December 28, 2012

"Gregory had no intent to commit a crime; he was committing journalism instead."

"Gun owners often say they want the government to leave them alone; why then are some clamoring for Gregory to be prosecuted?"

Asks Howard Kurtz, with amazing naivete. The implied argument is quite weird and perverse.

First, he's got this either/or premise: If you're doing one thing, you're not doing something else. If you're doing journalism, you can't also be doing something else. That might make sense if the crime in question had a required mental element that would be negated by the intent to "commit journalism," but it doesn't. Mere possession is enough. The most virtuous individuals with the best intentions get stuck with this law applying to them. If you don't like that, then you don't like this law. You've got an objection to the law, and yet, ironically, Gregory was arguing for more laws like that! That was the nature of the "journalism" he was "committing." He ought to be the first one prosecuted, not the last.

Second, Kurtz, a journalist himself, is mired the same sense of entitlement that people are objecting to in Gregory. He thinks journalists are special people who float above it all, who don't live in reality. You are the very people who are supposed to be observing reality, understanding it, and explaining it. But you don't even see that you are part of it. You have less awareness of it than the people you're getting paid to inform. Maybe you think you're just too important to have your time wasted by consequences that would befall ordinary people. You need to be free to continue to sit there mouthing outrage about the next terrible thing that befalls some ordinary person out there in the real world.

Third, Kurtz thinks he's caught others in hypocrisy. If gun owners want the government to leave them alone, why would they want Gregory to be prosecuted? It's like Kurtz wants us to laugh in his face. Yet he seems to think he's being quite clever. Why would he think that? Puzzling, isn't it? My only answer is that he does not believe in the rule of law. It doesn't occur to him that what gun owners who "want the government to leave them alone" want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment. Why should these people like it if one privileged, prominent man escapes prosecution? The laws remain, affecting everyone else, even as the oppressiveness of the laws is falsely minimized.

375 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 375 of 375
EMD said...

If someone persuades me there's a good reason not to ban them I'm listening.

When it comes to governance and freedom, I believe that the burden of proof is on the side that wishes to deprive men of liberty, not endorse it.

Shouting Thomas said...

On the other hand, I'll bet the nature and scope of that "internal controversy" has changed considerably since December 14.

I'd bet it hasn't.

I see four potential outcomes among residents.

1. Gun owners become more entrenched in their opinion, since their belief that they need guns for self-defense has only been confirmed.

2. Gun haters become more entrenched in their opinion, since their belief that gun prohibition will stop such slaughters has only been confirmed.

3. Some gun advocates will be so horrified by the slaughter that they will change their position.

4. Some gun haters will become so paranoid and fearful as a result of the slaughter that they will change their position.

Result = a complete wash!

Comanche Voter said...

Geez Louise;

Hitler thought he was just cleaning the room when he murdered 6 million Jews;

Colonel Chivington at Sand Creek thought it was okaky to slaughter women and children because "Nits make lice."

I mean the whole blamed liberal world focuses on intentions--if your intentions are good, why then you've done nothing wrong.

In the rather harder edged conservative world we focus on actions---I don't care how you run your mouth, or what intentions you have (well there is the element of mens rea in criminal law where intention sometimes characterizes the crime) if you break the law, you break the law.

And when it comes to current Federal regulation, the gubmint pretty much doesn't care what your intentions are--if you do X and X is prohibited, why you've broken the law and there's no excuse.

So why does this little wanker David Gregory get a pass from Howard Kurtz? Oh, that's right--these draconian laws are for the "little people"--and if you're part of the gang, you can do what you damned well please.

Jay said...

phx said...

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.


Now that also says a lot about your intellect.

Hey, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are like super-duper informed on medicine, right? I mean, they gave us Obamacare and they know a "lot more" about medical care than the average person, don't they?

Crunchy Frog said...

Northridge CA, 1994. Could have been useful for a law abiding gun owner at the time. Like the cops who had to commandeer a gun store to get the needed fire power to take the robber-killers down.

That was Sherman Oaks. Northridge was the eathquake (different part of the Valley, but still).

Couple of second-generation Russians held up the Washington Mutual with fully automatic weapons and body armor. LAPD was on the scene prtty quickly but was severely outgunned with only their service pistols.

So someone got the bright idea to make a run over to B&B Gun Sales to pick up some better firepower (AR-15s I think?) and even the odds. The bad guys were dealt with soon after.

There was some controversy over one of the perps being allowed to bleed out while the cops secured the area, ostensibly in search of a third guy who turned out not to exist, and the mom sued the City. Thankfully she lost.

Less publicized was the fact that the LA government was so embarrassed by the ordeal that they later hounded B&B out of business, so as to wipe them out of the community's collective memory banks.

Big Mike said...

I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines, and 2) It's a very good time to discuss the accessbility to semi-automatic weapons.

@phx, the point about large capacity magazines is that banning them would have no discernible effect on any mass shooting. Consider Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter at Ft. Hood. He killed 13 trained soldiers and wounded another 29 -- he changed out his handgun magazines too rapidly to be neutralized even by trained and experienced warriors. Yet rifle magazines take even less time to replace an empty one with a full one.

On the other hand, there is an excellent use case for large capacity magazines, in the Southwestern United States where a ranch owner or farmer may find himself face to face with heavily armed drug smugglers and those two seconds might be the difference between life and death. Related to that are home invasions, which are becoming more rare these days but still happen. Four or five armed thugs might burst through a door and a rifle with only ten rounds in it may not nearly be enough.

As to "discuss[ing] the accessbility to [sic] semi-automatic weapons," are you not aware that this describes nearly all handguns since the end of the 19th century? Nearly all rifles since the early 20th? Most shotguns since sometime in the 1950s (N.B., semi-automatic shotguns were invented in 1902. "Semi-automatic" merely means that you point the gun, you squeeze the trigger, and it goes "bang" precisely once until you pull the trigger again. (Make that "at most once" because guns do jam.) I don't understand how a rational person can propose to limit access to that which is ubiquitous.

This is not special pleading on my part. I don't own a semi-automatic rifle or handgun and have no immediate plans to purchase one. But reality is reality, and in this case you need to recognize that reality is not on the side of Senator Feinstein.

Jay said...

phx said...

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.


Hey stupid: Lanza killed all those children with handguns.

Of course you're running away from your continued idiotic narrative here.

Big Mike said...

My vote counts as much as yours, and if I want to vote for the worse junkyard dog who can't stand gun owners just for that reason, I will.

Ouch! If you wanted to tell the world that you're fresh out of college (if that!) and not all that knowledgeable in the real world, you just stood on the table to proclaim it.

Jay said...

No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines,

Nobody has made any rational argument why we should ban large capacity magazines.

Lem said...

Is it possible the media that exposed Nixon is now claiming executive privilege?

That would just be deliciously fantastic.

TosaGuy said...

"I also said I did favor banning large cap magazines. If someone persuades me there's a good reason not to ban them I'm listening."

Please persuade us as to why infringing on the right to possess such an item is a good idea. I'm listening.

Isn't it up to the side who wants to restrict things to make the persuasive argument?

SGT Ted said...

Making observations on the very obvious elite classism and double standard revealed by the aftermath of the Conn. shooting by the progs in their calling for magazine bans, all the while quite prepared to completely excuse Gregory for violating THE EXACT SAME LAW THEY CALL FOR within a month of the shooting isn't a straw man.

It is entirely the point. It is Althouses main point. I merely expanded on it and gave it an historical perspective of the prog mindset.

Nice try at deflection though.

But, your side is being Alinskyed right now quite effectively, which is just delicious.

Breitbart lives.

Big Mike said...

@Jay, my understanding is that the Newtown shooter did use his Bushmaster (not "Bushwacker," unless you were being funny). The MSM reporting on this was pretty confused and someone seems to have conflated the shotgun that the shooter left behind in his car with the Bushmaster AR-15 clone he carried and erroneously written that he left the Bushmaster behind in the car. I suspect he planned to use the shotgun to blast his way into the building but discovered that the doors were easily opened with only his rifle.

glenn said...

So when you get busted for some silly billy fine generator declare yourself a "Journalist" and walk away.

TosaGuy said...

"Consider Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter at Ft. Hood. He killed 13 trained soldiers and wounded another 29 -- he changed out his handgun magazines too rapidly to be neutralized even by trained and experienced warriors."

I wouldn't consider a bunch of army lawyers and medical personal to be trained warriors (most of those in that room), but he still would have done severe damage to roomful of unarmed infantry also.

Michael in ArchDen said...

Any truth to the rumor that Whoopi Goldberg says Gregory wasn't guilty of "possesion-possesion"?

Jay said...

Big Mike,

I was referring to this post:

phx said...
Also ... I concoct a bomb out of over-the-counter goods, and kill 29 people in a school, devastating the community.

Bombs are illegal right? Bushwhackers with large capacity magazines are not. That's what we should be talking about IMO.


12/28/12 11:45 AM


Yes, the reporting is all over the place and we won't know what happened for a few months probably.

Big Mike said...

@Jay, my apologies.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm just a voter who's not making a claim to expertise on any of the issues that confront us.

If anyone has a problem with that too fucking bad. My vote counts as much as yours,


I DO have a problem with that.

Ignorant, uninformed, STUPID people voting based on hot air, propaganda and misinformation. Idiotic political dunces, making policies about things that they have no clue. Knee jerk, emotional reactionaries.

YES. I have a problem with stupid, clueless people making decisions about anything, much less deciding to violate the Constitution and take away our rights.

Big Mike said...

@Shouting Thomas, regarding your comment at 12:03. I think #4 is the null set, and #3 not much larger.

But let's consider the cardinality of the set of all people in #2 who nevertheless own guns and have no plans to give them up despite the laws that they themselves promulgate. I think that's going to be a pretty large set, don't you? I mean, how do you know David Gregory wasn't bringing his own magazine from his own AR-15?

YoungHegelian said...

@Everyone,

If you look through this thread, we've got to over 200 comments with decent give & take, and no one getting called a fucked-up right/left wing-nut or a moronic prick/cunt (there was one "hey, stupid shit", but that's a kiss on the cheek by internet standards).

Good Job!

We should do this more often.

SGT Ted said...

(there was one "hey, stupid shit", but that's a kiss on the cheek by internet standards).

hah! so true!

Tim said...

phx said...

"And I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines..."

I hear you. Totally.

So then, please tell us what good arguments you agree with that we should allow:

…freedom of speech;
…freedom of the press;
…freedom of assembly;
…the right to petition;
…the free exercise of religion;
…the right to keep and bear arms;
…protection from quartering of troops.
…protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
…protection of due process;
…protection against double jeopardy;
…protection against self-incrimination;
…protection against eminent domain;
…the right to trial by jury and rights of the accused;
…the right to speedy trial;
…the right to public trial;
…the right to counsel;
…the right to civil trial by jury;
…protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment;
…protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution;
…protection of the rights States and people.

I mean, since you are so quick to limit and reduce the scope of protections "allowed" American citizens under the Second Amendment, you must be willing to do so for other basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution, right?

Marshal said...

YoungHegelian said...
@Everyone,

If you look through this thread, we've got to over 200 comments with decent give & take, and no one getting called a fucked-up right/left wing-nut or a moronic prick/cunt (there was one "hey, stupid shit", but that's a kiss on the cheek by internet standards).

Good Job!

phx's first comment:

phx said...
Okay fine. Wingers seem to think Gregory should be arrested and have the book thrown at him.

Marshal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TexasJew said...

J School is where the morons from the slightly stupider School of Education go if they can demonstrate the surprising ability to spell.

YoungHegelian said...

@marshall,

Wingers seem to think Gregory should be arrested and have the book thrown at him.

The righties here say some nasty things about X or Y folks in general, too.

I'm talking about ad hominem shout-fests. Not saying bad things about X or Y group one doesn't agree with.

Geez, if we got rid of that, we'd have to shut down every opinion board on the web!

X said...

Tim, if I read the 19th amendment as narrowly as the left reads the 2nd, Congress could limit the vote to the male gender.

phx said...

phx said...
Okay fine. Wingers seem to think Gregory should be arrested and have the book thrown at him.


Ha ha ha, Marshal! Look at the names that I've been called in this thread! And you're picking on me b/c I referred to "Wingers"?

Boy, you're a fine one.

Lem said...

Nice comback Tim@12:35 PM

Thats a lot of hand btw.

phx said...

I agree with YoungHegelian, it's been a pretty decent thread.

I actually enjoy arguing with "wingers" (that's for Marshal). It's calling names and making it personal that's kind of a drag.

phx said...

Boy, you're a fine one.

Next I'll be accused of calling Marshal "Boy"!

holdfast said...

@Hunter - I would say that "semi-automatic", broadly defined, would have to include all double-action revolvers too.

I think it's funny how SMGalbraith is too stupid to understand how intent simply is not an element in a strict liability crime.

If I chose to lock up my pistol and its 11 round mag in a locked case, in the locked trunk of my car and then drive from CT, across NY, to Pennsylvania to go shooting with a buddy, I would be committing at least 2 crimes. While the pistol and mag are perfectly legal for me to possess in CT and PA, in NY I would be a criminal for possessing a pistol without an appropriate NY license (which a CT resident can't get, even if he lives within spitting distance of the NY border) and for having a banned mag. Clearly I would not be intending to commit a crime - far from it, I just want to safely and legally go shooting with my buddy. Unfortunately, the NY police and prosecutors would not see it that way - they would treat me as a gunrunner.

Funny enough, there's even a Federal law designed to protect me from those capricious Empire Staters - it's called the Firearms Owners Protection Act - but NY doesn't respect this piece of Federal civil rights law. They would arrest and charge me, take away my firearms, and bring me to trial. Once at trial, I could asset FOPA as an affirmative defense. And, after great expense and waste of time (and after earning an arrest record and losing my property) I would likely be acquitted.

So yes, David Gregory should be arrested and charged. Not because I dislike him intensely (though I do) but to demonstrate to all the liberal and gun-grabbers out there just how awful the DC firearms laws are. Come on David, take one for the greater good!

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

luagha said...

Another thing that I haven't seen posted and that I really thought liberals would be able to understand:

We want Gregory to feel our pain!

Go down to the station house, turn in your plea, get a misdemeanor on your record, pay the fine. Feel our pain!

Yes, it's stupid! Yes we know! Yes, the law needs to be changed!

You can't be a journalist until you feel our pain!

TANSTAAFL said...

The time has come for this nation to pass some sensible press control laws.

Marshal said...

YoungHegelian said...

I'm talking about ad hominem shout-fests. Not saying bad things about X or Y group one doesn't agree with.


Winger is an intentional insult, not a policy others disagree with. So you excuse for him doesn't fit the circumstance.

Marshal said...

phx said...
Ha ha ha, Marshal! Look at the names that I've been called in this thread! And you're picking on me b/c I referred to "Wingers"?


Funny how after you insult people they insult you back. Maybe there's some commonsense strategy you could employ like not insulting them first.

phx said...

Winger is an intentional insult, not a policy others disagree with. So you excuse for him doesn't fit the circumstance.

Are you ignoring me Marshal? What about the names that I was called here - specifically me? What about what's been said to me?

And you chastise me because I refered to "wingers"?

You have such poor judgment.

Kit said...

YES. I have a problem with stupid, clueless people making decisions about anything,

*shrug* Humans. Meh. We're all stupid at something...

ac5a5674-5121-11e2-8b8b-000bcdcb5194 said...

Mr. Kurtz mistakes motive for intent. One is not mutually exclusive with the other under the law, but only one is required to determine guilt.

Jay said...

TANSTAAFL said...
The time has come for this nation to pass some sensible press control laws


We need to ban David Gregory! Get this loon off the street now!

Bruce Hayden said...

As to "discuss[ing] the accessbility to [sic] semi-automatic weapons," are you not aware that this describes nearly all handguns since the end of the 19th century? Nearly all rifles since the early 20th? Most shotguns since sometime in the 1950s (N.B., semi-automatic shotguns were invented in 1902. "Semi-automatic" merely means that you point the gun, you squeeze the trigger, and it goes "bang" precisely once until you pull the trigger again. (Make that "at most once" because guns do jam.) I don't understand how a rational person can propose to limit access to that which is ubiquitous.

A couple of nits historically. While many revolvers may technically be semi-automatics, I don't think that is what most people think of with that term, and the movement from revolvers to the magazine fed semi-automatics that are fairly ubiquitous now may have gotten a shove with that LAPD incident mentioned above.

The M-1 Garand was formally adopted in (I believe) 1936 by the U.S. military, and was the first semi-automatic rifle adopted by a major military (they had earlier standardized on the magazine fed 1911 .45 ACP pistol) Part of the rationale was apparently the belief that one of the reasons that WWI was so bloody was that infantry with bolt action rifles were attacking well entrenched interlocking water cooled machine gun positions, to little avail. The Enfield and related bolt action rifles just couldn't put down enough fire.

That semi-automatic M-1 Garand, along with the related M-2 carbine, were the rifles that the Greatest Generation went to war with, and millions were surplussed after the war. There was an attempt in the 1950s to replace it with a fully automatic M-14, which never performed well, except for the most experienced shooters, and then in the 1960s, by the select fire AR descended M-16 and later M-4 carbine. We now have maybe 45 years of military trained on this type of weapon, which is why its civilian semi-automatic version is so popular - nearing half of all rifles sold last year.

Finally, I do question whether most, or even a majority, of shotguns are semi-automatic. My guess is that pump shotguns are are most popular, then followed by your semi-automatics and double barreled (or other guns that break to load), and finally by fully automatic guns.

Boaz said...

Second, Kurtz, a journalist himself, is mired the same sense of entitlement that people are objecting to in Gregory. He thinks journalists are special people who float above it all, who don't live in reality. You are the very people who are supposed to be observing reality, understanding it, and explaining it. But you don't even see that you are part of it. You have less awareness of it than the people you're getting paid to inform. Maybe you think you're just too important to have your time wasted by consequences that would befall ordinary people. You need to be free to continue to sit there mouthing outrage about the next terrible thing that befalls some ordinary person out there in the real world.

I am reminded about an exchange I have read about from the old series Ethics in America. The moderator asked Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace if they would warn American and allied troops of an ambush that he was filming. After some thought, Jennings said that he would try to warn the Americans, even though he would likely be killed. Wallace cuts into him: a reporter should be detached from the story and let the ambush take place.

The response from Colonel George M. Connell, USMC: “I have utter contempt,” he said. “Two days later they’re both walking off my hilltop, two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines up there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Oh, we’ll do it, and that’s what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get a couple of journalists.”

(video here: http://newsbusters.org/node/4479)

I Callahan said...

I see four potential outcomes among residents.

I see a fifth. People who don't fall into the 4 categories (ie, have no real opinion) become so grief-stricken thanks to the media coverage that they join category #2.

Ken said...

phx,

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to large capacity magazines.

I'm still waiting for a good argument for people to have rights taken away without due process. Have you forgotten we live a free society? Meaning you have to come up with a good reason to deny freedom. As a free man, I don't need a reason to exercise my freedoms.

I Callahan said...

Lanza killed all those children with handguns.

I've not heard this point made by the media since the day it happened. This is probably not being covered because it doesn't fit the assault weapon narrative.

In other words, that's probably exactly what happened.

Jay said...

Ken,

You're just a silly winger!

See, when good, benevolent leftists like phx don't like something, then it should be banned.

And you just sit in the corner and shut up.

Bob Engler said...

Jay @ 12:02

Children won't be safe until we get rid of cars. And driveways. More than 200 kids die each year when a car runs over them in a driveway.

About 800 children drown every year. AGGGHHHH! Get rid of all the water.

What else can we get rid of to make children safe, Jay? I'd start with a $16T federal debt, but that's just me.

Pat said...

Simple question for Gregory, or anyone who supports him.
If some teenager was found with such a magazine, and said in defence that he merely wished to show it to his friends, is said teenager guilty of owning an illegal magazine or not?
If the teenager is, then so is Gregory.
If Gregory's excuse is acceptable, then so so is the teenager's- and since knowing this everyone will give this same excuse the law becomes a dead letter.

EMD said...

Wingers

Wait, he's not talking about Debra and Kip?

phx said...

I'm still waiting for a good argument for people to have rights taken away without due process. Have you forgotten we live a free society? Meaning you have to come up with a good reason to deny freedom.

Ken you and several people made the same argument. I accept that's a reasonable argument to make. I haven't responded b/c I'm still thinking about it.

It may - MAY - fall in that area for me that RPGs fall under. Yes, we're a free people but some self-indulgences can be denied to a people without it becoming tyranny.

But I'm still thinking about it.

SGT Ted said...

Considering that muskets were military arms during the founding, I'd say the civilian equivalent in semi-auto of any AR currently carried by todays Army is justifiable under the 2nd amendment.

SGT Ted said...

To include 30 round magazines.

Ken said...

phx,

There's a difference between what 20 people murdered in a variety of incidents over a period of time and 20 people suddenly killed in a community like Newton for instance.

Really? Please inform all of us as to how it's different that Ted Bundy killed over 30 women by blugeoning them to death and how Adam Lanza is much much worse because he used a gun. Is it really so much worse to kill 30 people all at once, rather than over a period of time? If so, then you really don't know what you are talking about. 30 dead is 30 dead. Nothing makes one set of dead better or worse than the other set.

The knee jerk reaction to deny law abiding citizens freedom due to a particular person's actions is disgusting and scary in it's tyrannical, thoughtless nature. Are you also going to call for the ban on fertilizer or moving trucks? After all, those two items were crucial in the worst domestic terrorist attach in US history.

phx said...

Wait, he's not talking about Debra and Kip?

I think they're both libtards. I was refering to dingbats.

Dante said...

This law does seem a bit odd. If you find a large magazine near a DC school, are you allowed to pick it up? Is that possessing it? If the thing is really dangerous, one would think you would want to get it away from the school as quickly as possible.

Like, if you found a bunch of colorful pills, that might end up being meth. Doesn't it make sense to pick them up? Or perhaps one should just leave them.

Rusty said...

phx said...

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.



So much for curiosity and an open mind.
Go in peace.

I Callahan said...

Yes, we're a free people but some self-indulgences can be denied to a people without it becoming tyranny.

The question becomes: where does it stop? You see, if this "indulgence" becomes illegal, and another shooting happens that has nothing to do with assault rifles, will you move the goalposts and say another "indulgence" needs to be removed? And then another?

Look, if people really want to be a gun-free country, then repeal the 2nd amendment. Be honest about your intentions (not necessarily referring to you, phx).

phx said...

So much for curiosity and an open mind.

I think I have a fine open mind.

I am also interested in many things. Guns are fairly low on that list though, that's for sure.

Badger Pundit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

phx said...
I'm still waiting for a good argument for people to have rights taken away without due process. Have you forgotten we live a free society? Meaning you have to come up with a good reason to deny freedom.

Ken you and several people made the same argument. I accept that's a reasonable argument to make. I haven't responded b/c I'm still thinking about it.

It may - MAY - fall in that area for me that RPGs fall under. Yes, we're a free people but some self-indulgences can be denied to a people without it becoming tyranny.

But I'm still thinking about it.

You'll forgive us if we don't wait for you're faux sage and oh so predictable conclusions, won't you.

I Callahan said...

Guns are fairly low on that list though, that's for sure.

Don't take this personally, phx, but if guns are that low on your list of things to know about, don't opine on them. Make a point of understanding the basics first.

phx said...

You'll forgive us if we don't wait for you're faux sage and oh so predictable conclusions, won't you.

Rusty, you and anyone else don't have to wait or pay me any attention at all. Not only will I forgive you, in your case I may even thank you. But do whatever you like.

I don't have any illusions about how much influence my faux sagery carries.

Bruce Hayden said...

"And I haven't made my decision yet other than 1) No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines..."

And someone above asked the better question - why shouldn't we?

Here is the basic problem - the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right under our Constitution. It is the second enumerated right in our Bill of Rights (if you combine speech and religion as the 1st). And, thus, the default should be, and mostly is, that the starting assumption is that any law or regulation infringing this right is presumptively unconstitutional. This is the opposite of most legislation, which is presumptively Constitutional.

Constitutionality of laws and regulations are subject to different levels of scrutiny, depending on whether a right, and, esp. a fundamental right, is being curtailed. Roughly, scrutiny ranges from rational basis, through intermediate, to strict scrutiny, which is what is applied to the most fundamental rights.

Rational basis only requires that Congress need only have had some rational (even if mistaken) belief of the usefulness of the law. Not a hard hurdle to overcome. Strict scrutiny however requires a compelling state (i.e. government) interest AND must be narrowly tailored AND the least restrictive means to address this interest. Note the dramatically different burdens of proof here - under rational basis analysis, those attacking the law or regulation must show that it was irrational, while under strict scrutiny, the proponents must show that is is narrowly tailored, addresses a compelling state interest, etc., and the opponents merely have to show a more narrowly tailored alternative that was not adopted, etc. Under rational basis, ties go to the government, and under strict scrutiny, ties go to those opposing the laws or regulations.

Now, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to actually specify the level of scrutiny required by the 2nd Amdt., because the laws thrown out were far enough below whatever standard they would set, that it was unnecessary. Something like that. But, Judge Posner in a 7th Circuit decision a couple of weeks ago effectively laughed at the 2nd Circuit applying rational basis scrutiny to gun laws, quoting Heller and McDonald. And, in the end, the Supreme Court, even if the libs take control, are going to have a hard time imposing a significantly lower standard of scrutiny for a specifically enumerated right than they have allowed for rights found in penumbras and emendations of the Bill of Rights (i.e. privacy, and therefore contraception and abortion).

That was a long winded way of saying that the burden is on the state to adequately justify why a restriction is placed on 2nd Amdt. rights, and the default assumption is that it isn't justified.

phx said...

Nothing personal taken I Callahan. Don't take it personally if I choose for myself what I opine on, however.

Badger Pundit said...

Ann suggested (9:22 a.m.):

"I suppose, under Kurtz's theory, if you shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die, you didn't commit murder, but only watching dying."

I think her channeling of Johnny Cash has clarified David Gregory's most concise defense:  "I brought a clip on TV, just to watch Wayne [LaPierre] lie."

harrogate said...

Brent writes:

"I agree, but you should also accept the possibility that the result of the debate may be to NOT derive any legislation, or perhaps (shriek!) repeal gun control laws that already exist."

Of course I accept that possibility. Indeed, what I found so "interesting," to use a buzzword around here, was that Ann's original post seems actively sympathetic to exactly such repeals. She might even be treating as sane and sympathetic, the argument that maybe even ALL laws and regs should be repealed!

Bruce Hayden said...

I'm still waiting for a good argument for people to have rights taken away without due process.

Actually, Due Process is a different fundamental right, among those listed 5th in our Bill of Rights.

Ken said...

phx,

Yes, we're a free people but some self-indulgences can be denied to a people without it becoming tyranny.

Owning a gun is NOT a "self-indulgence". It is a foundational right to a free society. It is there for the express purpose to defense against others, including a tyrannical government, the very reason for the second amendment. And yes, our government is. becoming tyrannical and really can to be said to be tyrannical right now.

Did you not know that the president has authorized indefinite detention, in direct contravention to centuries of Western legal tradition and specific constitutional provisions? Did you not know that the president maintains a kill list and has assassinated American citizens, at least one of whom was known to have not committed any crimes, the assassination by itself being in direct contravention of the constitution? Did you not know that for decades police departments are becoming ever more militant and more disconnected from the communities they police? Did you not know police now raid houses SWAT style for non-violent offenses and for simple servings of warrants? The opacity under which governments at all levels in the US operate completely undermines the idea that we have a government of and by the people.

We have a constitution for a reason. The police state was explicity limited by this document, but instead of believing in it and following it and delivering on their oaths of office, politicians view this document as a challenge, a challenge to be gotten around, instead of a philosophic basis on which our liberties and legal system stands. If it can be ignored whenever, then WTF is it for? If our politicians are actually rulers who can do what they like, then we live under tyranny, not a republic.

Jay said...

So someone who doesn't own guns, and readily admits they don't want to know anything about guns, has all sorts of opinions on "30 round magazines"

Hysterical.

Unknown said...

garbage======Gregory is the absolute worst sort of D+ elite beltway hack. You'd think the GOP would appreciate a lot of his "work" pressing GOP narratives that Tim Russert was so fond of. =====


Ha! Comedy gold.

Dick Gregory has his lips very firmly attached to Obama and the socialist movement.

Marshal said...

I Callahan said...
The question becomes: where does it stop? You see, if this "indulgence" becomes illegal, and another shooting happens that has nothing to do with assault rifles, will you move the goalposts and say another "indulgence" needs to be removed? And then another?


It's pretty easy to tell what will happen: the current "commonsense" restriction will be considered settled law, and the next event will be met with "can we finally have commonsense gun regulations now or are you happy children are being killed", just as the last was.

We already have commonsense regulations: limitations on gun ownership by violent felons & the mentally ill, and virtually banned ownership of automatic weapons. Maybe there are additional steps to take, but there's no point discussing what they should be with those who rhetorically stack the deck by pretending we have no commonsense restrictions now. Theyr'e attempting to define the result by misdefining reality. It's Propoganda 101.

X said...

Obama Orders Pay Raise for Biden, Members of Congress, Federal Workers

in violation of the 27th amendment

bagoh20 said...

This morning a suspect being held in a NJ police station somehow gets a gun and starts shooting people there, but since cops present are armed, he never kills anyone, but rather is stopped quickly by being shot dead. Funny how that works.

It's like free markets which also always work better than anything else devised, yet the same group of people just have no tolerance for successful strategies if they involve free people acting freely. It's a fatal bias among the the left. If there was just one place, one nation where such an experiment were permitted to be tried. Where such ideas could be tested. "I have a dream."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-police-station-shooting-officers-shot-shooter-dead/story?id=18082491#.UN30v-R9Kx8

Brent said...

harrogate writes:

"Of course I accept that possibility. Indeed, what I found so "interesting," to use a buzzword around here, was that Ann's original post seems actively sympathetic to exactly such repeals. She might even be treating as sane and sympathetic, the argument that maybe even ALL laws and regs should be repealed!"

-I think her argument is that just because gun owners don't want new gun laws, or even repeal of existing laws, it doesn't follow that they would want someone who breaks such law to escape prosecution. That is especially true of someone who broke existing law in order to grandstand in the hopes of getting even more strict laws passed. I think she is pointing out the irony that those who are pushing for more aggressive gun control (Gregory and Kurtz)are demonstrating that they do not believe in the rule of law.

Nonapod said...

OK I'm gonna try something here.

I don't believe we should create new laws based purely on fear or emotion after a tragedy. As a more-or-less libertarian person, I believe that new laws should only be created when their is a clear objective purpose to them and that their existence is effective at that purpose. For example, a law banning large capacity magazines should only be created if it has a purpose and it is effective at it. I believe a law should be repealed or removed if and when it doesn't serve its purpose any longer and it is in general doing more harm than good. In the case of a high capacity magazine ban, if there weren't a substantial decrease in gun homicides after such a ban, then the law should be repealed since it would be causing more harm than good (because it is costing money and effort to maintain and it is limiting personal freedom).

That said, if I were to apply that logic to laws against murder, it might be interesting. For example, do you believe that if the laws against murder were removed tomorrow that there would be an uptick in homicides? Am I wrong in thinking that laws should only exist if they're effective?

mikee said...

Where is that AR15 30 round magazine now?

Did Mr. Gregory hand it off to a production assistant after the show, committing another crime himself and putting the flunky in legal jeopardy as well?

Is the magazine still in DC? Is it legally and safely in Virginia or Maryland?

Rabel said...

The medical examiner said that the AR was used on the seven bodies he autopsied and that the report that the rifle was left in the car was incorrect.

Press Conference

Unknown said...

=====Anyway, why is the burden of proof not on you to demonstrate that getting rid of high capacity magazines will make us safer. I haven't seen any evidence that it will.====

The second amendment as recently affirmed by Heller implicitly says that the burden of proof for restricting access to arms is on those who want to restrict, not those of us who want to live under natural law and the Constitution.

Brent said...

mikee said:

"Where is that AR15 30 round magazine now?"

-Great question. My guess is that the purchase, transfer, and (presumably) disposal of that magazine has put a lot of people in legal jeopardy.

Andy Freeman said...

> Bruce, if Gregory was told by the DC police that it wasn't illegal, how was there intent?

(1) He was told by DC police that it was illegal.
(2) There's no "the police said that it was okay" exemption. This is a strict liability law. If you possess, you're guilty, no matter what your intent.

I'm sure that you believe that intent matters, which is why you've defended other people who violated these sorts of laws without bad intent. What? Gregory is the first one?

What's special about Gregory? His hair? His skin color? His position on this issue?

Gregory believes that folks who possess these magazines should be punished regardless of their intent. Why should he get a pass wrt a law that he supports?

TosaGuy said...

"The medical examiner said that the AR was used on the seven bodies he autopsied and that the report that the rifle was left in the car was incorrect.

Press Conference"

I posted an NBC news video that stated that the AR was left in the car. I stand corrected and retract that post.

I get what I deserved for posting something from NBC News as a legitimate source of information. Won't make that mistake again.

Lem said...

The time has come for this nation to pass some sensible press control laws.

"Regardless of the politics".

Jay said...

What's special about Gregory?

His wife helped run Fannie Mae into the ground.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Gersh said...

phx said:

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.

Actually, few people know less about guns than the legislators who seek to ban them. The only thing they know about guns is that they are well protected by men with guns themselves. DiFi herself compiled her list of guns to ban in her first "assault" weapons ban by picking ugly specimens out of a catalog, with the assistance of Ben Nighthorse Campbell. No experts were part of the process and, as far as i know, any member of congress who knew anything about guns voted "No."

Thus her new bill, which I have read, actually seeks to ban just about ALL modern arms that are currently in private hands, including most pistols. That bill isn't going anywhere.

harrogate said...

Brent,

Of course she, like the lion's share of the commenters, is making the argument you paraphrase here. But there are other arguments at work in her treatment of the Newtown case, and these arguments have been remarkably consistent with those she and commenters here have made all along with respect to gun laws. Here is the money sentence from the post:

"It doesn't occur to him that what gun owners who "want the government to leave them alone" want is for legislatures to refrain from passing laws and to repeal existing laws and for courts to declare laws null under the Second Amendment."

I do not think there is any accident at work here, with the word and syntax choices. Clearly there is no qualifier to the effect of, "some gun laws are quite reasonable and its an open discussion as to what those are," etc.

Which reminds me. Given the logos on this blog, maybe Matthew really DOES have a point in suggesting that, for many Americans, denying the legal purchase of guns to felons and crazy people, is a big deal, exemplifying the very spirit and substance of broad-minded compromise.

As opposed, you know, to the no-shit-that's-common-sense position that most people would immediately recognize, in laws against crazy people and felons owning guns.

Guns=FREEDOM!!!!! has long been an ideological mantra on this blog, as in many other aspects of US culture. This zealotry has not done the country any good.

Lem said...

So someone who doesn't own guns, and readily admits they don't want to know anything about guns, has all sorts of opinions on "30 round magazines"

Funny how freedom of speech works isn't?

Cedarford said...

Bob Engler said...
Jay @ 12:02

Children won't be safe until we get rid of cars. And driveways. More than 200 kids die each year when a car runs over them in a driveway.

About 800 children drown every year. AGGGHHHH! Get rid of all the water.
=================
To a winger, it sounds witty I suppose, but it sounds stupid to others.
The Left does it as well, thinking it is all so clever and arch to say:
If we are bombing Taliban and killing babies, why not bomb the Dutch and kill Dutch babies??

Or the Lefty idiots that pointed out we shouldn't fight Al Qaeda after 9/11 when "cars and cigarettes and a meat diet" all kill more people.

Meanwhile, what passes for "droll irony" with gun nuts.... is today, with a man pushed onto subway tracks in NYC, the gun nuts are calling for Bloomberg to "ban subways"/
Hyuck, yuk, yuk!

VekTor said...

harrogate said...

I AM arguing in good faith. I am pointing out that preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious "no shit" position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion.
12/28/12 9:59 AM


In other words, when asked what the NRA gets for putting things like that on the table, harrogate channels Fearless Leader:

"Nothing. I get that for free."

john bord said...

Rule of law is part of the dis. But there is another question of law that begs discussion. The Constitution, its role for determining laws of smaller bodies of government.

Does the DC law violate the Constitution? Is there anything in the Constitution that says a person can not own a magazine of any type, including capacity size?

Does the Constitution say anything about placing limits on the arms people can bear?

What I really see is an issue of States versus Federal laws and are sate, and smaller sectors, able to violate the Constitution?

If the Constitution was applied, Gregory would of not violated the law but DC has a law that differs.

Michael Gersh said...

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed after a series of assassinations in a fit of legislative angst. It gutted the second amendment, but what was the effect? A violent crime wave that lasted a couple of decades. Then came about a series of laws and SCOTUS decisions that put back some semblance of balance to firearms laws, specifically in the area of concealed carry. What happened after that?

Perhaps by mere coincidence, but the last twenty years has seen a very significant diminishment of violent crime, especially gun crime, in this country, except for Chicago and DC, perhaps because those municipalities refused to make lawful carry legal. NYC has seen a similar dimishment of violent crime, but it accomplished that by significant diminishment of 4th amendment rights, by stopping and frisking any black or brown males the cops can grab.

Does our boom in gun sales and concealed carry account for the increasing safety? Perhaps not, but these are FACTS. The "restrict and abolish" crowd either ignores these facts, doesn't know about them, or willfully acts in spite of them. I say that the constitution is the rule book for our governance, and quite a good one. We diminish the Bill of Rights at our peril.

Sam L. said...

Intent is a factor, if the story of the PD telling NBC it's illegal to do that is true.

Even if intent is not a factor, he broke the law, as did NBC, and they are not better than the guy on the street who would be nailed for the same offense. And thousands ov viewers were witnesses.

I Callahan said...

To a winger, it sounds witty I suppose, but it sounds stupid to others.

No, to a "winger", both sound stupid. That's the point of comparing the two - neither idea makes any sense.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Wait, he's not talking about Debra and Kip?

I think they're both libtards. I was refering to dingbats.

Ooooh. I love those fonts. So much fun.

The reason the reporting on the incident is so confused is because the reporters have zero idea what they are talking about.

Our local paper printed a headline that the snow pack was 150% OVER normal and then in a later paragraph that it was 150% OF normal. Which is it? MATH can be so very hard when you are ignorant.

This is normal. Journalists who barely can write a coherent sentence and have no understanding of math, science, history or much of anything else, writing the so called news.

phx said...

Owning a gun is NOT a "self-indulgence".

Ken, I was talking about large cap magazines, not owning a gun, which I affirm is a right.

Kirk Parker said...

I'm not an attorney, and though we seem surrounded by lawyers here I'm not sure how many are prosecutors or criminal-defense types... please help us out if you are!

But as a layman, it's my clear understanding that intent is all about whether you intended to commit the act, not whether you knew it was a crime or not. (For example, RCW 9A.52.070 (1) states: "A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building." You cannot be charged with trespass if you knew, or reasonable thought you know, that the building was in fact open to the public.)

Thus, while calling the police for legal advice is a very pointless venture, doing so certainly speaks to Gregory's intent to do so and thus seems quite material to me in that aspect.

harrogate said...

Yes VekTor,

In any reasonable society the value of denying crazy people and felons the ability to legally buy guns would be mutually agreed upon. That is, we'd get that agreement "for free" in reasonable discussion.

I did not realize that this was that controversial of a position in these here Murikan States, or even with the much-vaunted NRA, until Matthew treated it as some sort of big bargaining chip offering.

Dust Bunny Queen said...


As opposed, you know, to the no-shit-that's-common-sense position that most people would immediately recognize, in laws against crazy people and felons owning guns.

While I agree that crazy people and SOME felons should not be allowed to own guns or run with scissors.....Just how do you plan to enforce your no-shit policy? At what line on the spectrum of not acting quite right are you going to draw the line between weird, eccentric and 'crazy'. As I tried to explain in the thread about multiple/polyandry type marriages, words mean things. What is your definition of crazy? How are you going to pick people out and label them? How are you going to prevent them from getting guns or sharp objects?

What if at some point the definition of crazy includes homosexuals? It did in the past. Who is to say that it can't again. What is to prevent the government from labeling political dissidents as being crazy and denying them their rights or worse! It happens all the time in other countries.

As to felons, not all people convicted of felonies are violent criminals. Many are just white collar criminals. Bankers gone bad. Accountants with an attitude. :-D After being released from serving their time and committing no further paperwork crimes, why should they be refused their 2nd Amendment rights?

So if this is just so no-shit common sense, what is your solution?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Owning a gun is NOT a "self-indulgence".

Ken, I was talking about large cap magazines, not owning a gun, which I affirm is a right.

Owning a car is a right. What if I or the government decide that it is an indulgence to own certain type of car....a Cadillac or a 1968 Barracuda and take your car from you? Who gets to decide what is an indulgence? Like the Soup Nazi.....no indulgences for you!!

Down this slipper slope is the cesspit of tyranny. However, scratch the surface of a liberal and we see an intolerant, control freak, tyrant.

damikesc said...

I'm still waiting for a good argument why we need access to large capacity magazines.

Because we can have them.

A similar defense exists for pornography.

And it is a powerful defense.

Matthew, and again, preventing crazy people and felons from legally obtaining guns is some very generous concessions indeed!

More than abortion advocates will give in terms of concessions.

Just sayin'.

I asked if we should ban those ingredients because they could be used to blow up a school and cause an amazing amount of communal grief.

Sadly, this is the justification for why I have to show photo ID to buy allergy meds that work.

Brent said...

harrogate,

You may well be right about the position of Althouse and others with respect to guns. I haven't followed her position that closely.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that one implication of what you are saying is that the slippery slope argument with respect to gun control is overplayed and that there are reasonable limits that most if not all should be able to agree with. If that is indeed what you are saying, I can agree - to a point.

That being said, I have a big problem with the crowd that wants to ban some guy living in rural Tennessee from owning a gun, magazine, or other accessory because some jackass in Chicago, LA, or Newtown used it to kill people. When I listen to their arguments, I rarely hear the slightest acknowledgement that:

1) Guns aren't quite as easy to legally acquire as what they often imply (illegal guns don't count in this case because, well, they are already illegal)

2) An overwhelming majority of the gun violence occurs in places with strict gun control measures already in place

3) People that are set on killing other people generally don't give a shit about following gun laws to the letter - i.e., these laws won't do a thing to curb gun violence

So while I do agree with you that perhaps the 'anti-gun control' crowd may be a little too rigid and ideological at times, in my experience the 'pro gun control' side is much worse.

phx said...

...a Cadillac or a 1968 Barracuda

68 Barracuda was my first car. Damn, that thing had spirit.

phx said...

What if I or the government decide that it is an indulgence to own certain type of car....a Cadillac or a 1968 Barracuda and take your car from you?

Certain types of cars are illegal to drive. One that doesn't pass the inspection system. You can easily modify your car in ways that may make it much more powerful, but then the government says no, no.

phx said...

Our freedoms aren't absolute. Some of your arguments seem to imply they are.

Brent said...

phx said:

"Certain types of cars are illegal to drive. One that doesn't pass the inspection system. You can easily modify your car in ways that may make it much more powerful, but then the government says no, no. "

I think the analogy doesn't quite work. Vehicles that are illegal to drive on public roads will generally not be illegal drive around your own property. The bans on guns that are being discussed at the moment would deprive us of the right to use these on our property.

There is also the fact that there is no explicit constitutional right to keep and bear cars.

DADvocate said...

Owning a car is a right.

It's not a constitutionally protected right, as is the right to bear arms. I suppose it's one of those rights "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Having a driver's license isn't a right. It's a privelege.

Funny how few rights people think are reserved for the States or the people, nowadays.

Jay said...

harrogate said...

In any reasonable society the value of denying crazy people and felons the ability to legally buy guns would be mutually agreed upon. That is, we'd get that agreement "for free" in reasonable discussion.


You seem to be under some silly & bizarre delusion that "crazy people" self-identify or something.

You do realize that in your 'reasonable discussion' the rights of the non-crazy are sacrificed, right?

Why, it is almost as if you can't understand the practical policy and regulatory implications of your position or something.


Tom Perkins said...

RE O'Keefe

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/12/gregory-had-no-intent-to-commit-crime.html?showComment=1356708574880#c7650203506828413296

Much more should be made of that.

chickelit said...

What would help move the discussion here would be a frank and honest statement from harrogate concerning his or her personal experience with firearms. It might end some speculation.

Rick67 said...

" My only answer is that he does not believe in the rule of law."

Bing!

Kirk Parker said...

SMG,

You're one of many who seem are confused about "intent". The differing legal standards of "intent", that Bruce summarized for us above, are NOT about intent-to-commit-a-crime, they are about intent-to-do-the-act. There is absolutely no question that Gregory intentionally handled and displayed the magazine, and had it in his possession.


harrogate,

"...preventing crazy people and felons from being able to legally obtain guns is such an obvious 'no shit' position that it doesn't even merit an aside in rational policy discussion."

I completely disagree; the boundaries of who precisely qualify as "crazy people" are anything but clear; just as unclear as the public-safety benefits of prohibiting people like Martha Stewart from possessing firearms.


phx,

"No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines, "

You're looking in the wrong end of the telescope, no wonder your perspective is messed up. In the US, the citizens are sovereign. Any question of the form "No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow..." is inherently suspect; the real onus is on those who propose restricts to give reasonable arguments for them.

If you don't like this kind of polity, just about every other country in the world offers you the opposite, top-down approach.

And not that this matters to the big-picture discussion, where imo the rights of the people win out regardless, but 30-round mags for AR's (and 20-round mags for M14/M1A's) are NOT high-capacity magazines, they are standard-issue.

And then this: "Yes, we're a free people but some self-indulgences can be denied to a people without it becoming tyranny."

Oy. Is it the use of the passive voice ("can be denied") that's causing you to miss what's wrong with this statement? If we are a free, sovereign people... well, we really aren't if there is some other above us who can make that determination that X is a "self-indulgence" that is going to be denied us.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's not a constitutionally protected right, as is the right to bear arms. I suppose it's one of those rights "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Having a driver's license isn't a right. It's a privelege.

True. re: owning cars.... My analogy was bad. I was trying to show that "indulgence" as to what KIND of ammunition magazine was an arbitrary and slippery slope type of definition.

Failed.

Cedarford said...

I Callahan said...
To a winger, it sounds witty I suppose, but it sounds stupid to others.

No, to a "winger", both sound stupid. That's the point of comparing the two - neither idea makes any sense.

=====================
Problem with that argument is that it falls apart when you point out "it makes no sense to ban nerve gas or MANPADs", given boating accidents kill more people in the US than nerve gas or MANPADS ever did...

Or people upset they are not permitted to own C4 explosive blocks needed for a rainy day or Claymore mines pointing out to fellow wingers "it is stupid to consent to letting those jack booted gummint people tell us we can't have HE, when 5 gallon buckets have killed more kids!!"

I Callahan said...

Our freedoms aren't absolute. Some of your arguments seem to imply they are.

And we get to the crux of the problem as a whole. I say they are absolute: speech, self-defense, property ownership, etc. Because someone in government doesn't think so, doesn't give them the right to change that.

This is a hill I'd die on, if that were my only choice.

VekTor said...

In any reasonable society the value of denying crazy people and felons the ability to legally buy guns would be mutually agreed upon. That is, we'd get that agreement "for free" in reasonable discussion.

The problem arises due to the simple fact that words mean things, but we don't always have consensus on what those meanings actually are... and that can lead to problems with slippery slopes.

Your construction of "crazy people and felons" is a good example. Who gets to define what subset of people qualify as "crazy"? Kathleen Sebelius?

How many articles have we seen about conservatism being a form of mental illness?

Have you, by chance, read the book "Three Felonies A Day"? It's ridiculously easy (almost trivially so) to unknowingly commit a felony these days. Should we take it as patently obvious that each and every one of the people who fall into that category must necessarily be someone who, without any discretion whatsoever, must forfeit their Second Amendment rights?

There is now a prima facie case that David Gregory is an obvious felon. Should he have to forfeit his Second Amendment rights if convicted of violating that ridiculous DC restriction regarding magazines?

Should everyone convicted of even the most minor of "domestic violence" cases (regardless of the fact that some are he-said-she-said and just had a sympathetic jury) likewise have to do so, with no exceptions?

It's very convenient for your argument to shift the entire playing field towards your end, and declare that the new starting point, as any "reasonable person" should concede. It's reminiscent of the Overton Window. Once a new baseline is established, there's perennial calls for "compromise" from the other side.

Like Fearless Leader, some like to act like there have been no concessions whatsoever along the way, and that history starts now.

Hence the calls to "have a national discussion", as if that discussion hadn't already been had over and over.

It's transparent, harrogate.

These are not the low-information droids you're looking for.

I Callahan said...

Or people upset they are not permitted to own C4 explosive blocks needed for a rainy day or Claymore mines pointing out to fellow wingers "it is stupid to consent to letting those jack booted gummint people tell us we can't have HE, when 5 gallon buckets have killed more kids!!"

You very slightly moved the goalposts. You see, those things are NOT banned. You can get both, although not legally.

You see what I did there?

Kirk Parker said...

And please, everyone (yes, this is my windmill to tilt at for today):

Let's leave the police out of it. Legal advice from the police is meaningless. In general, at least, a statement from police cannot make something illegal which is not, in fact illegal; nor can it grant permission for you to do something which is, in fact, illegal.

Quaestor said...

John E. Cash of the NYT sang:
I shot in man in Reno
Just to watch him die.
But I'm stuck in the Lifestyle section
So I hang mah head an' cry.

SH said...

To quote someone we all know and love... We should look past these legal-intent distractions and ask the guy why he feels entitled to posses one when it is against the law but others can not. He is in a place where others already can not and advocating people in other places be subject to the same. It's pretty simple guy; why can you have one when other non criminals can not?

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

Gregory, and NBC News, called for more gun laws by intentionally breaking existing gun laws, thereby proving the old adage that laws only stop honest people.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

Oy. Is it the use of the passive voice ("can be denied") that's causing you to miss what's wrong with this statement? If we are a free, sovereign people... well, we really aren't if there is some other above us who can make that determination that X is a "self-indulgence" that is going to be denied us.

A tank, child pornography, heroin, white rhinoceros, RPGs, a fence that abuts to the right-of-way; these are just some of the things that you can't legally have even in a free society. You can die on the hill protesting all you want. Most of us may sympathize with your tragic fanaticism, but we won't sympathize with your POV.

Darrell said...

NBC news reports that Lanza left the AR-15 in the car and did not use it in the shooting.

Let's not gloss over this too quickly. That's exactly what every person on the scene initially was saying before the "authorities" changed their story. Then we supporting info to back that up--like leaks coming the coroner's office.

Who tried to get the Bushmaster involved in the crime? Were the State police told to lie? By whom?
By Obama himself? Democrat leadership? We can guess why they would try to drag the "assault weapon" into the story given that there must have been a push for gun confiscation already in the workds given how much seemed to be at people's fingertips (lengthy legisalation, ready-to-go).

Are the people who willingly participated in the lie going to have to pay somehow--forced resignation and loss of pension?
Or is NBC just pushing the old, discredited story? Is anyone going to bother to investigate?

Hagar said...

The best argument for not banning "high capacity magazines" is that they make no discernible difference in firepower.

The "30 round" magazines in fact is the "standard" magazine for Ar-based military rifles, and the smaller magazines are made for civilian use in the AR-15, etc.

If you fire a sustained 30-round burst on full auto, that will pretty much be all she wrote for that rifle barrel.

A military unit may be under attack, or themselves attacking, for prolonged periods, and large magazines is handier for them. Besides, the government furnishes the ammo for free.

For civilian use, 30-round magazines do not make much sense, but that it makes little sense in my humble opinion, is not sufficient grounds that you should be prohibited from having them.

Darrell said...

Good reasons for a larger magazine?

How about when you have to confront multiple bad guys--two or three armed homeinvaders like that guy a few days ago had to face. How about the fact that you might only have enough time to grab the weapon, so you don't have the luxury of extra magazines. How about a large magazine actually allows you to live longer? Lay down cover fire--or intentionally missing to give help a chance to get there?

How many do you need?

n.n said...

So, what they are saying is that if ordinary people have an interest to protect their life or others, they must first obtain a license to manipulate perception through lies of commission, omission, and deception.

It's good to be the JournoList. I don't recall the Constitution granting separate and superior status to the press.

abridging the freedom ... of the press

How, exactly, does he define the "press" and its special freedom? Why are they entitled to enjoy Second Amendment rights, and the opportunity it affords to preserve life, and mitigate involuntary exploitation, with use or threat of deadly force?

Kirk Parker said...

phx,

Nope, you're still missing the point. It's we who decide what's legal and what's not, through our representatives, NOT some undefined other who "denies" us.

And guess what? So far, what we've decided in most places is that standard-issue magazines are perfectly legal. No self-indulgence is involved in this process, as far as I can see.

Aridog said...

I'd like to join this conversation, but I cannot. All this talk about killing and so few folks who have actually killed anyone. I'm not proud of it, in fact guilt follows me every day. @Hagar has a clue...and a few others, most otherwise, nope. The most significant guilt I feel is for surviving at all. Better men than me, by far, gave their all.
]
And we sit here talking about magazine capacity? F'ing A.

phx said...

Sorry for that Aridog. If you're military or a vet I really do appreciate your service. I know I'm a libtard and we disagree a lot here but it's never been personal with you from where I sit.

Guilt is a terrible burden for any person, and the guilt of survivors or soldiers is heartbreaking.

Out of respect I wouldn't talk about magazines or other stuff that was causing pain to a vet.

Kansas City said...

Hard to believe, but I tend to agree with Kurtz over Ann. I think Ann is getting too technical. The point about Gregory's possession is that it had nothing to do with shooting a gun. It was an anti-gun prop for a TV interview. The law is likely a stupid one, made even more clear by Gregory's "culpability," but I don't see the sense of prosecuting Gregory.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

he law is likely a stupid one, made even more clear by Gregory's "culpability," but I don't see the sense of prosecuting Gregory.

The POINT is that it IS a law. If you want to be selective about how and to whom you apply the law based on whether they are connected, are a favored class or what ever biased criterion you want to use, then the laws mean nothing.

When the laws mean NOTHING, then why in the world should any of us obey the laws. Any laws?

THAT is the point.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I am under no illusion that the laws really ARE actually applied evenly to all.

However, Gregory flaunted this one, not in private but on television in front of his audience. Ok maybe only a few thousand people :-). BUT he publicly and willfully broke the law and should be made an example of and brought to task.

Bruce Hayden said...

DiFi herself compiled her list of guns to ban in her first "assault" weapons ban by picking ugly specimens out of a catalog, with the assistance of Ben Nighthorse Campbell...

A bit surprised there with Campbell. From Ignacio, which is fairly close to Durango in the Four Corners area. Mostly known today for casinos. And, he seemed to get along with the NRA, esp. after he switched parties. Always liked having the only male Senator who refused to wear a tie (due apparently to a throat injury from his martial arts days). Oh, and a pony tail, at least last time I saw him.

Thus her new bill, which I have read, actually seeks to ban just about ALL modern arms that are currently in private hands, including most pistols. That bill isn't going anywhere.

Pretty much anything reasonably new (last 40 years maybe?) by name. Magazines >= 10 rounds. Grandfather in the hundred million plus now-illegal weapons, as long as they are registered (good luck with that). And, switching to banning weapons if they now have one, and not the previous two "dangerous" features.

I don't think that she seriously thinks that her bill has any chance of passage. I don't see it passing the Senate, if it even came up for a vote, which is problematic with NRA friend Harry Reid at the helm, and would be DOA in the House and the courts. Rather, I suspect that it is just a stalking horse to open discussion for what she hopes will be something, anything. Unfortunately for her though, the gun control discussion is now really over, and she lost it. Back when it passed last time, a significant majority of Americans were in favor of gun control. Now, they are not.

cryptical said...

Darrell said...
We can guess why they would try to drag the "assault weapon" into the story given that there must have been a push for gun confiscation already in the workds given how much seemed to be at people's fingertips (lengthy legisalation, ready-to-go).


Feinstein said that she's had her staff working on this legislation for a year.

I'm guessing they always have bills like this laying around, in case an opportunity to ram it through comes up.

hombre said...

KC wrote: The law is likely a stupid one, made even more clear by Gregory's "culpability," but I don't see the sense of prosecuting Gregory.

That the law is a "stupid one" is exactly the point of prosecuting Gregory. At some point the mediaswine will have to acknowledge that laws like this are stupid when applied uniformly or continue looking idiotic and hypocritical like Kurtz.

This is, of course, based upon the quaint notion that journolistas are still capable of noticing when they look idiotic and hypocritical. If not, it will provide more evidence for people who are still capable of critical thinking that the legacy media is comprised of sociopaths.

Synova said...

"In any reasonable society the value of denying crazy people and felons the ability to legally buy guns would be mutually agreed upon. That is, we'd get that agreement "for free" in reasonable discussion."

I have a question...

If "reasonable" is what you get "for free" why does the rest of it all automatically go to the left instead of to the right?

Maybe "reasonable" and "for free" is what the gun nuts get "for free" and then all the compromise goes toward less regulation.

Why should anyone think that it's only their side of the argument that gets extra?

And as a couple of people have pointed out, the obvious "for free" limits on felons and mentally ill has some serious problems with it. "Felon" counts my parent's neighbor (now passed) who ended up a felon for putting gravel in the lake. "Mentally ill" can mean anything at all. Maybe just wanting a gun makes you clinically paranoid. Hm?

So, no, it's not obvious and it's not a free-bee. It is, already, a problematic element and a compromise... it's just one that most people will agree to have in place, even while they recognize the problems inherent in it.

Allowing the government to keep you on a list is another one of those not at all "reasonable" things that are not at all "for free" that the gun lobby has agreed to as a compromise position. Mandatory training and permitting are in that category as well.

So someone comes along and says... there's no reason for a pistol to hold more than six cartridges and no reason for a rifle to hold more than ten (unless you're a cop) and no reason for a shotgun to hold more than four so put a plug in it or get arrested... and no, it's not reasonable. We're already far far into unreasonable restrictions, even when people are willing not to fight that fight, chose not to die on that hill. The fact they don't chose to doesn't mean that what they've agreed to is the *baseline*.

There's good reason to think that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to have and keep military (not simply military style) weapons and no real reason to think that it is limited to those appropriate for infantry.

*That* is the baseline.

Hagar said...

This is all partisan theater, but if we are going to enforce these laws on the citizens as in Mark Steyn's examples below, let's enforce them on media luminaries too.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/gregory-381940-gun-laws.html

hombre said...

Suppose Gregory had decided to make his point by loading a weapon with the magazine a firing it during the broadcast. Is that "committing journalism" or committing a crime? It's just a matter of degree, isn't it?

I inadvertently went through airport security with an irreplaceable, six-shot .25 caliber handgun magazine. No gun, just the magazine. Not a crime to my knowledge, but TSA confiscated the magazine. My arguments that I had no intent, the magazine by itself was harmless, etc. were ignored, because "the regulations were the regulations." But then, I am one of the little people.

Kansas City said...

hombre,

I don't think there is any hope for the MSM to ever abandon their anti gun bias. Prosecuting Gregory will be not change it.

So what good does a technical prosecution under a stupid law do for anyone? Answering "it is the law" is not satisfactory to me, especially it is from someone who thinks it is stupid law. For that matter, I would oppose prosecution of a law biding citizen in possession of a magazine for his self defense. So why would I want the prop comic Gregory prosecuted under the same stupid law?

I tend to think prosecutorial discretion is a good thing generally and this is a place for it.

VekTor said...

I don't think that she seriously thinks that her bill has any chance of passage. I don't see it passing the Senate, if it even came up for a vote, which is problematic with NRA friend Harry Reid at the helm, and would be DOA in the House and the courts. Rather, I suspect that it is just a stalking horse to open discussion for what she hopes will be something, anything.

Exactly. It's a prime example of the Overton Window in action.

Rabel said...

The law in question is absolute in its wording. Possesssion of "high-capacity" magazines is forbidden in the District. There are no allowances for intent.

It's important to note that the law wasn't simply thrown together, but was crafted to be in accordance with the Heller decision.

It has been challenged (by Heller again) and has been approved by the DC District Court and by the DC Court of Appeals.

From the DC Appeals ruling:

" We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

Appeals Court Ruling

The case against Gregory should proceed.

Hagar said...

@phx,

Your confidence in our government is touching, but no, the people who put together the "assault weapons ban" of 1986 did not know any more about guns than you do.

Hagar said...

and they still have not learned anything.

The difference between an AR-15 chambered for .223 Remington and a Winchester, Remington, etc. semi-auto "typical hunting rifle" chambered for .223 Remington is entirely in the looks. Functionally they are the same.

So the definition of an "assault weapon" remains "a semi-auto rifle that Dianne Feinstein thinks looks really scary."

And, BTW, there is nothing magic about the .223 Remington cartridge. A major advantage of the AR-15 platform as far as hunters especially are concerned, is that the barrel and upper receiver can readily be changed out to any other cartridge desired, which is a lot cheaper than buying complete separate guns. Also you can practice with relatively cheap ammunition, like .22LR or the .223, and switch to, say, a .308 to go elk hunting with.

Jack Wayne said...

PHX said "First of all, I haven't said we should ban any weapons that are now legal, semi-autos or otherwise. I said I favor the discussion. I also said I did favor banning large cap magazines. If someone persuades me there's a good reason not to ban them I'm listening.

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.

I'm just a voter who's not making a claim to expertise on any of the issues that confront us.

If anyone has a problem with that too fucking bad. My vote counts as much as yours, and if I want to vote for the worse junkyard dog who can't stand gun owners just for that reason, I will.

I never said I wasn't willing to hear other people's arguments however, esp. those who know the issues well. "

If anyone ever asks you what the Tyranny of the Majority is, read this to them.

As for why large capacity mags: It's a free country and I want them. Fuck you.

Jack Wayne said...

PHX said "First of all, I haven't said we should ban any weapons that are now legal, semi-autos or otherwise. I said I favor the discussion. I also said I did favor banning large cap magazines. If someone persuades me there's a good reason not to ban them I'm listening.

And the people who make the final decision are going to know a lot more about guns than I do, that's for sure.

I'm just a voter who's not making a claim to expertise on any of the issues that confront us.

If anyone has a problem with that too fucking bad. My vote counts as much as yours, and if I want to vote for the worse junkyard dog who can't stand gun owners just for that reason, I will.

I never said I wasn't willing to hear other people's arguments however, esp. those who know the issues well. "

If anyone ever asks you what the Tyranny of the Majority is, read this to them.

As for why large capacity mags: It's a free country and I want them. Fuck you.

Hagar said...

Sorry, "the assault weapons ban of 1994.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

He was committing Madame Defarge's sort of journalism. Not reporting news, but acting the stage bully, not to report news but to inflict his value judgements on his interview subject to diminish him in the public view.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

William F. Buckley Jr. reserved all of his rights to do with whatever the hell he wanted.

betamax3000 said...

Not to worry : NBC will have their ace editors who handled the Zimmerman tape take the scissors to Gregory's spiel. The cartridge will be gone with nary a video ellipse, and LaPierre wil be transcribed as talking about a black youth in his neighborhood wearing a hoodie.

Big Mike said...

@phx, you asked a number of questions, at least some of which I think you meant rhetorically. Here is an article that, in posing a number of questions, may provide the answers which you seek.

In particular, I call your attention to this question the writer asks: "In your view, to make a public policy worth pursuing, should it have a discernible connection to its stated goal?" As I pointed out back at 12:05, replacing one thirty-round magazine with three tens would not have saved a single child in Newtown.

Don M said...

Perhaps he did this to generate a test case for magazine limits to go to the Supreme Court. After all, we have a nice lefty boy, so Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginzburg are all for him. Per the Miller precedent, 30 round magazines have a firm basis in utility to the militia, so it would be easy to provide evidence for judicial notice that such magazines are of use to a well regulated militia. I bet veterans would line up around the block to tell about how they used 30 round magazines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don M said...

The good reason for 30 round magazines is that people sometimes have multiple threats, and people sometimes miss. At 200 meters, soldiers in my company could hit a man sized target less than 1 time in 4, when under stress. Soldiers in action normally are provided 30 round magazines (and have been since WWII when M-2 carbines were fielded). Further, the 5.56x45 round cartridge is not a death ray. Often multiple hits are required to stop a threat. People defending themselves in their homes usually are not wearing web gear, and may not have several armed friends with them, accordingly, need multiple rounds per threat, and a few more for frequent misses. If you need to tactically shoot near someone to suppress them (keep their heads down) or at night have difficulty locating the threat, and need to shoot at probable threat locations, demand for cartridges may quickly exceed 30.

Do police use 30 round magazines? Why?
Do soldiers use 30 round magazines? Why?
Are soldiers committed in buddy teams, so that one can cover the enemy while another reloads? Would you like more rounds or fewer in a situation where you had no buddy (or your buddy was out of action)?

garage mahal said...

…freedom of speech;
…freedom of the press;
…freedom of assembly;
…the right to petition;
…the free exercise of religion;
…the right to keep and bear arms;
…protection from quartering of troops.
…protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
…protection of due process;
…protection against double jeopardy;
…protection against self-incrimination;
…protection against eminent domain;
…the right to trial by jury and rights of the accused;
…the right to speedy trial;
…the right to public trial;
…the right to counsel;
…the right to civil trial by jury;
…protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment;
…protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution;
…protection of the rights States and people.


I can find only one here that conservatives are passionate about.

chickelit said...

I can find only one here that conservatives are passionate about.

Then you're either not looking very hard or the "conservatives" are sticking to the topic of the thread.

chickelit said...

You are back to being predictable garage; you're at your best when unpredictable--as we all are.

EMD said...

Garage-

I hate quartering troops. Such a drain on toilet paper supplies.

chickelit said...

EMD said...
Garage-

I hate quartering troops. Such a drain on toilet paper supplies.

Talk to Sheryl Crow; she's an expert at quartering 4-ply quadrants of toilet paper for maximum utility.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

I can find only one here that conservatives are passionate about.

Speech (Citizens United), arms, religion, eminent domain, rights not enumerated, and rights of States and people are all standard parts of conservative thought.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Remember when Garbage Pail lied when he claimed that Hitler didn't like unions?

Remember when NBC lied and tried to make Zimmerman appear to follow the jigaboo because he was black?

Remember when Inga the Lying Obama Whore claimed it was ok to arrest a man for free speech if he caused the Libya riots, and then, when it was proven that Obama knew the man had nothing to do with the riots, said nothing?

Yeah, me too.

Enjoy the decline, bitches!

Dante said...

Don M.

Something in your post struck me, that technology will improve the likelihood of getting a "hit." It's simply the nature of things. Weapons get better.

The country needs unity of purpose, but for some reason leftists, or liberals, or whatever they are, are intent on producing a chaotic morass of what, who knows, and who knows why.

It would be one thing if the world were perfectly safe, and it was OK to waste 50 years on experimentation, but it isn't.

Hagar said...

A rifle of any kind is not the weapon of choice for self-defense. Awkward to handle and much too powerful in the house. Handguns, and I think less than a .357, are better, and the best may be a pump shotgun made for the purpose.

Jason said...

No one has made a good argument yet why we should allow large capacity magazines..."


Why? Because FUCK YOU! That's why!

Sic semper tyrranis.

Big Mike said...

@Hagar, if you read 50 articles about home defense written by knowledgeable and experienced gun owners, I'd venture to guess that somewhere between 20 and 25 would recommend a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223 with a detachable magazine and the higher capacity the better. The next largest group agrees with you about handguns being better, with the caveat that you don't want to go below .380 auto, because below that there is no stopping power, or much above .40, for fear of a miss punching through the wall and hitting someone else in the house. The third large group of articles recommend a short-barreled shotgun, something like a "coach gun" or an old Remington 870 cut down to 20" and unchoked. Then there would be an article or two suggesting a carbine in pistol caliber or a long gun in 7.62 or .30 (yes, I know they're the same thing).

So my point is that one can find authorities to back up just about any position you take on home defense weaponry. But most point to the sort of guns Feinstein wants to ban.

Big Mike said...

@Jason, I'd like to suggest a better argument is personal defense. One example would be ranchers, farmers, and other isolated homeowners in the American Southwest, who might find themselves confronted with well-armed drug smugglers. The second example concerns areas where gangs indulge in home invasions with 4 or 5 or more, e.g., MS-13 in western Virginia. With a ten round magazine you may run out of ammo before the threat has been neutralized.

Are these not better use cases than "FU"?

Big Mike said...

But the main reason I wanted to get on this thread this morning was to ask a question I thought of last night.

How do we know that the reason David Gregory could so readily lay hands on a 30 round magazine is not because it's his own magazine from his own semi-automatic rifle?

Jason said...

Big Mike,

Those might be better responses to a different question. Not the one phx asked, because phx inverted the burden of proof to begin with.

They might also be better responses to someone who asks and reasons in good faith.

But not to the question phx asked, as he framed it.

No... the only appropriate response to willfully ignorant statist anticonstitutional fucktards is precisely what I wrote.

Sic semper tyrannis.

holdfast said...

@Hagar:

Maybe in a confined space like a house, a pistol or shotgun is better. But what about folks on a farm or ranch? Especially near the border where the bad guys are likely to have REAL assault rifles (courtesy of the Mexican Army).

In my case, I spent 10 years handling an M-16. While a pistol or a shotgun may be objectively handier for home defense, I am personally much handier with an AR-15, and if it's dark and I am half asleep, I want the gun that where I can clear a jam in the dark and half asleep. And if I am in my PJs at the time I want a 30 round mag, which is the standard capacity which that firearm was designed for. I don't want to be stuffing extra mags into the pockets of my pajama pants, thank you.

Hagar said...

So you are not an average person.
Even so, I think you should reflect a bit on the wisdom of letting fly with a rifle inside a house where your wife and children are running around frightened, you do not quite know where, even if it is just a .223.

For most people, I think something like a stainless S&W .38 loaded with +p hollow points would be best. It is manageable and there is nothing to remember; just point and shoot - but after you have made sure it's not your wifemate hitting the fridge, or your son and heir coming home late and inebriated.

Hagar said...

Also, speaking for myself, I think any war I am likely to get into is going to be over, one way or another, before I get off 6 shots, so that is what I carry.

Hagar said...

Just to be clear, I am not like phx, who, being a "liberal," seems to feel that Orwell's "Whatever is not permitted is forbidden" is the way to go.

A semi-automatic rifle is just that, whether it is a Ruger 10/22 or a Bushmaster .223. That Dianne Feinstein thinks the Bushmaster looks scary, especially when painted in green and black, is a poor reason for banning it.
Likewise with 30 round magazines for the .223. I do not see any statistics that says these are a danger to our security. Of the total number of firearm homicides annually, very few are by rifle, and there have to be still fewer by "assault weapons," and still fewer yet by "assault weapons" and 30-round magazines.

There are a lot more people killed across the country from riding bicycles on city arterial streets. So, should we not ban that practice first?

Kirk Parker said...

Hagar, Big Mike,

Heck yeah, if we aren't ruling out long arms due to length and need to use both hands to effectively operate them, then by all means I prefer a carbine to a shotgun. (By "prefer" I mean "actually have", though in reality my preferred implement is the handgun for afore-mentioned reasons of one-handed maneuverability.)

Hagar said...

Big Mike refers to a cut-down shotgun; don't even think of that. They catch you with a "sawed-off" shotgun, and it will be as bad as catching you with a full-auto AK-47!

Buy one that is intended for home defense, like the one Ms. Sarah keeps in the tent against bears and whatever when the Palins go camping.
Though, again, I think I would prefer a 16 ga. to a 12 ga. You let off a 12 ga. in a confined space and your ears will ring for quite a while, and you might be the one to be disoriented!

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Pasting, as in getting past, barbarism, is what Jews do best, and others, including me, do not, therefore by definition.

I welcome charges of anti-Jew because the Praeger, D., has a voice I don't like, with an entitlement aspect of his idiosyncratic being I can't comprehend and therefore fear tremendously, so yeah, I am a bigot.

Dennis Preager scares me.

I hate myself for it and want help in changing but I only see class; therefore feeling wanting and hence knowing someday I will hate myself for feeling wanting.

Sorry Dennis, I know you tried.



Rev. Jim said...

I have no intention of using mine for crimes either.. so can I ignore the law as well?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 375 of 375   Newer› Newest»