April 22, 2016

Chelsea Clinton babbles robotically about the Second Amendment and what her mother can do to it now that Scalia has died.



Maybe you can make sense of that. I was going to copy out the text, but the words scarcely matter. The vibe is all there is. She wants people to feel that Hillary Clinton will dispel the illusion of Second Amendment rights.

UPDATE: I manage to work out a transcription and check whether the words might matter here.

95 comments:

MadisonMan said...

Conclusion: Chelsea inherited her Mother's Campaigning skills, not her Father's.

eric said...

If anyone doubts that a Clinton presidency will certainly give us a new Supreme Court Justice who will remove our second amendment rights, they are fooling themselves.

I can understand someone who might think, well, Trump could do the same thing. And yes, he could. Which is why I favor Cruz. But I'd rather chance it with Trump than a certainty with Hillary.

Achilles said...

The 2nd amendment is clear about where our right to bear arms came from.

Hint: it is not from 9 black robed pharisees.

If hillary is elected I doubt it makes it to the point where she gets to start taking our guns away.

Fernandinande said...

I liked the part about Billary being a "living whore" and a tragedy.

Michael K said...

Chelsea is better looking than she used to be, or at least less homely.

Her Understanding of the law is as rudimentary as I would have expected, given her parents.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
Conclusion: Chelsea inherited her Mother's Campaigning skills, not her Father's."

That's because Web Hubbell is her biological father.

Achilles said...

And Chelsea has had a lot of plastic surgery done. The before and after is staggering.

Mary Beth said...

She thinks every day about the Sandy Hook families.

Every. Day.

That crosses over from sympathetic to obsessive.

Nonapod said...

Chelsea is so god awful at public speaking she can only hurt Hillary. In conclusion, I want to see a whole lot more of Chelsea's ramblings. More please! Let's hear her opinion on Israel or Syria or Iran or anything that's been going on in the mideast. Or how about the minimum wage? Transgender people using women's bathrooms? I'd love to hear her babel on like the Oracle of Delphi about any controversial topic.

Bay Area Guy said...

The liberal position -- don't let the Constitution get in the way of what you want to do.

Rumpletweezer said...

Apparently class has a genetic component. I did not know that.

Sebastian said...

"the words scarcely matter" Goes for most Prog politics and Prog con law. Having trouble finding SSM in the 14th? No problem: the words scarcely matter. Substantive due process, baby!

@Achilles: "The 2nd amendment is clear" Sorry, bud: the words scarcely matter. Besides, adherence to traditional understandings of traditional norms is never clear, nor practical or sensible. Only falling line with Prog fads is "clear, practical, and sensible," as AA put it when Trump appeared to capitulate on bathrooms.

Fritz said...

Can we dispel the illusion that she has first amendment right?

BDNYC said...

I never really believed the Web Hubbell rumor, but she looks more and more like him as she gets older.

'TreHammer said...

"smart, sensible, enforceable gun control laws" can also be unconstitutional.

Bill R said...

Notice they are not even pretending any more.

The Supreme Court has nothing to do with the constitution. When "their" guys were in the majority, they said you had a right to defend yourself. When "our" guys are in, you won't.

Simple as that.

The Drill SGT said...

Notice that they are still pitching to the converted, or at least to the convertable. "Gun Control"

By this point, the Hillary 2016 campaign wanted to be talking about "sensible gun safety" legislation

PS: Don't be bad mouthing Chelsea, as the next First Lady, you aren't supposed to make fun of family...

n.n said...

Unlike pro-choice/abortion rites and "planning", self-defense is a human right to be exercised in public.

MayBee said...

I like the idea that the Supreme Court will *next time* issue the "definitive" ruling.

n.n said...

right to bear arms... it is not from 9 black robed pharisees

It's not from the priests or their gods from the twilight zone.

It is a basic human right conceived on the premise that men and women are capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior, and may eventually be called and be prepared to act in self-defense, and as first-responders at a scene. So, there is neither a need nor desire for the State to establish behavioral protocols or enact punitive measures to retard their development and viability.

traditionalguy said...

Smart Gun Control is logically incongruous.

She must mean Wishful Thinking about Fairy Tale World of gun control jurisdictions where bad guys obey the laws and even the police are unarmed.

David said...

If you think there is no such thing as white privilege, consider Chelsea carefully and see if maybe you are less sure of your view.

Brando said...

We'll be feeling Scalia's absence for a while. The GOP needs to hold the Senate and make gun control their litmus test that the Left has made of abortion.

Bay Area Guy said...

Stare Decisis? Huh, what's that?

David said...

She thinks every day about the Sandy Hook families.

Every. Day.

That crosses over from sympathetic to obsessive.


If it were true it would.

I Callahan said...

I never really believed the Web Hubbell rumor, but she looks more and more like him as she gets older.

Just looking at her, I say she looks WAY more like Clinton than Hubbell.

M.E. said...

Have to agree with BDNYC @ 1:41 - I never believed those rumors, either, but watching that video, all I could think was, "Oh lordy, Webb Hubbell IS her father!"

Unfortunately, that is the absolute least of our worries in this presidential election.

Oh Yea said...

I am having a hard time considering making a decision of who to vote for between Trump and Hillary, but if I consider the results of how they have raised their children, its Trump hands down.

fivewheels said...

"If you think there is no such thing as white privilege ..."

I think you have to have severe race-based tunnel vision to think whiteness has anything to do with it. What do you think our current White House kids will be like in 10 years? Do you think they won't be getting ridiculously fortunate opportunities compared to random kids they graduate with? I wouldn't be surprised if they get no-show TV jobs too.

EMD said...

I can understand someone who might think, well, Trump could do the same thing. And yes, he could.

I don't think Trump would touch the 2A. He wants to be able to shoot people in the middle of Fifth Avenue for crying out loud!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Look, not to go all Trumpian on you, and brand myself a woman-hater for life, but did Chelsea Clinton always look like that? I mean, I really did. But, then, I was a teenager.

Not saying that I look better now than then; but I am wondering what the heck happened to Chelsea that she now looks so eerily like me 35 years ago.

RAH said...

Dearest Chelsea will understand once her mother tries to take them exactly what it means.

RAH said...

I have to agree that Trump sure brought up his children better than the spoiled Chelsea On that alone he will get my vote if that is the choice.

Hagar said...

Chelsea really ought to stay home and bake cookies and look after the children.

I think Hillary! must be "feeling the bern;" her pandering now is going below anything I can remember from any oher politician. It is a bit scary since even Hillary! can hardly just shrug it off and say "it was just campaigning" if she should make it into office.

Chuck said...

Unlike Professor Althouse, I think Chelsea Clinton was being brutally plain.

"Vote for my mom. She will install one, or two, or three justices on the Supreme Court who will reverse the Heller decision, and all of its progeny, and will open a new era of local regulations that will sidestep any pesky Republicans in Congress. We'll make huge progressive leaps in gun control, in places like Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, and every big Democratic city in the country. No more Heller. No. More. Heller. The power, of five votes on the Court in a different direction.

Is it really any more complicate

Rob said...

Ironically, our Constitutional-Law-Professor-in-Chief has left no doubt that he agrees with the Heller court that the Second Amendment confers an individual right: "Let me be absolutely clear – like I've said many times before, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Period." Surely we believe him, right?

MayBee said...

What do you all think of politicians just throwing in the murder of a bunch of first graders casually into a stump speech? It seems like such an awful thing to just use for your own purposes.

It just seems so crass the way she talks about the first graders who won't come home, just as some way to get votes when in reality she and her mom don't have the answer.
Any parent who lost a child for any reason has to skip a few heartbeats when they hear that in a political speech, right?

Unknown said...

This should put a few more "purple" states out of play. Keep talkin' kid! Don't stop now.

MayBee said...

"Think about how awful it is that those first graders were killed at Sandy Hook. Those parents have to live every day with their kids not coming home from school. So vote for my mom, because she will close the gun show loophole or something that wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza anyway."

Chuck said...

...Is it really any more complicated than that?

And yeah, gun rights enthusiasts should regard a Hillary presidency as the greatest threat to Second Amendment rights in their lifetimes. An explicit, frontal assault on Heller and all that Heller stands for, through a Scalia replacement. Unthinkable,, during Scalia's tenure on the Court.

Sebastian said...

"Let me be absolutely clear – like I've said many times before, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Period." The same way, that "as a Christian," he believed marriage was between a man and a woman.

Milton Zenobia said...

Every year she looks and sounds more like her father, Webb Hubbell.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...The vibe is all there is. She wants people to feel that Hillary Clinton will dispel the illusion of Second Amendment rights.

You can take my 2nd Amend. rights from my cold, dead hands.

Hey, just because lots of people are happy to throw away their 1st Amdn. rights doesn't mean no one takes seriously any of those archaic words on that dusty ol' document.

Peter said...

The Peter Principle describes what happens when rises through a hierarchy until one reaches a position where one is incompetent.

But, what describes what happens when someone who's not all that capable to begin with starts at a high position?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Rob said...
Ironically, our Constitutional-Law-Professor-in-Chief has left no doubt that he agrees with the Heller court that the Second Amendment confers an individual right: "Let me be absolutely clear – like I've said many times before, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Period." Surely we believe him, right?


If you like your 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms you can keep your 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms, Rob.

AprilApple said...

In Clinton World, everyone must be punished.

Qwinn said...

Now now Bay Area Guy. You know Stare Decisis is a one way ratchet that serves to lock in only leftist advances exclusively. Conservative judicial decisions exist only to be torn down at the first political opportunity.

n.n said...

Lanza viciously aborted his mother, and after steeling her Arms, progressed to commit "workplace violence." The only question is if his mother and others acted in self-defense (i.e. first-responders), would she and the children still be alive today.

hawkeyedjb said...

It's helpful how the president uses that word "period" at the end of his lies. There's never any misunderstanding.

Big Mike said...

I think that Hillary and Chelsea should demonstrate good faith and begin by collecting the illegal -- and illegally owned -- firearms in the possession of inner city gang members. Chicago might be a good place to start.

Make that personally collect.

Harold said...

"Curious George said...
.......
That's because Web Hubbell is her biological father."

I keep thinking that a Secret Service agent tired of his job could retire on what he would make by scooping up some hair samples with roots (which contain the DNA) from Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, her husband and daughter, and having them analyzed. provided, of course, that they show that Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend isn't the father. I suspect their reason no one in the media hasn't yet paid a hotel employee for room access after they depart in order to collect DNA evidence is simple. They're all liberal and they don't want to know. Rumored stories abound about the former president saying he shoots blanks, that he's the father, and no enterprising reporter wanting to make a name for themselves has stepped up to the challenge. It would make a good story even if he WERE the father, as it would serve to dispel rumors. But no good liberal wants to take the chance of proving he isn't.

Henry said...

She has very straight hair.

DanTheMan said...

"It's not over until we win."

OK, if that's the rule, fine. We can play that way, too.

"Bloody instructions, which being taught, return to plague the inventor..."

Dan Hossley said...

Why does Chelsea look like Web Hubbell?

DanTheMan said...

>>from Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, her husband and daughter

I think a sample from Chelsea, and one from a Hubbell would be enough.

Roughcoat said...

Yeah, okay. I bought a handgun a few hours ago. Molon labe, Hillary.

PB said...

It is a strange and dangerous religion Chelsea and her mother belong to.

Virgil Hilts said...

If we could magically divide the country into a blue part and a red part and the blue part made its own constitution (which did not include a 2nd A) and then passed all of its laws against guns and other weapons, then you can be sure that after about 5 years the homicide rate will have plummeted in the red part.

JCC said...

Translation: The court, so wishy-washy, can't make up their minds, but now that the nutcase is dead, Mom can appoint a moderate who will put this gun thing to bed once and for all. Gun control is good, Brady said so, and no more dead babies, screw the rubes in the flyover states anyway, close your eyes, hand on your heart and emote with me. Vote for Mom, because children, safe schools, screw Texas, stupid red necks. Ban all guns.

Now I'll leave with my gun-totin' bodyguards, Secret Service agents, whatever, get driven to my 2 million dollar penthouse guarded by more men with guns, and enjoy my family, secure in the knowledge I'm protected by the best armed men money can buy.

The Godfather said...

The former first child says that up until now sometimes the Supreme Court has gone one way on gun rights and sometimes the other way, so we now need a definitive ruling. Can anybody cite me the case(s) that Heller had to overrule to reach the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment?

Unknown said...

Hey this is an easy one. What Chelsea means is that Hillary will place yet another justice on the supreme court like Ginsberg, Bryer, Sotomayor and Kagan. You know, the type of justice who will pretend the clear plain language in the constitution says something completely different than what it has been understood to mean for the last 240 years.

Bob Boyd said...

Clinton could leave the court with eight and work with allies to bring anti gun legislation in CA.
Ninth Cicuit would uphold. Tie goes to Hillary.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

In Heller, Scalia wrote, "the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service." The Second Amendment says a "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State". Do gun rights advocates see how that makes gun control possible without overruling Heller?

Indeed, I predict that the great gun control decisions to come from the Supreme Court will cite this aspect of Scalia's opinion quite approvingly.

Trumpit said...

It is another phony Clinton-family issue, the idea that Bernie is pro-gun lobby. The NRA doesn't think so. HIllary is the ultimate elitist panderer, however.

Hunting, and trapping can and should be outlawed, and that is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Violence, suffering, bleeding, and the needless destruction of sentient life is what needs to stop. Write your local congresswomen to express your disapproval.

What we have here are two terrible choices for president: Trump and Clinton. One is a joke, and the other one is a bigger joke. Since sickeningly, Trump's spoiled sons are big game hunters of rare and exotic animals, Hillary gets the nod by an elephant's tusk. Actually, I won't vote for either one as they both nauseate me.

Molly said...

Personally, I care too much about sexual harassment to return Clinton to the White House. Don't you?

n.n said...

Molly:

Involuntary and superior exploitation. That was... Nay. Is the feminist argument. Which runs contrary to their actions since and today. Reconciling with the trans mandate should be especially difficult for them, but clearly it was and is not. Pro-choice means never admitting fault or repenting for personal actions.

Big Mike said...

Is that what a $600 hairdo really looks like? Oh, sorry, that was her mother. But I think you can say same thing about both Hillary and Chelsea: "Don't you think she looks tired?

Michael said...

Maybe instead of all this jabbering about the 2nd Amendment the Democrats could argue for making shooting people illegal.

Pettifogger said...

OK, assume the Demos control the White House and the GOP keeps at least one house of Congress/ Presumably, the GOP can stop new gun control legislation (if it will), but the president can issue executive orders that border on presidential decrees.

A new Supreme Court nominee will uphold the orders.

States such as Texas, where I live, will refuse to enforce the federal rules.

The trick will be to find ways to restrict commerce in guns and ammunition that require neither new statutes nor state cooperation. I am confident the lefties are up to the challenge.

n.n said...

argue for making shooting people illegal

Punishing people for violations committed against the individual and society, and setting a precedent to dissuade wannabes and gawkers. This would be suitable for murderers wielding guns, bats, fists, pillows, scalpels, forceps, and vacuums, too.

bagoh20 said...

Hillary describes Trump as a "loose cannon", which I think is very apt, and it's one of a number of reasons I hope Trump is not the nominee, but she is worse than a loose cannon. She is a cannon aimed right at me, my freedoms, and what makes America uniquely good. I would expect Trump to make a large number of stupid decisions as President, but I'm certain Hillary will. I could be wrong about him, but not her. Unfortunately, most of the country fears him more than her, which is why we are so far from our potential now, and likely to lose it forever with this final self-destructive affirmation of the Idiocracy.

Phil 3:14 said...

I'm not a gun guy but what gun law would have stopped Sandy Hook? They were his mother's guns.

Bob R said...

I know Ph.D. students with equally poor communication skills, but they can solve partial differential equations. They won't walk out into $600,000 jobs - because their employers aren't trying to disguise bribes to their parents. Still, I wish they could speak and write better.

Gahrie said...

I think a sample from Chelsea, and one from a Hubbell would be enough.

Supposedly some organization did just that...and the results were that Hubbell "could not be excluded". Also supposedly, the truth is a somewhat open secret among the Clinton crowd, along with the fact that Bill is sterile.

khesanh0802 said...

@Phil3:14 Absolutely correct, but we don't want facts to interfere.

Steve Uhr said...

Heller is not going to be overturned anytime soon even if Clinton is elected. The Court respects its prior decisions. On March 21, 2016, the Court unanimously struck down a ban on stun guns in MA, holding it conflicts with Heller. The liberal justices recognize that Heller is the law of the land and they are not interested in overturning it. Further, liberal constitutional law experts including Tribe believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees a personal right to bear arms.

Cruz and others are engaged in scare tactics once again.

The recent decision in full:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends,
prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment
right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts
law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after
examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon
contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by
the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d
688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its
holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to
stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are
not protected because they “were not in common use at the
time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781,
26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear
statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . .
arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous
per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26
N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important
limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller,
554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and
unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that
stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly
modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at
693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at
the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the
court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is
inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found
“nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are
readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at
781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition
“that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”
554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts
court offered for upholding the law contradicts this
Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of
certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Owen said...

Phil 3:14 and khesanh0802: what you both said. This is purely virtue-signaling and emotion-wallowing. I have had the argument over and over with Progs and they. Just. Don't. Care.

Steven Davis said...

I'm not intimidated by any of this, at least in my lifetime. I own 4 and a good deal of ammo, and the rest of the American people own 350 million of them. Guns don't go bad or expire, and if cared for, can remain functional for 50 or more years even with semi-regular use.

Ammo control is probably a more serious threat.

Paul said...

Thanks Chelsea! Just as Obama has been the greatest gun salesman ever, you and Hillary will be the ones to keep Congress, the Presidency, and SCOTUS in Republican hands for the next eight years.

Keep it up girl!

Crazy Jane said...

I don't belong to the NRA, but I'm skeptical about the calm, thoughtful idea of "sensible" gun control because I don't see how it would work. If the government decided to collect all the guns -- to protect us, of course -- I'm pretty sure my brother would turn over our grandfather's 22 rifle, but I'm not so sure about the guy who mugged me and threatened three times to shoot me if I didn't give him my handbag. Hillary and Chelsea have, or can afford, bodyguards for life. The rest of us, not so much.

madAsHell said...

Trump's spoiled sons are big game hunters of rare and exotic animals.

Rare and exotic animals? Can you name two of these rare, exotic species?

I'm acquainted with a hunting guide in Africa. He will take you on safari anywhere in South or East Africa. He makes a lot of money, and is highly regulated. His goal is to find an animal that is highly stressed, and really should be culled. The point is, he generally knows where the animal is before the hunt begins.

Chinese money seeking black rhino horns to enhance male libido probably does more damage. That money is paid to poachers.

Steven Davis said...

That's kinda my point Crazy Jane, if even a small percentage of the owners of 350 million guns, say 10%, took a "Find 'em/Face 'em" attitude, the resulting civil war would make the first look like a sandbox fight. And let's not forget that the enforcers of such a confiscation attempt are not an invading army, but family and community members of the "enemy," defections would be plentiful. It can't happen now or in the near future, but it could happen in a few decades after one or more generations pass through the public education camp system.

The Cracker Emcee said...

I hope Hillary pushes gun control relentlessly in her campaign. Those who will be motivated to vote against her because of this issue wil, at a minimum, counterbalance the Plantation vote. Hillary's gun control advocacy may be the GOP's only hope.

MathMom said...

I think Chelsea should encourage her mother to be a model for us all, by dismissing her Secret Service detail, and especially, their firearms that keep her abundant ass safe.

Then, when she is fair game like the rest of us, we can talk again.

DanTheMan said...

>> the resulting civil war would make the first look like a sandbox fight

That's not what happened is Australia when they had gun confiscation.

You must remember lefty logic:

1. "You can't deport 11 million illegal aliens, regardless of what the law says. That's impossible. So you just have to accept them."
2. "You can't stop the billions being made drug smuggling, regardless of what drug laws you pass. So you you might as well legalize drugs."
3. "We must ban and confiscate 350 million guns, and here's the law that will make that happen...."

Big Mike said...

Michael wrote:

Maybe instead of all this jabbering about the 2nd Amendment the Democrats could argue for making shooting people illegal.

You know, Michael, that's just the sort of crazy idea that might even work!

Steven Davis said...

To DanTheMan:

America =/= Australia, but you are correct on the rest of that. Australia at most recovered 1 million, or 1/3 of the outstanding guns. At that rate here in the USA, more than 200 million guns are still in the hands of the least compliant of citizens. A quick internet search seems to indicate that there are slightly more than 2 million active military and police officers. 100:1 is not a good way to go into war.

Paul said...

You think it's hard to stop drugs? You see it was impossible to stop booze? Well no one who takes drugs or drinks booze thinks it's a basic right.

Now what's going to happen when they try to stop a known basic human right? See, the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting.

William said...

I fear she is exactly correct about her mother's intent to restrict gun rights. I also believe this would be likely to unleash a backlash that we don't want to see. Any Supreme who votes to take away 2nd Amendment rights may very well put a bull's eye on their own back.

ebartley said...

Left Bank of the Charles @4/22/16, 5:19 PM

At the time the second amendment was written "well-regulated" roughly meant "properly functioning." Contemporaneous examples include a well-regulated clock (which keeps proper time) and a well-regulated mind (which is self-disciplined.)

Interestingly, remnants of this survive in the term "regulated" as describes a rifle. A "regulated" or "well-regulated" rifle is consistent. The sites may be off (there's different terminology for that) so you may not hit what you're aiming at, but a good rifleman shooting a well-regulated rifle will send his bullets in the same direction, producing a tight cluster.

In any case, it's moot, because the right is granted to the people, not to the militia. If we had an amendment saying "A well-educated jury being necessary for the proper functioning of common law trials, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" would you argue that the right was restricted to people currently sitting on juries? Of course not: when you're already sitting on a jury it's too late to become well-educated; the clear purpose is to raise the likelihood that the jury will be comprised of already well-educated people by guaranteeing access to basic education to everyone in the jury pool. Similarly, the full militia(*) is only called up when there's an ongoing crisis, at which point there isn't enough time to learn how to shoot.

(*) The Founders recognized two types of militia: select (think the National Guard: trained part-time soldiers) and general (everybody of military age). As a rough generality, they thought the select militia was far more competent, but that like an army it may become partial to the government over the interest of the people. By contrast, the general militia often doesn't know what it's doing, but the government can't buy the general militia without satisfying any grievances held by the majority of the population. They're clearly talking about the general or full militia here.

Bruce Hayden said...

That's kinda my point Crazy Jane, if even a small percentage of the owners of 350 million guns, say 10%, took a "Find 'em/Face 'em" attitude, the resulting civil war would make the first look like a sandbox fight. And let's not forget that the enforcers of such a confiscation attempt are not an invading army, but family and community members of the "enemy," defections would be plentiful.

and

A quick internet search seems to indicate that there are slightly more than 2 million active military and police officers. 100:1 is not a good way to go into war.

And, this grossly exaggerates the number who would be available for confiscation. For example, much of law enforcement is somewhat decentralized. Maybe 60 of some maybe 63 county sheriffs in Colorado declared that their deputies weren't going to enforce the new gun laws that, for example, limited magazine size to 15 or fewer rounds. We are apparently seeing the same sort of thing in Eastern Washington. Law enforcement and criminal prosecutions are inevitably resource limited, which ultimately leaves those in charge of those area quite a bit of leeway in which laws they can afford to enforce. One jurisdiction may choose to concentrate on speeding tickets, and another on graffiti. Elected officials in jurisdictions where gun control is unpopular are just going to prioritize other law enforcement and prosecution priorities, or face an enraged electorate at their next election. Which means that for the most part, confiscation and the like may work to some extent in the big, Dem run, cities, but not very well everywhere else. The law enforcement officers there will just choose to spend their resources going after other types of crimes.

Making that worse, some of the most gun friendly people in this country are law enforcement, military, and ex-military. I belong to an indoor range, and they give discounts to LEOs, military, and (us) seniors. These are often the guys shooting next to you. Most of the instructors there learned their trade in either the military and/or in law enforcement. Indeed, that is essentially what they are looking for on their applications. This is still somewhere where ex military are almost automatically thanked for their service. Etc. And, federal law enforcement don't appear much different here from other LEOs. Which is a long way of saying that the 2 million figure is likely high - I would expect fewer than 200k or so. At 300k, we are talking 1/1000 at best.

Bruce Hayden said...

Something else to keep in mind when discussing gun confiscation here is that the Constitution is the basis of our social contract, and Heller got the history of the 2nd Amdt. right. Large segments of our population have been taught for hundreds of years now that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual fundamental right. This is deeply embedded in their psyche. I am thinking in particular of the Jacksonian belt, through into the western mountains, and including much of the surrounding area. We are probably talking the bulk of flyover country, concentrating on the belt running through the middle of the country, and maybe ignoring the (often Scandinavian descended) upper mid-west. Interestingly, primarily the roughly 30 states that recognize our Colorado CCW permits, as well as NV, VA, and SC (or, even better, the states that recognize AZ CCW permits, which includes those three states). These maps, along with those showing "shall issue" states, illustrate a good reason why we aren't going to get national gun control legislation through Congress in the foreseeable future.

The big exceptions here is the left coast (ignoring Alaska) and the upper mid Atlantic, plus IL and MN. Part of this may be immigration - with those descended from the original colonists being more likely to believe that this is part of the social bargain embodied in the adoption of the 2nd Amdt. And, those arriving later, often from countries with strict gun control laws, being more susceptible to left/liberal brainwashing in their public school systems. I do wonder though if the rejection of this in the mid-Atlantic states may at least be partially also due to the communitarian nature of the Puritans (trying to explain the left liberal position here of some of the original colonies with smaller immigrant populations).

Rusty said...

3. "We must ban and confiscate 350 million guns, and here's the law that will make that happen...."

Not only logistically impossible, but there is a subset of the 100 million legal gun owners who will not allow that to happen. My full-of-shit-off-the-top-of-my-head estimate is something like 5%. Confiscation , unless backed up by a massive military presence would last less than two weeks.
The better tactic is to restrict ammunition. In which case there will be a huge black market in ammunition and components and the equipment to manufacture same. In any case the government would lose.

Bruce Hayden said...

And, where are we going to get that military presence? Thanks to the Clinton "Peace Dividend", our military, and esp., I think, the Army, are significantly smaller than they should be right now, which means that the National Guard has been repeatedly called up to help fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. A state's National Guard reports to the governor of that state's governor, who is likely to get voted out of office if he nationalizes them for this purpose. (Won't help in VA, with its one term governorship - Clintonista Terry McAuliffe has just given maybe 200k felons the vote in VA to help Hillary this fall, with impunity, since he is term limited).

My worry though is, as you suggest, ammo. You need to shoot to get and stay competent. And, I, for one, am too lazy to pick up my brass, esp. at a range that does it for me. And, too lazy to reload, in comparison to just buying another 1,000 rounds at a time. Right now, it takes me less than an hour to shoot 100 rounds, and I am aiming at twice a week. Maybe 40 minutes each time, which includes loading the magazines. How long though if I have to load my own ammo first? I expect that it is going to double, if not triple the time. We are spoiled right now, with easy availability of reasonably good reasonably cheap ammunition (excluding, of course, .22LR, which is still in extremely short supply). Right now, I pay $.25 per round of 9 mm ammo. I can guarantee that I would shoot much less if I were paying $.50, or even $1.00 per round.

Dem legislators in CA are talking seriously about taxing and limiting ammo sales. They have states to the east that would love to supply them with cheap ammo (as they are already doing with electric power). I can just imagine a huge black market there, with stores right outside their borders with massive displays of ammunition. And, those agriculture check stations on their border now also checking for bootleg ammo. Which is why I think that they would need to impose the tax and/or limits nationally to do much good.

Rusty said...

I'll take your brass, Bruce ;-)
Thers a museum at one of the kibbutz in Israel.When the British banned arms for the Jews, pre Israel, the kibbutz built their own 9mm factory underneith a laundry. What equipment they couldn't buy they made. 10s of thousands of rounds per day. I don't know how the smuggled in the brass bars for the cases. They made everything right there, from primers to bullets.
It ain't rocket science.