he had not reconsidered his views as starkly after earlier massacres at Virginia Tech and in Aurora, Colo.

“The power of the weapon, the number of bullets that hit each child, that was so, to me, just so chilling, it haunts me. It should haunt every public official,” said Casey, who won a second term six weeks ago while touting his opposition to gun control.

In the days since the shooting that killed 20 children and eight adults, the debate around gun laws has shifted. Democrats have called for reinstating the assault-weapons ban and barring magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“If those two bills come before the Senate, I’ll vote for both,” Casey said. He said his decision amounted to being “summoned by your conscience.”

Given the part of the country that Casey comes from and the number of years he has held his previous stance, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he truly did believe in the Second Amendment. But it’s also politically convenient – at a minimum – that he represents a lot of rural areas in central Pennsylvania where gun rights are part of his voters’ heritage. They “cling to them” and “their God” as our President once famously said of the area. It was part of Casey’s key to election day success.

You’re going to be seeing more of all of this as soon as the new year begins and Congress returns to their seats. So now we face the harder question. In the face of such an oppressive, steep hill, what is there to be done in the hopes of at least minimizing the damage, if not mitigating it entirely? Well… perhaps a few things.

The first, easiest and most obvious move is to make your voices known to those who depend on our votes for their livelihood. You can forget about the President, who no longer needs to care about winning another term. But the members of the House and Senate do. Particularly the House, where the GOP – weak kneed as they may be at times – still holds a solid majority. They are already moving into campaign mode for 2014 and more than a few are looking over their shoulders for possible primary challenges. This is the first, and possibly best hill to fight on. The Senate may hold a few wavering seats which will be subject to a tide of public displeasure as well. They need to be made aware that long held beliefs don’t dissipate overnight even following a one man tragedy such as we recently witnessed.

But there are other things you can do as well. One possibility is to lend your support – if not already doing so – to the NRA. They are under intense pressure at the moment and opponents seem to sense some blood in the water, thinking their influence is waning. I’ve had my own disputes with them over the years on various fine points of policy, but they remain one of the strongest, most influential and well funded voices on this subject in the nation. They need to see their support rise rather than fall in these dark times, or the liberal hopes for their de-clawing may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are smaller, local groups which will need your support as well. These include sporting clubs, shooting ranges and everywhere else that like minded groups seek to promote the safe, legal, constitutionally protected enjoyment of firearms. Get on Google and find out who is in your area.

And finally, no matter how cryptic some may wish to make this sound… arm yourself if it is something you feel inclined to do and have the financial resources to manage. The free market speaks volumes, and both politicians and some bastions of the media pay attention to it. Voting with your wallet is, if anything, possibly even more powerful than voting with your feet. If you need these tools not only for yourself, but to pass on to the next generation, you might thank me later. If this goes entirely pear shaped, it might be a while before they are available again.

Sadly, there is little beyond that to be done if I’m reading the cards correctly. The sad truth is that, beyond these types of actions and preparations, you potentially find yourself with only one more alternative in a worst case scenario.

Come and get ‘em.

Good luck to us all, and thanks for following along this week for this series. If we’ve managed to accomplish anything here, I hope it is to impart the message that this is not some far off, possible future of problems. The wolves are truly at the door and they will be sitting down in Washington DC in a couple of weeks, aided by nearly every media outlet in the country. But in the end, they are not the United States. This country isn’t a collection of politicians arguing in spacious halls. It’s a collection of papers more than two hundred years old. And with a bit of luck, it’s one thing more than that as well.

It’s you.

Related:
The new horizon of gun control, Part 1. A Violent Society
The new horizon of gun control, Part 2. The black hole of mental health
The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military Style Weapons”
MSNBC host Chuck Todd on gun rights: “That’s a different America”
Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.
The missing link on gun control

Catch up with me on Twitter if you’d care to continue the discussion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Maybe I’m missing something here, but how can one have a magazine without a semi-automatic rifle? The whole point of a magazine is to feed bullets to the semi-automatic gun. If the semi-auto gun is banned, then every gun will be a single shot you load through the chamber and not by magazine.

There’s a few ‘scout’ rifles out there that are bolt action and have magazines. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ruger+scout&qpvt=ruger+scout&FORM=IGRE

John_G on December 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM

That Coumo fellow must love him some red hot lead.

Bmore on December 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Bring it. Scalia’s opinion from Heller will slap down what ever these clowns try to do. It will be worth seeing the looks on all of the gun grabbers faces when the Roberts court issues their third opinion that strengthens the second amendment.

Scalia must be a prophet. It’s like he anticipated everything the left is trying to do, and already wrote an opinion which can be used to strike it down.

HarryBackside on December 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Sorry there Cuomo dude. Never have liked your family name.

Bmore on December 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Sorry…catching up to a few comments directed at me.
What is the question you want me to answer?
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

You’ll note that most Oppressives can provide a straight answer to that question – I predict that after this point verbaluce the oppressive troll will simply ignore the question.

Because they know that the Left went ahead and overreached this time – they thought the disarm the innocent wind was at their back and went for broke – they didn’t realize they had push the civilian disarmament agenda incrementally.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and they can’t pretend they aren’t trying to take away the people’s right of self-defense.

Now, the only answer you can conclude is that they don’t wish the people to be able to protect themselves.

In other words: IT’S ALL ABOUT POWER FOR THEM, THEY DON’T GIVE A RIP ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND THEY’RE SELF PROTECTION.

Verbaluce

Care to prove me wrong on that assertion by actually providing a straight answer for once?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’

darwin on December 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Care to prove me wrong on that assertion by actually providing a straight answer for once?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Funny!!! ; )

Bmore on December 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I finally went in and got my CC license and for a small community the police station was packed with people getting one for the first time. I saw old couples that would have trouble squeezing the trigger in there getting finger printed. Moms with little children and nervous looking business men. If there ever comes a point where they try to take our arms by force there will be a tragedy that will make all this pale in comparison.

jistincase on December 21, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The screaming left is at it again and they are screaming they want some one to murder the NRA VP, anybody who supports the NRA and the media ignores this talk, only in America.

mixplix on December 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Does that make him a scary … person?

RadioAngel on December 21, 2012 at 10:40 AM

To all the bad people it does. :)

Is Texas, Alaska, etc…going to allow federal agents to barge their way in and start enforcing the new federal admin law? What will state police and local police do when asked to assist in the effort? What side will they fall on?

Inzax on December 21, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I would love to see states defy them in something like this.

Does anyone have a good suggestion for a gunsmithing education? If there aren’t any pre-built to be had, how about crafting my own? I’m handy with my hands and tools.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Sorry…catching up to a few comments directed at me.
What is the question you want me to answer?
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

You’ll note that most Oppressives can provide a straight answer to that question – I predict that after this point verbaluce the oppressive troll will simply ignore the question.

Because they know that the Left went ahead and overreached this time – they thought the disarm the innocent wind was at their back and went for broke – they didn’t realize they had push the civilian disarmament agenda incrementally.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and they can’t pretend they aren’t trying to take away the people’s right of self-defense.

Now, the only answer you can conclude is that they don’t wish the people to be able to protect themselves.

In other words: IT’S ALL ABOUT POWER FOR THEM, THEY DON’T GIVE A RIP ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND THEY’RE SELF PROTECTION.

Verbaluce

Care to prove me wrong on that assertion by actually providing a straight answer for once?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Bloomberg is so full of it. In a weekly radio address, he says no one has defended the Second like he has. Then he tries saying the Amendment is open to interpretation, and every has choice do decides its meaning. Oh, and yeah–he says there can be reasonable restrictions the same way no one can have a nuclear weapon.

He either doesn’t know what he’s talking about with all that gobbeltygook, or he’s a liar. I lean more toward something in the middle, the borders changeable.

http://politicker.com/2012/12/bloomberg-no-one-has-defended-the-second-amendment-as-much-as-i-have/

Liam on December 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Care to prove me wrong on that assertion by actually providing a straight answer for once?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Funny!!! ; )

Bmore on December 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM

You’ll note that the Oppressives can’t really answer that question – the best they can do is pretend that they really aren’t out wanting to grab our means of self-defense.

They can’t really come out and say that they really want the people unprotected from their Oppressive polices.

The beast they can do is pretend to have not heard the question or deny the obvious.

It’s actually quite amusing in a certain way.

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM

NRA’s solution=More government. Yeah, I’m subscribing to Gun Owners of America.

Mr. Arrogant on December 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?
Galt2009

My answer is that I do not see that the right of self defense has been taken away.
Just to help clarify the debate here, what is your position on possession/ownership of fully automatic weapons.
And as you’re likely to say ‘define what a fully automatic weapon is’,
let’s assume an M4 with both 3 round burst and fully automatic capabilities.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

The volume alone would indicate to me the existence of a gem or two. It’s kinda like going to a garage sale. You never know. But, you need to know what to look for.

Also, shouldn’t these buyback programs be bloodbaths in the mind of a lib? Same goes for gun shows.

Eleven on December 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I read the other day about some guy taking his “old gun” into the police for one of those ‘buy-backs’.
The sargent in charge of the program took a look at the gun…and convinced the guy to take it to a collector friend of his to have it appraised. The guy then sold the gun for $30,000.00! (rather than the $50 buy back)
So, there are probably a few gems to be found.

Solaratov on December 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM

My answer is that I do not see that the right of self defense has been taken away.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

As I already answered:

Are you really this obtuse or did you require some training by your Oppressive-left brethren?

Take a quick perusal of the news as of late – there are Democratic politicians all over the place wanting Rahm legislation through the government to BAN guns using the vague and undefined term “Assault Weapon”.

There are other Leftists looking to ban semi-auto handguns.

There are other Demo fascist pols telling people to ‘Turn them in’

There are other lunatic leftists wanting guns confiscated.

So please don’t try to insult our intelligence with a load of pure barrack that the Oppressives aren’t after our right of self defense.

You can dispense with your silly little attempts at trying to distract away from central issue.

Now, since I answered you little inquiry, YOU ANSWER MINE:

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

My question was at the bottom of the first page so pardon me for repeating it. I am honestly curious.

Given that mass murder is already illegal what is the expected outcome for more restrictive gun laws?

anuts on December 21, 2012 at 12:44 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

And what’s your problem with full-auto guns?

Solaratov on December 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The second amendment never mentions guns. It says that the people’s right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. “Shall not be infringed.” The second amendment was put into the Constitution to restrict the government from disarming it’s citizens so that free men could maintain their freedom from a tyrannical government. Any government that seeks to infringe the rights of it’s citizenry to keep and bear arms is tyrannical.

Oldnuke on December 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Sadly, The Constitution is probably only one or two Obama appointments away from being completely meaningless.

trigon on December 21, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The liberals are playing word games. To them, taking guns doesn’t mean you lose the right to self defense, so their ‘logic’ is sound. Except that, if attacked by a criminal with a gun, and you have only your fists, you’ve effectively been stripped of your right because you don’t have chance to exercise it on equal (or superior) footing.

Liam on December 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009
.
My answer is that I do not see that the right of self defense has been taken away.
Just to help clarify the debate here, what is your position on possession/ownership of fully automatic weapons.
And as you’re likely to say ‘define what a fully automatic weapon is’,
let’s assume an M4 with both 3 round burst and fully automatic capabilities.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

.
Oh, for the love of . . . . .

A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed, is said to be “fully-automatic”.

Did that clear anything up?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I did answer you.
Are you just on some circular riff now?
I asked you a very specific question that you are clearly avoiding answering.

A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed, is said to be “fully-automatic”.

Did that clear anything up?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Yea. That is known. The reason I offered a specific example of a particular rifle was an attempt to fend off yet another ‘define what gun’ blah blah that keeps popping up.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM

.
And what’s your problem with full-auto guns?

Solaratov on December 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM

.
Full-auto guns (sub-machineguns) cannot be as precisely controlled, as pertains to aiming the rounds going down-range.

For myself, I’m not against private civilian possession of full-auto weapons, but I am for something resembling todays class 3 FFL for a private citizen to legally be in possession of such weapons.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM

“… from my cold, dead, hands!”

ShainS on December 21, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:00 PM

No you didn’t – You simply denied that your Oppressive-Left brethren want to take away our right of self-defense.

Again, that has been clearly dis-proven by my previous posting and this new one:

Cuomo Says He’ll Outline Gun Proposal Next Month
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Again: How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I’m starting to think this back&forth with you isn’t going to go anywhere, but in a genuine attempt avoid that…

I do not support the ‘banning’ of all weapons/guns.
I understand some folks do. But that is not my position.

Are there any restrictions that you support?
I understand it’s a question maybe best avoided answering here (gotta keep your gun cred!), but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?

(*As defined by listens2glenn as ‘A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed.’)

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

For myself, I’m not against private civilian possession of full-auto weapons, but I am for something resembling todays class 3 FFL for a private citizen to legally be in possession of such weapons.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM

So you favor and support some gun control.
So do I.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?

(*As defined by listens2glenn as ‘A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed.’)

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Damn buddy, no one can buy automatic weapons. You can get them, but the permitting is extremely rigorous and goes way beyond what’s required for handgun/rifle sales.

darwin on December 21, 2012 at 1:16 PM

This week I joined the NRA and as soon as I can take a local Basic Gun Safety training course and get a license I will be getting a gun.

Thanks Mayor Bloomberg, for helping me clarify my thinking on this issue.

EA_MAN on December 21, 2012 at 1:16 PM

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM

.
How are any of the hypothetical proposals presumed to do that?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

.
Ok, I back-tracked to the beginning of this argument . . . . .

Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Instead of arguing with these so called enlightened “liberals” , find a TEA or 912 group, or AFP, conservative group that you can support and join. The idea of a gunfight at my front door scares the he!! Out of me, but if it comes to that then so be it. I will not allow my rights or guns to be confiscated. But there is another way. Come together as conservatives and start working to remove the libs we have in our local, state and Federal govt. Lets fight them before they come for our guns, lets put a whole bunch of these libs, out on the street. Stop waiting for them to move against you, if they want to grab your guns you grab a recall petition and force them to defend their turf, make it cost them dearly to stay in office. Watch what they do and say and don’t allow them to operate in secret. Find out what it takes torecall or remove and work that way. Timeto fight for what you believe in. If you snooze, you lose.

stormridercx4 on December 21, 2012 at 1:22 PM

For myself, I’m not against private civilian possession of full-auto weapons, but I am for something resembling todays class 3 FFL for a private citizen to legally be in possession of such weapons.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM
.
So you favor and support some gun control.
So do I.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
For full-auto, I’m for licensing. Should licensing be Federal or State controlled? That’s another argument.

Civilian (semi-auto) models of fully-auto military rifles and carbines should be no more restricted than a breech loading single shot .22LR.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Maybe I’m missing something here, but how can one have a magazine without a semi-automatic rifle? The whole point of a magazine is to feed bullets to the semi-automatic gun. If the semi-auto gun is banned, then every gun will be a single shot you load through the chamber and not by magazine.

There’s a few ‘scout’ rifles out there that are bolt action and have magazines. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ruger+scout&qpvt=ruger+scout&FORM=IGRE

John_G on December 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Hmm, i was thinking revolvers would pass the ‘semiautomatic ban’ test since there’s no magazine, but… technically i suppose they too are ‘semiautomatic’?

Midas on December 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Whether through malice, or ignorance, the nutball completely misconstrued your statement.

I’ll go with both. He ain’t too bright and lies a lot.

cozmo on December 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Is this for me?
Yes, that seems to be the essence of what’s be proposed.
Again.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Sure, I’ll bite….

Are there any restrictions that you support?

No.

I understand it’s a question maybe best avoided answering here (gotta keep your gun cred!), but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?

Oppose.

And it’s got nothing to do with keeping “gun cred.” It’s about “constitution cred.”

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’

darwin on December 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

This…

RalphyBoy on December 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM

And it’s got nothing to do with keeping “gun cred.” It’s about “constitution cred.”

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 1:34 PM

From Heller…the most recent SCOTUS ruling dealing with the 2nd amendment…from the Constitution:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM

For all the hoots and hollering the libs are doing just how will you be able to confiscate the private arms in Texas? There are no registration laws. You walk in, you pay cash, they do a background check, you walk out. Do you plan on kick in the door of everyone searches? Good luck with that.

Limerick on December 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM

If you think stopping the drug trade is a massive boondoggle and impossible just what until you try stopping the ammo trade between Mrs Cleaver and Mr Wilson.

Limerick on December 21, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Given the part of the country that Casey comes from and the number of years he has held his previous stance, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

Bull. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. He is a coward and an oathbreaker, and should be removed from office.

dominigan on December 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I don’t care what anyone’s opinions are on this matter.
Guns were meant to be borne by the individual citizen AGAINST the government when necessary.
You cannot sit here & kibbitz on the meaning of the words that are in the Constitution.
I distinctly remember founders stating that doing this very thing was wrong, in order to try & deny the people their rights.
Requiring people to buy permits is an infringement.
Restricting the ownership of arms like this is an infringement.
Freedom’s hard & it takes responsibility & we will NOT be safer in restricting people’s rights.
Frack you all who think that undermining in these ways is going to be reasonable.
It’s all infringement & if you’re for any infringements, I don’t care the frack why, you are against the Constitution.

Badger40 on December 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

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.

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I started saving up for the USS Missouri. Let them confiscate that.

Limerick on December 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Is Hot Air gonna cover La Pierre’s tone deaf press conference?

libfreeordie on December 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

libfreeordie on December 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Gee him on the right, you on the left, both tone deaf. I think I know where this spat is headed.

Limerick on December 21, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Just demostrates the validity of my criticisms yesterday that a rack of birding shotguns would be used to illustrate this article, instead of military-pattern Evil Black Rifles, the crux / lever of the Left’s demogoguery.

Do you have ANY experience or knowledge of arms, Jazz, or is this new territory for you? Such would explain your gaps of understanding and context in this series of essays. You’re right about it being a Rights thing, and in the rough outline of the transgressions taking place, but you seem clueless on the actual RKBA and technical issues and wholly ignorant on just what the status and history of the anti-gun laws of recent decades are. These elements are not a small portion of what is going on, particularly in the mindset of gun owners. We’ve ALREADY been greatly abused by tens of thousands of poorly crafted and applied anti-gun laws. Laws that do NOTHING to prevent mass murders or violent crime, while simultaneously placing repeated hurdles to LEGAL gun ownership by law abiding citizens. We’ve had quite enough before this round of horseshit began. We aren’t going to entertain a whit of it, now. The matter is much more serious, much closer to rebelious violence, than you imagine.

Celebutards and minor politicians out there saying ‘shoot the NRA’.
State Governors saying ‘confiscation is on the table’
Legislatures plotting confiscation and restraint of trade.
FEDERAL Congressmen in BOTH houses proposing outright violation of the Constitution they swore to uphold, in their intimation of criminalization and confiscation of “assault rifle” ownership – in direct contravention of the Constitution’s Article I prohibitions on enacting ex post facto laws.
A media shoveling huge lies and distortions.
A fascist Tyrant in Chief, making direct appeals to his FSA to ‘do something’ and promises of unilateral action via EO if he doesn’t get his way.

We’ve never been closer to a civil war within the last 150 years.

And the “best” defense of my 2nd Amendment rights I can find on Hot Air (or almost all of the punderati sites, OR FoxNews for that matter) is your fumbling series of essays.
My, Our, 2nd Amendment are being destroyed / sold out, everywhere I look. What remains of our Liberty and Freedom hinges on that Right, for without it nothing else can be defended. That is why it is under such assault.
I despair that the defense of that Right is so pathetically weak. I despair that it seems I will HAVE to act in the near future to fulfill my Oath, the oath 22 million other Vets have undertaken, oaths which the Left and ‘moderates’ have no concept of or intent of honoring and certainly no capacity to respect.
THAT is the path the Left is forcing our nation down. And doing it quite deliberately.

rayra on December 21, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Is Hot Air gonna cover La Pierre’s tone deaf press conference?

libfreeordie on December 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

F*ck you, you smarmy sack of shit. ‘tone deaf’ to point out that this nation practices ‘security theatre’ all over the place EXCEPT our schools, glorifies violence and murderous flame-outs by mentally disturbed drug-addled youts, then sits and whinges and seeks to destroy a key Right with ‘something must be done’ when unguarded ‘gun free zone’ schools and children are targeted?

Hot Air has gone to shit because cheap lying distortive f*ckheads like you are left to wander about the place, dropping your turds all over like the mindless farm animals you are.

rayra on December 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Is Hot Air gonna cover La Pierre’s tone deaf press conference?

libfreeordie on December 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I understand Wayne LaPierre just offered to provide an armed guard for every school, movie theater, mall, parking lot, university, playground, post office, liquor store, pet store, truck stop, restaurant, city plaza, amusement park, church, temple, mosque, Apple store, rest stop, bus stop, skating rink, and lemonade stand.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

rayra on December 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM

That was sheer poetry. Beautiful.

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

.
Is this for me?
Yes, that seems to be the essence of what’s be proposed.
Again.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
If you’re acknowledging this, then it’s hardly “hypothetical”.
The
The Second Amendment is FIRST, about self defense against a Tyranical government. Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess the same weaponry as your local and state police. Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.
.
My 1:24 PM comment is for you, as well. Reposting:

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
For full-auto, I’m for licensing. Should licensing be Federal or State controlled? That’s another argument.

Civilian (semi-auto) models of fully-auto military rifles and carbines should be no more restricted than a breech loading single shot .22LR.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Cuomo Says He’ll Outline Gun Proposal Next Month
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Again: How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

You’re the one who can’t answer a simply question.

But that’s okay – because it readily illustrates to everyone the vacuousness of the oppressive-left’s position on self-defense.

BTW, you have made all manner of noises on restricting the right of self-defense

Ex:

So you favor and support some gun control.
So do I.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Are you now backtracking on that tissue?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The trolls obviously watched CNN’s coverage of the NRA presser, where they went to a commercial during the meat of the statement, after Medea “Walking-Talking-Vag1na” Benjamin stunk up the joint.

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

libfreeordie on December 21, 2012 at 2:00 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

The purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution is a constraint on government.

Why are petty tyrants like Bloomy trying to remove that Constraint?

Throw us bone here Oppressives – answer one question with a straight answer.

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

I understand Wayne LaPierre just offered to provide an armed guard for every school, movie theater, mall, parking lot, university, playground, post office, liquor store, pet store, truck stop, restaurant, city plaza, amusement park, church, temple, mosque, Apple store, rest stop, bus stop, skating rink, and lemonade stand.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

.
If the owners/managers of the afore mentioned institutions were armed and disciplined; problem solved. Without any extra tax money being spent, either.
It’s past time for American citizens to be firearms saavy and disciplined again.

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I understand Wayne LaPierre just offered to provide an armed guard for every school, movie theater, mall, parking lot, university, playground, post office, liquor store, pet store, truck stop, restaurant, city plaza, amusement park, church, temple, mosque, Apple store, rest stop, bus stop, skating rink, and lemonade stand.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Once again, gun bans won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A gun ban will be just as effective as that ban on marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and the willfully obtuse pontifications of Liberals.

But should it come to pass, I’ll still be armed. And you, and your children, will still be dependant upon others to keep you safe.

M240H on December 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Unfortunately this excessive use of law to bludgeon Americans into obedience never works. By definition approximately 100 million Americans (and over over a billion people worldwide) are felonious , unidicted PIRATES for sharing copyright protected music or videos under liberal-inspired intellectual property laws. It is annoying to be hit with the glaring FBI WARNING whenever playing a DVD.In fact it starts making you sympathize with the bad guys.

It will be similar if law enforcement is used as the hammer by our legislators to enforce de-gunning (taking away all our firearms) or under-gunning the good guys (taking away more sophisticated weaponry so that the bad guys outgun us). You have to remember that several hundred MILLION ILLEGAL weapons are circulating around the globe. These will all be available when the good guys are forced to turn in their weapons. Of course when the good guy then turns around and buys an illegal weapon he now becomes a bad guy in the eyes of the law.

As far as I’m concerned-as with intellectual property-this ARTIFICIAL LEGISLATIVE CREATION of criminals will soon lead to the stark realization that legally there will be more criminals than noncriminals. When this happens all respect for law and order disappears.

MaiDee on December 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Hmm, i was thinking revolvers would pass the ‘semiautomatic ban’ test since there’s no magazine, but… technically i suppose they too are ‘semiautomatic’?

Midas on December 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Again, a revolver is not a semi-automatic. A semi-automatic loads a fresh round into the chamber immediately upon firing the previous round, using the energy of the previous round. A revolver only puts a new round into firing position when the trigger is pulled or the hammer is pulled back.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I understand Wayne LaPierre just offered to provide an armed guard for every school, movie theater, mall, parking lot, university, playground, post office, liquor store, pet store, truck stop, restaurant, city plaza, amusement park, church, temple, mosque, Apple store, rest stop, bus stop, skating rink, and lemonade stand.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

No, I don’t think that’s what he did. Because all of those places (OK, not the post office) can already put armed guards out if they so desire (or allow their customers or employees to carry weapons). One of the main points was that children are vulnerable because the law has established schools as victim disarmament zones. They should instead be allowed to defend themselves as anyone else is.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

oddly enough if the idiot had a full auto he probably would not have killed as many. muzzle rise and ammo depletion really are an issue.

dmacleo on December 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM

The purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution is a constraint on government.

Why are petty tyrants like Bloomy trying to remove that Constraint?

Throw us bone here Oppressives – answer one question with a straight answer.

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

because LOOK A SQUIRREL it scares me…

dmacleo on December 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

No, I don’t think that’s what he did.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

The troll knows full well that’s not what he said or even suggested. It’s typical of liberals to grossly overstate their opponent’s position.

That, and he apparently thinks that protection means protection everywhere, provided by someone other than yourself. That’s how liberals look at people, as helpless babes in the woods who need a nanny to hold their hand through life. Walk into an ice cream shop that has no armed guard? Oh, no! Who will protect you?? Certainly not you!

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

CurtZHP on December 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

He knows I know.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Does this man have even the faintest grip on reality?

Another Drew on December 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Does this man have even the faintest grip on reality?

Another Drew on December 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM

What man would that be?

cozmo on December 21, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I understand Wayne LaPierre just offered to provide an armed guard for every school, movie theater, mall, parking lot, university, playground, post office, liquor store, pet store, truck stop, restaurant, city plaza, amusement park, church, temple, mosque, Apple store, rest stop, bus stop, skating rink, and lemonade stand.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM

No, I don’t think that’s what he did. Because all of those places (OK, not the post office) can already put armed guards out if they so desire (or allow their customers or employees to carry weapons). One of the main points was that children are vulnerable because the law has established schools as victim disarmament zones. They should instead be allowed to defend themselves as anyone else is.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Ok, fair enough point.
Why only one armed guard?
Not sure that’s enough…right?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:06 PM

But should it come to pass, I’ll still be armed. And you, and your children, will still be dependant upon others to keep you safe.

M240H on December 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

See…the problem with that assertion is it doesn’t match up with reality. As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am. Also, your children (God forbid) stand an infinitely greater chance of being killed or hurt by a gun. I assume nothing less than you are incredibly responsible and thoughtful when it comes to the use and securing of whatever weapons you own.
But regardless…I and my family are much much safer than you
and yours.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

If someone wants to do you harm you could always tackle them I suppose.

darwin on December 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Still waiting for some answers:

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

The purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution is a constraint on government.

Why are the petty tyrants trying to remove that Constraint?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 3:21 PM

See…the problem with that assertion is it doesn’t match up with reality. As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am. Also, your children (God forbid) stand an infinitely greater chance of being killed or hurt by a gun. I assume nothing less than you are incredibly responsible and thoughtful when it comes to the use and securing of whatever weapons you own.
But regardless…I and my family are much much safer than you
and yours.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Then Sandy Hook never happened, and all of this is moot.

WryTrvllr on December 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM

In the end, if they were to actually try to dismantle the second amendment, our best response might be total non-cooperation. Total.

trigon on December 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I have always loved the liberal mental masturbation on gun control. They must all be yoga fanatics. We have, arguably, the worst economy since the great depression, yet, inconceivably (at least to the NYT) violent crime continues to drop. The state of VA just reported lower crime AFTER concealed carry. Those are real people being NOT killed. We just don’t have a picture of them. And a picture is all a liberal can respond to.

People (non-liberal ones) are not stupid. They see the lower crime rates. They know they are among concealed carry holders and are getting used to it. In much the same way they know inflation is way up, regardless of the Gov published CPI. They know it’s cold outside. If they’re in Russia, they’re freezing to death. They know the job market isn’t very good. And, they know that 16 trillion is a bad thing. That’s why they party when they can.

2+2 still equals 4.

Verb. Dare you. Put a sign on your lawn stating you are unarmed. Seems to me you are relying on herd immunization.

WryTrvllr on December 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Oh, and verb, want to do something for the children? And home break-ins?

Make the purchase of a 700lb Fort Knox gun safe a total write-off.

WryTrvllr on December 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am. Also, your children (God forbid) stand an infinitely greater chance of being killed or hurt by a gun.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Bullhockey.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 4:35 PM

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12

Unless of course you have a swimming pool. Or shower in a bathtub instead of a shower stall.

Coincidence is not causality. If things get bad in your area, by all means reason with those who attack you, your home and your family. Call 911 and cower in the basement if you like. I am certain your family will appreciate your heroic run and hide efforts.

Myself and others prefer other contingency plans. How dare you try to push legislation that would allow the federal government to dictate how I choose to defend my family.

ROCnPhilly on December 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Ok, fair enough point.
Why only one armed guard?
Not sure that’s enough…right?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:06 PM

That would depend on the tactical situation. A large school might require more.

Of course, your point is to try and throw out the idea altogether by pitching the red herring that someone doesn’t have a full and complete plan for every eventuality. Ridding ourselves of the mandated victim disarmament zones is the key. After the mandate is gone, individual communities can decide what they want to do. Then the results will be on their heads.

GWB on December 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Lets roll it back to why our predocesors put in the 2nd Amendment.

So the Govt would remain respectful of its citizens, even fearful of its citizens.

Our Founding fathers could never have envisioned semi-auto weapon technology—-that is the reason the Left throws out to ban them.

Well…..our founding fathers could never have envisioned the Govt having them either. Now go back to Sentence number 2 of my post.

sbark on December 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am. Also, your children (God forbid) stand an infinitely greater chance of being killed or hurt by a gun.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

What are you basing that claim on?

Mimzey on December 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM

JOIN THE NRA NOW!

TX-96 on December 21, 2012 at 7:32 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

You are quite full of horse hockey. Gee, so with that logic, YOU since you have a car, are more likely to kill your child with your car because you drive the child around in a car? right ?

And, you are more likely to drown in a pool if you have one?

And more likely to trip over your dog and fall into the pool if you have a dog and a pool?

Shut up.

TX-96 on December 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I understand it’s a question maybe best avoided answering here (gotta keep your gun cred!), but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?
 
(*As defined by listens2glenn as ‘A firearm that fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is depressed.’)
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

 
So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.
 
Get specific and provide numbers. Numbers like “3″:
 

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.
 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

rogerb on December 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I said it before and I’ll say it again.

This is nothing but an attempt at citizen control.

hillbillyjim on December 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Myself and others prefer other contingency plans. How dare you try to push legislation that would allow the federal government to dictate how I choose to defend my family.
ROCnPhilly on December 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM

How many contingency plans do you have?
Surely not enough…right?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:15 PM

As a gun owner, you are significantly more likely to come to harm than I am.
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM
You are quite full of horse hockey. Gee, so with that logic, YOU since you have a car, are more likely to kill your child with your car because you drive the child around in a car? right ?
And, you are more likely to drown in a pool if you have one?
And more likely to trip over your dog and fall into the pool if you have a dog and a pool?
Shut up.
TX-96 on December 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Actually…
Cars, pools, and even dogs are subject to more registration, safety regulations,and permitting.
So there’s that.
But I suppose as I support that you’d offer I am for ‘banning’ cars, pools, and dogs.
(To be honest…not really much of a dog guy.)

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

verbaluce !

Are you going to respond to this or not?

How does taking away someone’s right of self defense protect them?

Galt2009 on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM
.

How are any of the hypothetical proposals presumed to do that?

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:23 AM

.
Are there or are there not proposals to ban private ownership of civilian (semi-auto) models of military (full-auto) rifles, and carbines?

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM
.

Is this for me?
Yes, that seems to be the essence of what’s be proposed.
Again.

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:31 PM

.
If you’re acknowledging this, then it’s hardly “hypothetical”.
The Second Amendment is FIRST, about self defense against a Tyranical government. Common criminals come after that.
Then dangerous/nuisance animals … and so on.

Citizens should be allowed to possess the same weaponry as your local and state police. Anything less than that, means your ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical government is compromised. Period.
.
My 1:24 PM comment is for you, as well. Reposting:

verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:12 PM

.
For full-auto, I’m for licensing. Should licensing be Federal or State controlled? That’s another argument.

Civilian (semi-auto) models of fully-auto military rifles and carbines should be no more restricted than a breech loading single shot .22LR.
listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM

The venom against George Bush during, and after, his administration was wicked. They hate(d) the man. Breaking the Nazi rule at every turn. What I do not understand is what these liberals think will stop a tyrant as evil as a Bush. What if he DID have megalomaniac desires. What stops him? How can it be anything but the gunsafes spread around the nation in the homes of citizens. Freedom of Speech? That will stop a tyrant?

I do not understand that hypocrisy. If you are going to name the tyrant name the means to stop him.

RutRoh on December 22, 2012 at 1:08 AM

I’ve just sprinkled these around the other ignorant-liberal -trolled topics. Jazz should read them too.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
—George Mason

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

rayra on December 22, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Cars, pools, and even dogs are subject to more registration, safety regulations,and permitting.
 
So there’s that.
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 10:21 PM

 
The post in which you yourself admit that even highly-micromanaged registration, safety regulations (many of them extremely local), and permits can’t prevent the vast majority of tragedies.
 
So there’s that.
 
Well done.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:39 AM

…but would you support/oppose making illegal the possession of fully automatic weapons*?
 
verbaluce on December 21, 2012 at 1:08 PM

 

So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.
 

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.
 
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

 
rogerb on December 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

 
So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people…by the gradual…silent encroachments… made by those having political power.. than by violent and sudden usurptations.

James Madison

The Second Amendment is a DOOMSDAY PROVISION, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their designs.
However these continencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a MISTAKE a free people get to make only once.

Alex Kosinski
Former Federal Appeals Judge
and immigrant from Eastern Europe

One either understands this or doesn’t. It’s a waste of time trying to convince others of these facts who refuse to listen. They are either willfully ignorant, mendacious or have nefarious plans of their own.

sanjuro on December 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM

So you support an absolute full auto ban, verbaluce ? Fair enough. Now tell us what it would prevent.

Only three cases have been documented where the owner of a registered machine gun has done anything illegal with one.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/mediapages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

rogerb on December 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

 
I guess not.
 
I suppose your 7:42 post this morning on your ha-ha-dead-children thread will do fine countering your semi-religious full-auto position in this thread:
 

Thing is though, your ‘beliefs’ are not what matters here.
 
verbaluce on December 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

 
Well put, btw.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

listens2glenn on December 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM

.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

.
VERBALUCE ! … where are you ? ! !

listens2glenn on December 22, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I said it before and I’ll say it again.

This is nothing but an attempt at citizen control.

hillbillyjim
on December 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM

.
True enough, ‘jim.

But citizen control is just a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal.

The common American citizen is the biggest obstacle to that goal.

It’s the Second Amendment that enables us to be this obstacle.

listens2glenn on December 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

So you don’t want provide the readers with the estimated number of crimes you’re going to prevent with a no-exceptions civilian ban on full auto weapons, verbaluce?
 
rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 4:42 AM

 

I guess not.
 
rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

 
So a dead thread, verbaluce?
 
I guess it’s easier than defending flawed religious views, eh?
 
Well done.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Howdy all
So they think they can just take all semi auto’s, as there flying off the shelfs, hell at gander mountain they only had two boxes of 223, and don’t get a shipment till Thursday ….The ppl have spoken……….;)

angrymike on December 22, 2012 at 8:35 PM

So a dead thread, verbaluce?

I guess it’s easier than defending flawed religious views, eh?

Well done.

rogerb on December 22, 2012 at 8:30 PM

.
Awww, gee whiz roger’ … you ran him (her?) off !

I was having such a great time, too … : )

listens2glenn on December 22, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Well done Jazz Shaw!

DaMav on December 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Uhhh . . . . . . 200?

listens2glenn on December 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3