The no-fly list is a civil rights disaster by every conceivable standard. It is secret, it disproportionately affects Arab-Americans, it is error-prone, there is no due process or effective recourse for people placed on the list, and it constantly and relentlessly expands. As of 2014, the government had a master watchlist of 680,000 people, forty percent of whom had “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” This is both an absurdly large number of people to arbitrarily target in gun control legislation, and far, far too few to have any meaningful effect on actual gun ownership, let alone gun violence.How is his lefty audience taking it? From one of the most up-voted comments, by RappingNinja:
1) I don’t give a shit about denying anyone the ability to buy guns, even if it’s “unfair” to those people, because - unless you’re getting a single-shot rifle to hunt squirrel to feed your starving family - NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING GUNS....Why aren't human beings better at reasoning? Notice that this guy is — probably unwittingly — declaring that he'd be just fine with a law that came right out and said no Muslims can buy guns.
When people think a particular liberty isn't worth exercising or is actively wrong to exercise, do they become blind to the problem of selective deprivation? Think of the liberties that could fall into that category: drinking alcohol, having an abortion, sodomy, etc. Assume you're one of the people who think that no one should do these things. You shouldn't accept a law that said only young men are forbidden to buy a drink, only white women are forbidden to have an abortion, and only same-sex couples are forbidden to engage in sodomy. So why would you close your eyes to a government arrogation of power to make a big list of persons who may not do these things? I suspect that the answer you might not want to have to admit is: You favor the discrimination but think it needs to be done covertly.
पोस्ट्स
१७१ टिप्पण्या:
The argument, such as it is, for no fly is that flying is not a right so you're not deprived of a right. Gun possession is a right, and if you want to get rid of it, the proper procedure is to amend the constitution.
The arbitrary selection of no fly falls under the supreme court's love of rational basis, which allows anything pretty much.
Molon Labe.
The Dems are now officially the party of chaos and lawlessness.
The bill the occupy crowd wants to vote on was defeated in a House committee.
GOP should have pulled this same stunt on Obamacare.
The selection of Muslims is allowed as an immigration and visa rule. It's our country and we get to say who comes here. No constitutional basis against any restriction exists.
The people who are championing the deprivation of constitutional rights by means of "secret lists" with no oversight or due process, like my own representative, @RepLoisFrankel, might feel differently if someone like, a President Trump, were wielding them as he saw fit.
It's repugnant.
The media are falling all over themselves promoting the wisdom and thoughtfulness of the historic sit-in by the clever and oh-so caring Democrats.
It is not that it be done covertly, but that I, me, and my friends get to do it.
As of 2014, the government had a master watchlist of 680,000 people...
The vast majority of whom are foreigners living abroad. I have no problem with foreigners being prohibited from possessing guns while in the U.S. Especially foreigners in the country illegally.
and not you and yours.
Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?
1. It's not reasoning or nonreasoning. It's participation as entertainment, if only self-entertainment.
2. The only reasoning involved in any case is application or non-application of rules which anybody is free to reject. Legal types think they're not arbitrary, but the law lost its cachet with SSM as a final straw. Anybody is free to reject it as a bases of reasoning about public issues today.
There are actually twelve commandments but two of them are secret.
It's Chinatown.
The commenter loves the feeling he has about himself when he expresses the sentiment. The feeling he is a good person, superior to that ugly herd of his fellow men that which exists in his imagination
Don't bother him with details.
@rhhardin 8:03
Amending the Constitution does not make a right evaporate.
Large numbers of people on the left are either indifferent or actively hostile to the concept of rights and are eager to deprive their political enemies of them so as to enforce their ideology and suppress dissent.
Anyone who has been paying any attention to what is happening on universities and on social media and in the government cannot help but be aware of this fact.
We will know that the left is out of power when they start worrying about rights again.
How is this "boldly fighting"?
A sit-in meant something when it was done at a lunch counter denying you service for too much melanin in your skin. This is more like a child's temper tantrum. If they don't like what's going on, they should do a better job of persuading their colleagues and the public.
I hope my Rep, the Honorable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, enjoys the doughnuts Senator Warren brought them. What a gallant show of solidarity!
Let me boil it down to the nub. People are stupid. Period.
That comment maker is no exception.
"Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?"
Because we have a couple of generations that have been subjected to an "education" that is not about teaching them how to reason. It's about instilling the "proper" values.
If the left is so convinced of the wrongness of the 2d Am., then its course is clear. Go through the long slog set out by Article V and change the Constitution.
I am going to keep saying it until it becomes a meme, if we can make it extra hard for Asians to get into Harvard, why cant we make it extra hard for Muslims to buy guns?
If a replacement for the 2nd Amendment came up for a vote in my state, I am not sure how I would vote, but I can promise you that I would never support appointing judges to think the Bill of Rights is x amount of toilet paper, except, of course, for the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which is to be interpreted as expansively as possible, unlike any of the other rights.
The media are falling all over themselves promoting the wisdom and thoughtfulness of the historic sit-in by the clever and oh-so caring Democrats.
Well, to be fair, if you were a lefty journalist faced with covering Trumps summary of Hillary (Cleanup in isle 2!) or a bunch of old, fat, privileged Democrats pretending to be protestors, which would you choose?
Reasoning is like the bus for liberals, they get off when they get to their stop.
To deny a "rational basis" for a law is to assert a negative. I tell you what, if the Supreme Court can formally prove the lack of a rational basis, I will be fine with that finding, otherwise they are poaching on the rights and privileges of the electorate.
Haven't they seized Gawker's servers yet for auction?
If I remember correctly, wasn't Bowers (The landmark Supreme Court case legalizing sodomy)-- wasn't that a case about a heterosexual couple being punished for committing sodomy, not a gay thing?
So it was actually being equally applied?
That said, of course Democrats want to have secret lists that deny constitutional rights. What is more historically leftist than that? It's practically the reason for existence for Democrats and leftists, as far as I can tell.
I wonder... do we lose our right to freedom of religion and speech if we are on the "bigoted" list that no doubt the left is keeping?
And make no mistake: this has all been held legal before. Mormons were stripped of the right to vote merely by virtue of being Mormons.... and it was upheld 9-0 by the Supreme court. Davis v. Beecon (Beacon?).
In fact, the Mormons lost an awful lot of so-called "Constitutional rights" such as the right to run for public office; the right to vote (fun fact: The Mormons gave the vote to women pretty early. Then Congress took it away from them.), the right to serve on a jury, and even spousal immunity--women forced to testify against their husbands, etc.
The left is eagerly marching to this point for everyone, at posthaste speed. It's a simple question, really: who, in the left's worldview, should be treated better: A Mormon, or Catholic, etc small business owner who employs 20 people and faithfully pays his or her taxes, or an illegal immigrant Muslim who just raped ten girls?
And we all know the answer: The illegal immigrant. It's simple, the left hates us all.
They promise that they want Sweden socialism, but what we will get is North Korea or Pol Pot.
And I really wish this commenting system would not mark me as "unknown".
--Vance
Drinking alcohol is a weird example, though. All states have a drinking age of 21, which is selective discrimination against minors and young adults. Don't some parolees/probationers have to abstain from alcohol? That's selective discrimination against criminals, albeit with due process.
"... declaring that he'd be just fine with a law that came right out and said no Muslims can buy guns."
-- In defense of stupid person, they'd probably say "That's discriminatory. NO ONE should be able to buy guns, not just based on their religion." I imagine the no-gun list, in their mind, will expand to be pretty much everybody, at least, that seems to be the intention I get from the left on this.
But, I can remember when the left was against secret, McCarthyite lists.
Scientific Progressives like the idea that the US Government should compile and use secret lists of people.
[As an aside, I think it is kind of funny that the left's sit in for secret lists came on roughly the same day as the left celebrated Sotomayor's dissent that was praised for blasting the majority for weakening the Fourth Amendment.]
NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING GUNS
Fucking gun...is that slang for penis?
As in you can have my fucking gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands?
The Dems are being idiotic here. Their similar bills in the Senate failed, and then the Republicans had their own bills that would have provided Due Process to get off the list, and most of the Dems voted against them to defeat them. Which means that they are only in favor of banning guns from people if they are on a secret list and have no way to get off it, or even to find out that they are on it. They oppose banning people from owning guns if they or on one of those lists if those people can find out that they are on the list and have a legal way to get off the list. In short, they only will support such legislation if it violates both the 2nd and 5th Amdts, and oppose it otherwise.
tim in vermont at 8:18 AM
if we can make it extra hard for Asians to get into Harvard, why can't we make it extra hard for Muslims to buy guns?
Excellent question.
Blogger ceowens said...
@rhhardin 8:03
Amending the Constitution does not make a right evaporate.
Amen to that.
So many people miss the fact that the Constitution does not grant any right to own guns. It recognizes the right to own guns and prevents the govt from screwing with that right.
It is not a right granted by govt. It is a right that exists completely independently of government. It existed before govt and will continue to exist even if govt tries to restrict it.
John Henry
So why would you close your eyes to a government arrogation of power to make a big list of persons who may not do these things?
Because you're an unhinged arrogant lefty that thinks Che Guevara looks great on a t-shirt.
Here's some reasoning from Scott Adams:
"So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you."
Fucking gun...is that slang for penis?
It's the one for....
When does political theater become revolutionary subversion and treason?
These elected Representatives are agitating openly for the infringement of an inherent individual right, a right so important it is enumerated in clear language in the Constitution. Not long ago, they'd have been recalled by their constituents within as short a time as possible for their outrageous behavior, let alone their attempt to strip citizens of their rights.
They should all resign their elected offices, if they are not removed, for they are each violating their oath of office, then agitate for a constitutional amendment if their beliefs actually support their words.
Kudos to Pareene and shame on his idiot commenter. Suppose we decide that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes, so let's ban guns for black people. It'll reduce the number of guns in circulation, so all good, right?
Republicans would be wise to turn the Democrats' message of tolerance on its head and stand up for the rights of Muslims and anyone else who may find themselves on a secret government list that has no checks on executive power and no due process. Surely Democrats wouldn't favor putting people on this list in jail without trial, so why should other basic rights be denied this way?
Why are so many people so bad at reasoning?
Because the schools no longer teach basic reasoning skills. Meanwhile, for 2 to 3 decades now young people have been socialized to react with outrage to that which is incorrect without consideration of the larger issues at stake.
Positions, not principles.
We can solve a bunch of these problems by ignoring annoying buzzwords.
.
When does political theater become revolutionary subversion and treason?
These elected Representatives are agitating openly for the infringement of an inherent individual right, a right so important it is enumerated in clear language in the Constitution. Not long ago, they'd have been recalled by their constituents within as short a time as possible for their outrageous behavior, let alone their attempt to strip citizens of their rights.
They should all resign their elected offices, if they are not removed, for they are each violating their oath of office, then agitate for a constitutional amendment if their beliefs actually support their words.
I wonder... do we lose our right to freedom of religion and speech if we are on the "bigoted" list that no doubt the left is keeping?
Nope. Those rights also exist independently of govt.
John Henry
I don’t give a shit about denying anyone the ability to buy guns, even if it’s “unfair” to those people, because - unless you’re getting a single-shot rifle to hunt squirrel to feed your starving family - NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING GUNS....
ARM. Is that you?
"The argument, such as it is, for no fly is that flying is not a right so you're not deprived of a right. Gun possession is a right, and if you want to get rid of it, the proper procedure is to amend the constitution."
No. Unless "the argument" is just your way of thinking about things.
Whether there is a right to buy a particular weapon or not, the government can still violate due process or equal protection in taking it away.
And the Second Amendment right is no absolute and this particular weapon could be banned without violating the Second Amendment.
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING GUNS
Fucking gun...is that slang for penis?
Yes it is. Perhaps you've not been in the military?
"This is my rifle, this is my gun. One is for shooting, one is for fun"
Repeated over and over and over while running in a big circle with you rifle over your head.
John Henry
"And the Second Amendment right is no absolute and this particular weapon could be banned without violating the Second Amendment."
I mean that's the likely interpretation you'll get from courts following precedent. There's a chance of making a Second Amendment argument here. It's not impossible. But amending the Constitution is much harder and isn't going to happen.
Well, come on now, Democrats/the Left were against no-fly lists/secret government lists being used to target potential terrorists before they were for them.
They've evolved! Get with the times, man.
I watched CNN fawn over the House Dems last night. It's all coordinated. It's all bullshit.
But Paul Ryan got his ass handed to him. Last night was worse than when Biden laughed at him during the 2012 VP debate. No matter the right or wrong, or the reason, he completely lost control of the House, and he looks weak and ineffective as a leader.
He shouldn't have returned to the floor to be shouted down. He didn't know that was coming? Didn't he pay attention to the left's tactics during the Act 10 protests in his home state?
His intellectual capitulation to Dems is ridiculous. He wants to play nice in the sandbox with them, and then they stick a plastic shovel up his ass.
Meanwhile he plays this game of ambiguous support with Trump, praying for a general election loss to reserve his spot in 2020. I think Paul Ryan's chances at ever becoming President were severely damaged last night.
He's right on this watch list issue. He's just such a wonk, he doesn't know how to communicate it. I think it stems from the arrogance of a kept man.
Gun banners think we should trust in the government to decide for us. Totally opposite of the ideals the USA was founded on.
But it really comes down to whose ox is being gored.
Blogger Gusty Winds said...
Because you're an unhinged arrogant lefty that thinks Che Guevara looks great on a t-shirt.
I am a hinged liberal and I think my Che Guevara t-shirt looks great. I wore it for the first time in years the other day. (My diet is working)
Of course mine has Che in a red circle with a red diagonal. Above it says "Commies aren't cool"
I love my Che shirt.
John Henry
Ann Althouse said...I mean that's the likely interpretation you'll get from courts following precedent. There's a chance of making a Second Amendment argument here. It's not impossible. But amending the Constitution is much harder and isn't going to happen.
Extend the idea, Professor. Nothing in the Constitution is "absolute." Therefor by your standard (that is, the standard you correctly point out the courts will likely use) anything in the Constitution is subject to restriction or modification by a court without "violating" the Constitution. Since amending the darn thing is "much harder and isn't going to happen" I guess it's the job of the courts to make whatever changes they feel are necessary, whenever they like.
What good is a Constitution, again?
Beta males seem to always favor disarming the populace, because at it's core, they want nothing to do with the right and responsibility of defending oneself and one's family and home. They prefer to outsource this basic human instinct, to a nanny...the State. That way, they can cruise through life pretending, or ignoring that there exists evil in this world.
- CI
I take back my comment that I made yesterday about this ridiculousness not trickling down to the masses. Late last night one of my good friends who is not very political at all decided to go all in for the sit in because she was so happy that Congress was DOING SOMETHING!!
She got a bunch of likes from other women. I've never felt more ashamed to be a woman...
"The vast majority of whom are foreigners living abroad. I have no problem with foreigners being prohibited from possessing guns while in the U.S. Especially foreigners in the country illegally."
So the American citizens on the list are just S.O.L.?
People are forgetting the lefty congress critters are also whacking away at amendments other than the second by their proposal. But like fluid, broadly interpreted speech limits on campus, Constitutional Amendments only have value when they serve the cause.
If your party's presidential nominee and her minions are pleading the 5th all over the place and you stage a stupid stunt to deny your fellow Americans the 5th Amendment, YOU MIGHT BE A DEMOCRAT.
If your party is fighting to restore convicted felons' rights to vote and buy guns and deny innocent civilians those same rights based on a secret list, YOU MIGHT BE A DEMOCRAT.
If you once marched with MLK, then got elected to Congress, then were erroneously placed on a "watch list" and yet you still stage a sit-in to deny people their 5th Amendment rights, YOU MIGHT BE A DEMOCRAT.
"And the Second Amendment right is no absolute and this particular weapon could be banned without violating the Second Amendment."
Wait. What particular weapon? A semi-automatic rifle [in which case you'd have to square that against allowing semi-automatic pistols] or merely any firearm that one 'deems' looks terrifying?
- CI
Why hasn't Ryan accused the Dems of "shutting down government" yet? Does anyone doubt that's exactly the line the Media would take if some, say, anti-abortion Repubs. staged a sit-in?
"Extremist anti-woman's rights Republicans staged an unprecedented protest today as they prevented Congress from doing its work in a display of counter-democratic intimidation, effectively shutting down a branch of the government and holding the country hostage to their agenda. Over to Anderson Cooper to interview some poor bastard who supports some other popular bill that would save his whole family, somehow, but can't get voted on due to these extremist tactics from Republicans."
"He shouldn't have returned to the floor to be shouted down."
-- Eh, he had to do it. If he didn't, they'd accuse him of being a coward who doesn't want to face them.
It's a shame that there's no winning since no matter what he does, he's going to get the worst interpretation put out by the media. At least this way, he gets to make the temper tantrum look like a tantrum.
I had an interesting discussion this last weekend at the Walmart in Sandpoint, ID. Ran into a guy I know from here across the border in MT, and I mentioned guns. He got very animated on the subject, telling me that everyone needed guns, and esp handguns. I had told him my next big purchase was going to be a bear gun. We talked about shooting a lightweight .454 Casull handgun, and I explained why the recoil made me decide to go with a 10 mm Glock 40 instead (plus 9 more rounds). Etc. We had talked guns before, but this was different. He was adamant about needing handguns. What had changed? He is gay, and the Orlando shooting was the week before. Some people get it, even in the LBGTxyz crowd - if only the govt and the bad guys have guns, SWAT will sit outside for three hours before forcing entry, then shoot a bunch of innocent hostages when they finally go in. And the perp can get to heaven, maybe even despite gay inclinations, through the martyrdom of killng a bunch of degenerate sodomites. Win-win for the groups with the guns, but a losing proposition for everyone else.
"No one should have a right to ____________"
Start filling in the blank. I think that is why we have a Bill of Rights. I just guessing. It protects us from the tyranny of the majority.
We are becoming the government that the founders were trying to escape.
Irony = Is the image of noted civil rights activist and fellow travelers, holding a "sit-in" in a forum protected by men with guns.....in order to protest their inability to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens and the right of due process.
I present to you, the Democratic Party
- CI
"Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?" It's not a matter of reasoning but of stating first premises.
"he'd be just fine with a law that came right out and said no Muslims can buy guns." The guy did not in fact declare that. Whether he would be "just fine" with such a law depends on whether he also supports another premise, namely that all law should be applied equally to similarly situated citizens, and if so, whether that premise deserves preference over the rejection guns/elimination of 2nd Amendment as such. He may not support such a premise, for example favoring a utilitarian approach that says any step toward implementing premise number 1 is inherently beneficial.
"When people think a particular liberty isn't worth exercising or is actively wrong to exercise, do they become blind to the problem of selective deprivation?" Not in general. Partly depends on empirical judgment of likely effects. For example, no Progs strive to disarm inner-city blacks or reasonably foresee such disarmament. Instead, they may reasonably assume that the main effects will hurt people they despise, in which case selective deprivation is a feature, not a bug. (Of course, the implicit prediction may be wrong, but it is not necessarily an indication of poor reasoning.)
"So why would you close your eyes to a government arrogation of power to make a big list of persons who may not do these things? I suspect that the answer you might not want to have to admit is: You favor the discrimination but think it needs to be done covertly." A broader principle would suggest that Progs do not close their eyes to government arrogation of power but plausibly assume that power will applied by fellow Progs against people they dislike (see IRS, EPA, CFPB, etc.).
Of course, if they were "better at reasoning" they might consider more unintended consequences. But for the most part Prog "reasoning" is perfectly reasonable: they mostly act in a way to maximize their actual preferences, given their actual hierarchy of preferences.
this particular weapon
Which particular weapon, Ann? One of the problems has always been the definition of "assault rifle". It is easy to modify the shape of the pistol grip, for example. Do that and it ceases to be an "assault rifle". Or leave the pistol grip but remove the flash suppressor.
The definition is very flaky and even when "assault rifles" were banned, it didn't much affect sales. They just designed around the definition.
The other problem is, make it illegal and what happens? There are scores of millions of these so-called assault rifles out there. How will the law be enforced?
Also, the only thing that is regulated is the lower receiver. I can machine (using a rented/borrowed CNC mill and a blank) a lower receiver in an hour or so. I don't need to know anything about machining. Everything else, barrel, stock, trigger mechanism etc is unregulated.
Somewhat harder but modern technology is such that I could machine the entire rifle.
Or maybe ban the ammunition. OK, AR-15s can use all sorts of ammunition, all that is required is changing the barrel and bolt. So reformat it for 30 caliber. Or 45 caliber or whatever.
Trying to ban the AR-15 and similar rifles is an exercise in futility.
John Henry
P.s. I used the term "degenerate sodomites" in my previous post. I meant this to reflect the fundamental Islamic view of male homosexuality, and should not be taken as my views on the subject (which are, to a great extent, libertarian).
"Why aren't human beings better at reasoning? Notice that this guy is — probably unwittingly — declaring that he'd be just fine with a law that came right out and said no Muslims can buy guns."
Seems like his reasoning is perfectly clear. He hates that Second Amendment "right" and wants to destroy it in any way he can. Anything that cuts it down, no matter how ridiculous, is a net positive for him. For him, this takes precedence over little things like not discriminating.
Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?
Because in the grand scheme of things better reasoning isn't crucial?
I am a hinged liberal John Henry
Who thinks OJ is innocent of murder.
The Democrats logic is to remove the ball in a soccer game, in order to make sure no one gets their knee scraped.
If you want to live in a free society, you have to be willing to accept a body count.
Home of the brave, land of the free. Free ranging insane are part of the culture.
If you don't like it, move to a nanny country like Great Britain, France, or Singapore.
JAORE said...
So the American citizens on the list are just S.O.L.?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It would be absolutely unconstitutional to use the list to prohibit U.S. citizens from getting guns. But they are welcome to use it to prevent foreigners from getting guns.
OT but do you live in Sand Point, Bruce?
One of the most beautiful towns in one of the most beautiful parts of the US. I used to represent a company in Spokane and every time I went there I would include a weekend in Sand Point on my trip.
I used to tell my wife we would move there when I retire. Since I don't plan to retire until after I am dead. (Maybe not even then) it seems unlikely.
Lucky you.
John Henry
Keep excluding until everyone is excluded.
If you want inclusiveness: men, women, gays, transsexuals, black, white, asian, amputees, midgets, cheerleaders, nuns, French maids -- you need to look to Porn.
I am Laslo.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
I am a hinged liberal John Henry
Who thinks OJ is innocent of murder.
Not necessarily other than in the sense of innocent until proven guilty.
I just did not think the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
John Henry
By the way, Professor, I'm not sure your conclusion about why that poster would or would not support (w/r/t bans aimed at a single group vs bans aimed at everyone) nor the specific reason why (unstated bias/prejudice) is necessarily correct.
I'm guessing you're thinking about the move from some people who opposed gay marriage to "get the government out of marriage" and thereby avoid having to allow the gov. to sanction same sex marriage. You interpreted that as showing a bias against gay people (saying that the real object was to punish/discriminate against that group and to "take the ball and go home" when the gay marriage opponents couldn't prevail in court). You seem to be saying here that the commenter's statement shows a similar bias--that they're hiding their desire to discriminate against Muslims by supporting a total ban.
I'm not convinced that follows, at least as the no-fly lists work now. I'm sure the Left would immediately work to expand those lists to any group they dislike, and I'm equally sure the Left's anti-gun position is in part born of a bias against the type of people they consider "typical gun owners."
I agree that people who support full bans should nevertheless not support selective bans insomuch as the selective bans improperly target/discriminate against groups. I disagree that in this specific case it's fair to assume anti-Muslim bias is at the root of the Left's willingness to use the no-fly list to prevent people from purchasing firearms. It makes more sense to conclude that they simply value being anti-gun more than they value being anti-discrimination...so their position isn't "correct" but it is rational/consistent with their internal values.
Now, it is 100% fair to point out that their revealed preferences definitely show their lack of commitment to their stated values (namely non-discrimination), yes indeed. They oppose potential discrimination and laws that might have a disparate impact on minority groups, except when we're talking about laws that restrict gun ownership (and, N.B. gun laws have historically targeted minorities, to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and prevent them from protecting themselves) in which case the Left says "discriminate away!"
AA,
The problem here is that "assault-style guns/rifles/weapons are not "a particular gun." They are "modular" guns that can be assembled with pieces to look like whatever you want without changing the way they work. And the way they work is no different than a "conventional" rifle, such as say, the WWII M-1A carbine, or a Ruger "Ranch rifle" Mini-14, and of course, if you want to, you can also take these guns apart and put them back together with a custom stock ad chambered for a different cartridge. It is just harder to do than with the modern rifles, but not "different."
So the "gun controllers" are into specifying just a particular "look" that for some reason is offensive to them.
Until homicides by rifles reach the level of automobile deaths, I don't really see it as a problem for the country.
We should expect to lose 40,000 people a year by rifles, as that is the rate of automobile deaths we currently have no problem with.
Someone you know has been whacked by a car. Hardly any of us know anyone who has been whacked with a rifle.
Why the "no fly" list was declared unconstitutional.
It is like telling you you can make yourself up and dress any way you want to, except platinum blonde and a dress to look like Marilyn Monroe on that exhaust grate.
Abortion is selective exclusion, a "final solution" carried out in the privacy of a clinic or Planned Parenthood office. Unless you are an advocate of [class] diversity that reduces human life to a colored clump of cells.
"=" or normalization of transgender/homosexual couplets is selective exclusion of politically/socially unfavorable orientations and behaviors. Unless you believe that reproductive prostitution is a normal state of human dignity and social relations.
That said, with a pro-choice religious doctrine principles do not matter, so there is a logical basis for exclusion of everyone and no one as the executive, judge, etc. finds opportunistic.
As for owning a gun, a knife, a bat, a scalpel, and other dual-use items, there are rights and responsibilities. People with a pro-choice religion that advocates for mass abortion rites, selective exclusion, [class] diversity, etc. would not understand or reject this complementary structure, and the equal and complementary nature of men and women, etc., selectively.
I think Ann is pessimistic about the fate of the increased scrutiny required by the Heller and McDonald decisions, esp after recent 2nd and 9th Circuit cases, and the refusal but the Supreme Court to grant Cert in the first case. But, I will suggest that the other Circuits seem to have been moving in the opposite direction, coalescing around a standard that slides between intermediate and strict scrutiny, depending on how close the right is to the core of the 2nd Amdt. An "assault weapons" ban would fail at either level of scrutiny since the number of people killed every year by these firearms is so low (the Orlando shootings were equivalent statistically to roughly 1/5 of the homicides utilizing rifles of any type in 2015). "Assault Weapons" in the hands of civilians, just don't kill that many people every year. Such a ban SHOULD fail even rational basis scrutiny.
And John is correct about the problems with reinstating the Clinton era "Assault Weapon" ban. Not only is it straight forward to mill an 80% complete AR lower receiver, but you can also build one using 3D printing. And not requiring a serial number, it would be hard to prove that these firearms weren't grandfathered. Or, the manufacturers just make firearms without the banned feature, and then you just swap such in, if desired, at your leisure. After all, one of the key features of these firearms is their modularity and easy modification. Which leaves banning firearms by make and model number - except that firearm manufacturers can switch model numbers and configurations far faster than legislators and bureaucrats can change their lists. The fact that they think that they can turn back the clock 20 years is strong indicia that they have little clue about what they are trying to regulate or ban.
Remember this: If they can do it to others, you may be next.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Why are the DemCong so anti-civil rights?
Gun control in France has surely put a damper on this kind if attack.... Oh, wait....
Rusty said...
ARM. Is that you?
Not me. I would have written, "no real man needs a gun other than to hunt to feed his starving family".
I see the pussies with guns are out in force again today. I, of course, continue to live life on the edge, gun-free, defended only by my devastating manliness. I walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia.
Paul Ryan should have delivered a couple dozen baby cribs to the well of the house.
That most up-voted comment amounts to saying it's OK to take away on suspicion a right we don't think anyone should have anyway. Most of the gun-haters I know would agree, even if they wouldn't have put it quite that way.
Trump should champion a counter-proposal: any non-citizens on the terror watch list should be immediately deported. Why should we allow people we think might be terrorists to say in our country and put us at risk?
If they're on the list and they're not citizens, kick 'em out.
The Dems are all about safety, right? Why risk someone on the list getting a gun, right? Well I say that doesn't go far enough. If people on the list are a safety threat to Americans then we shouldn't let non-citizens on the list stay in America at all.
That's fair, right?
@AReasonableMan
Bravo. I think it's awesome that you go through life not locking your doors, having a fire extinguisher or a spare tire kit. You know....task oriented tools.
Ignorance must be truly peaceful!
- CI
Because in the grand scheme of things better reasoning isn't crucial?
Of course it is crucial. The messes the country is in can all be detected back to lack of logical reasoning skills.
I thought Ryan looked like the only adult in the room - like a teacher trying to maintain order in a kindergarten.
ARM said...I walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia.
No one here is insisting you arm yourself, ARM. If you don't want to own a firearm, don't. If you want to depend on other to defend you, fine--I don't think the law should force you to own a weapon if you don't want to.
I thought you open minded progressive folks believed in letting other people live the way they want to, though. If some people DO want to own guns (and be "pussies," in your words) then isn't it an imposition of your lifestyle and values to make that desired ownership of theirs illegal? If a single adult woman living in a bad neighborhood wants to own a pistol to protect herself why should your determination that she's a wimp get to make that illegal, for her?
Anyway all this talk of "manliness" in the context of safety and protection is just more cis-gender patriarchal oppression, ARM, and you ought to know better. Stop supporting the rape culture!
Luring the fishies with chum from comments sections is the lowliest form of blogging.
And by "lowliest," I mean really, really low. Betrays the blogger's opinion of the eye level of her audience, I think.
I, of course, continue to live life on the edge, gun-free, defended only by my devastating manliness. I walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia.
But yet you're terrified that someone else has a gun.
RappingNinja meant to say:
NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING NINJA SWORDS....except for hunting food.
RappingNinja meant to say:
NO ONE SHOULD PLAY OR HAVE TO HEAR ANY FUCKING RAP MUSIC...no exceptions.
Hardly any of us know anyone who has been whacked with a rifle.
Depends on what you mean by "whacked by." You had instruction on using the bayonet and butt of your rifle, right?
And I made a mistake above. The M-1A carbine had the full auto setting, which of course is highly illegal for any civilian to own without certification. The original M-1 carbine was just semi-auto.
A part of me hopes this becomes the new normal, by the way. The Media seems really happy to see a stunt like this prevent the House from carrying out their business. Fine. We all know if the Repubs. did the same thing the Media would condemn the action as an unconscionable breach of etiquette and protocol...but put that aside. The Dems have shown Speaker Ryan that they don't respect him and don't respect the rules of the House. Fine. Act on that! Take every opportunity to treat them as unfairly as they've treated you. Screw them, procedurally, at every opportunity. Gum it up, slow it down, grind it to a stop. See how President H Clinton enjoys it--if this is the new normal, let's go.
AReasonableMan said...
I would have written, "no real man needs a gun other than to hunt to feed his starving family".
So you think that the gays inside Pulse were not real men? Noted.
NO ONE SHOULD PLAY OR HAVE TO HEAR ANY FUCKING RAP MUSIC...no exceptions.
Amen to that!
If ARM was really so unafraid, I bet he would have no problems putting up a sign saying something about how his home is a gun free zone and the owner is anti-second amendment and also a rich liberal.
That's what a real man would do, not a "pussy"
--Vance
@John - I am on the MT side of the border. Sandpoint is one of the closest places with a Walmart and a Home Depot. If you ever want to visit, try the Ruby in Ponderay, next door to the Home Depot and a North 40 outfitter, which has an amazing selection of almost anything you might want for farming, ranching, or just living in rural America, ranging from boots, through guns, ammo, truck accessories, cattle pens, vet supplies, etc. And across the street from Home Depot is the Walmart.
For those who don't know the area, Sandpoint is at the north end of lake Pend O'Reille (pronounced "ponderay"), which I think is more beautiful than the more famous Coeur d'Alene maybe 40 miles south. I esp like the cliffs at the south end of the lake by Bayview, which has a real live Navy base (yes, we are talking Idaho). It takes advantage of the fact that it is maybe the best place in the country to do sonic testing, since it is quite deep, doesn't freeze in the winter, and is seismically inactive. Sandpoint is the birthplace of Sarah Paln, and is maybe 30 miles south of Ruby Ridge. Spokane is maybe 60 miles SW along US 2, and maybe 10 miles down that road is Lone Wolf Distributors who sell anything Glock, including a 100% non-Glock Glock. Unfortunately, the overflow money from CdA has flowed there, and while it has gotten nicer, and more quaint, it as also gotten much more expensive to live there.
If they're on the list and they're not citizens, kick 'em out.
Heck, if they are citixens, kick them out anyway. They would not be on the watchlist if they weren't dangerous!
HoodlumDoodlum at 9:45 AM
any non-citizens on the terror watch list should be immediately deported. Why should we allow people we think might be terrorists to say in our country and put us at risk? If they're on the list and they're not citizens, kick 'em out.
Also, they should be allowed to appeal the deportation only from a US Embassy in their foreign country.
Dr. Althouse, you had it at "Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?"
Wilbur said...
How is this "boldly fighting"?
A sit-in meant something when it was done at a lunch counter denying you service for too much melanin in your skin. This is more like a child's temper tantrum. If they don't like what's going on, they should do a better job of persuading their colleagues and the public.
I hope my Rep, the Honorable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, enjoys the doughnuts Senator Warren brought them. What a gallant show of solidarity!
6/23/16, 8:16 AM"
And here I thought I was the only poor soul commenting here that afflicted by having Debbie as their Congressperson. In the Dem congressional primary is there any Dem slightly less nutty than Debbie running? If so, I might switch parties just to vote for the slightly lesser of the two evils.
"Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?"
They're liberals, stupid liberals.
Lgv said - We are becoming the government that the founders were trying to escape.
IMO, this is incorrect. All the FF gave us that was different from the British government was 2 things: a written Constitution and an elected King, not a hereditary King. If you read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and thebhistory of the USA since the founding, I believe you cannot fail to see that we have tread in exactly the same path as Britain: Civil War, expanding government, Empire, decadence, etc. the People may have been conned into believing their new government was different but Hamilton in particular was very clear about his preference for unlimited kingly rule.
Bruce- you forgot to mention Sandpoint is at the base of Schweitzer Mountain ski resort, home of the best powder skiing in the PNW.
"Why aren't human beings better at reasoning?"
This isn't poor reasoning. It isn't reasoning at all.
Reasoning is not what they are doing.
Hagar said...Depends on what you mean by "whacked by."
When my dad went to the Chicago Worlds Fair, he said they came upon six black men who were all shot in the head, and their penis put in their mouth.
So he asked "what happened to them??"
The answer was, "they got whacked selling drugs on La Cosa Nostra turf!"
Aha...
Ann Althouse said...
"The argument, such as it is, for no fly is that flying is not a right so you're not deprived of a right. Gun possession is a right, and if you want to get rid of it, the proper procedure is to amend the constitution."
No. Unless "the argument" is just your way of thinking about things.
Whether there is a right to buy a particular weapon or not, the government can still violate due process or equal protection in taking it away.
And the Second Amendment right is no absolute and this particular weapon could be banned without violating the Second Amendment.
6/23/16, 8:48 AM"
Does this also apply to voting? Abortion? 5th amendment (rather popular these days with Democrats)? If government can legally negate your right to own a gun by violating due process or equal protection then no right is a right or are guns something different well just because?
Jack Wayne wrote: I believe you cannot fail to see that we have tread in exactly the same path as Britain: Civil War, expanding government, Empire, decadence, etc...
If that's your argument, one might as well say the Constitution gave us Rome redux, or Achaemenid Persia for that matter.
In future you'll need to be more analytic and less facile.
Mike Sylwester said...
tim in vermont at 8:18 AM
if we can make it extra hard for Asians to get into Harvard, why can't we make it extra hard for Muslims to buy guns?
Excellent question.
6/23/16, 8:36 AM
If they are both legal US citizens, I don't think we should be able to do either BUT one is still a "right" and the other a "privilege" (Harvard being the privilege is anyone has any doubts).
Gusty Winds said (@8:51): "...I think [Paul Ryan's mishandling of the sit-in storm] stems from the arrogance of a kept man."
Now THAT's what I call a beat-down!
*fist bump*
My congressman, Mr DeFazio, isn't quite as noticeably outrageous as that Debbie woman but he was there, too. Or is-- for all I know they are still at it.
Perhaps the Dems should give up this sit in nonsense and decamp en masse to some sports venue in Maryland.
Bruce Hayden said (@9:32 AM): "...And John is correct about the problems with reinstating the Clinton era "Assault Weapon" ban. Not only is it straight forward to mill an 80% complete AR lower receiver, but you can also build one using 3D printing. And not requiring a serial number, it would be hard to prove that these firearms weren't grandfathered. Or, the manufacturers just make firearms without the banned feature, and then you just swap such in, if desired, at your leisure. After all, one of the key features of these firearms is their modularity and easy modification. Which leaves banning firearms by make and model number - except that firearm manufacturers can switch model numbers and configurations far faster than legislators and bureaucrats can change their lists. The fact that they think that they can turn back the clock 20 years is strong indicia that they have little clue about what they are trying to regulate or ban."
This. WIRED magazine just put out a couple of good pieces about how to build a "ghost gun" using the AR upper receiver, stock, trigger etc (all outside the regulatory system) and milling or building the lower receiver (the regulated part). The technology is working orthogonally to the regulatory system, or at least leapfrogging it...
If Republicans were smart, they would have amended the law, and proposed that "terrorists" also lose all right to vote, get any government funding, including Medicare, Medicaid, subsidized housing, welfare, foodstamps, tax credits and cannot be admitted to state universities.
That would make liberals really mad and show their hypocrisy.
"GOP should have pulled this same stunt on Obamacare."
It gives goosebumps just thinking about it. Songs about the uninsured not mattering, followed by ballads itemizing the "sucks to be you" gloriousness of pre-existing conditions.
The sure marker for an insane person with poor skills at persuasion is her use of all caps on the internet. Using bold puts her into a special category of nut.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
ARM. Is that you?
Not me. I would have written, "no real man needs a gun other than to hunt to feed his starving family".
I think that's what he said.
"I see the pussies with guns are out in force again today. I, of course, continue to live life on the edge, gun-free, defended only by my devastating manliness."
I'll take your word for it.
" I walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia."
Me too.
And I have one more thing. I know manliness guys like you don't have the balls to deprive anyone of their rights until you can get the government to do it at the point of a ...............,well, gun . Manly men. Like you.
ARM Said: walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia.
ARM, I truly hope you never experience any kind of robbery or confrontation when a gun would have saved your life. But I know too many people that have been robbed in broad daylight in "good" areas. The last was my minister, walking in to the grocery store. The perps had seen him withdraw money from an ATM and followed him to the grocery store parking lot. They came up behind him and stuck a "gun" in to his back.
He didn't play along, turned around and patted his hip, letting them know he was armed. They ran. Did he really have a gun. They'll never know. But with concealed carry a fact of life they weren't going to take the chance.
What I can't figure is why you want to deny that ability to protect ourselves to those of us who choose to carry.
There's a saying that far too many people- particularly on the left lately- seem to have forgotten:
"Every time you start thinking "We need a law!" because something upsets you, imagine that law being used by your worst enemy.
Against you."
"Extend the idea, Professor. Nothing in the Constitution is "absolute." Therefor by your standard (that is, the standard you correctly point out the courts will likely use) anything in the Constitution is subject to restriction or modification by a court without "violating" the Constitution. Since amending the darn thing is "much harder and isn't going to happen" I guess it's the job of the courts to make whatever changes they feel are necessary, whenever they like. What good is a Constitution, again?"
I understand your concern, but what rights are absolute and not subject to interpretation? What is this fantasy Constitution you want and have you considered all the problems it would have? I'm living in the real world, where we have a Constitution, it works to some extent, and it could be better and it could be worse. But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place.
And the Second Amendment right is no absolute and this particular weapon could be banned without violating the Second Amendment.
Funny you should say that. Prior to 1934 there was no limit to what you could own. Up to and including artillery pieces.
My personal preference is a Gattling Gun. Which, oddly enough, are still legal to own without a tax stamp.IOW I don't need permission to own one.
Hagar said...
And I made a mistake above. The M-1A carbine had the full auto setting, which of course is highly illegal for any civilian to own without certification. The original M-1 carbine was just semi-auto.
6/23/16, 9:56 AM
I think you meant the .30 cal. M2 Carbine. That is the full-auto capable version of the M1 Carbine. It contains a selector switch, top left(?) side of the receiver that allows switching from semi to full auto.
Hollywood is really showing us where its heart is with this open letter to Congress, are they not? People who make fortunes purveying virtual violence to children are pleading for "common sense gun safety". The grandiose signatures appended reveal some troubled personalities, particularly that of one Cameron Strang, whose scrawl is merely a giant cursive C with some added flourishes (just for added flourish, doncha know?) Perhaps it stands for "certifiable".
I don't recall a similar "stop Muslim violence" open letter on the heels of 9-11.
Maybe Hollywood is secretly on the payroll of the NRA.
. But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place.
I don't see how that follows. See my contribution above.
@Cubanbob:
As I recall, Debbie is being challenged in the Dem primary by a local law professor who believes she is insufficiently liberal. He is a Sanders man, through and through.
I understand your concern, but what rights are absolute and not subject to interpretation?
Well, apparently abortion and gay marriage.
But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place.
What? First of all, prior to the rise of organized crime during Prohibition (a "gift" from the first incarnation of Progressivism) there were no restrictions on what weapons a person could own. People regularly bought artillery and crew served weapons. People built and outfitted privately owned and operated warships with the latest military technology. You could buy fully automatic Thompson machine guns through the mail from a newspaper advertisement.
The Second Amendment was intended to be a check on unconstrained governmental power. One of the reasons people could buy weapons used by the military was to allow the citizenry to resist governmental tyranny. We are a population of citizens who allow the government to exist and act, not subjects.
The original meaning of the Second Amendment was an unrestricted individual right to own any weapon you wanted to. This whole "Group right, militia" thing is an invention of the second half of the twentieth century.
Bruce,
You don't really even need an "80% [complete]lower receiver"
there are currently no restrictions on these but if govt did ban them, someone would sell a 75% lower receiver. Then govt would ban that and someone would sell a 50% lower receiver.
But really all you need is a solid chunk of alloy 6" X 6" X 1" (or whatever the overall dimension is) and machine the whole thing. Takes a bit longer and there is more tool wear still not a big deal. If the ATF puts restrictions on the alloy, you can probably go to HoDe and buy a piece of steel or aluminum that will work.
CNC mills are pretty cheap these days.
Just searched and first thing that popped up looks like full sized, full CNC knee mill (Bridgeport) for $9-12,000, new. No idea about the quality but it will probably be OK for building receivers. Seems like it is in stock so Ann and Meade could get one in a week or two, download the program from the web and be making their own AR-15s.
http://www.cncmasters.com/product/cnc-supra-mill/
If anyone does buy one, be sure to use Ann's Amazon portal.
John Henry
If the people on the No Fly List are such baddies and Dems are unconcerned about trampling on civil liberties, why stop at gun purchases? Why not simply arrest them all? Then they could do no harm with box cutters, cooking implements or any other weapon. Then when we've taken care of all the No Fly Listers, we can move on to other enemies of the state. Wow. This "reasoning" is easier than I thought.
No military style weapons for those on the no fly list. Unless you think it's a good idea. Let's see, how many more people can a terrorist kill in five minutes time with a military style weapon as opposed to a non military style weapon? What if you were to be in that theater or nightclub, which weapon would you prefer the shooter was using?
No military style weapons for those on the no fly list.
Ownership of military grade weapons today is extremely restricted and regulated.
"Nobody wants to take your guns", I'm always assured.
And then I read any vaguely-left-leaning comments thread on gun control, and, oh, look.
At least the "professional" gun controllers know they should only say that by indirect reference ("Australian-style regulation") or to captive friendly audiences and hope nobody tapes it, so it's deniable.
(Unknown: Do you know what "military style" means?
It means styling.
COSMETICS.
It does not mean "more dangerouser".
I would honestly prefer an attacker with a blinged-out AR-15 and some oversized jam-prone magazine, than someone with a shotgun and a pistol, who was bothering to aim. [I'd place even money on, once the coroner's report comes out, the Orlando attacker's pistol having done as much damage as his rifle, if not more.]
"Scary looking" is just that - looks.)
John Henry - It's "worse" than that (better, I say).
It's 2016, you can 3D print an AR-15 lower receiver from plastic.
(Commercial makers have on and off made them from thermoplastic or carbon fiber for years now.)
Likewise, bad news for the "ban scary big magazines" people, you can 3D print magazines.
@Todd,
Googling, I see that you are right.
Still I remember having my M-1 Garand taken away and being issued a M-1 carbine while actually at the firing range in Germany in 1956. This also happened to some other people, and some of them got what I distinctly remember was called M-1A's and we were cautioned to check to see what version we had been given, and if the M-1A to be very careful to check the fire selector setting before firing.
The next thing that happened was that the sergeant who had given us the warning went up to fire and evidently had not heeded his own warning. The full magazine went skywards and he almost went on his back. 60 years later the picture is still clear in my mind.
I am not sure I understand all this about the "AR-15." This trigger assembly may be an improvement on previous trigger assembly designs, but surely cannot be by that much.
There are now any number of "assault style weapons," i.e., "modular" rifles, that look somewhat like the original AR-15, but use their own trigger assembly design rather than pay the royalty.
unless you’re getting a single-shot rifle to hunt squirrel to feed your starving family
What kind of inhumane monster wants a starving family to rely on a single shot?
So it appears that the weapon that can kill the most people in five minutes time should be allowed to those on terror watch lists. You insist on a 2nd Amendment with no limitations. Hope that your loved ones aren't the victims of your poor reasoning on some fateful day. Your ideological purity may one day turn your loved one into your sacrificial lamb.
'No military style weapons'.
Aside from the fact that if you want an actual select-fire M-16(to pick one), you're going to have to lay out at least $50,000, plus the transfer tax, plus up to a year while BATFEIEIO does the background stuff, do you mean all of them? Like the bolt-actions, and slide-actions? Or is it only the self-loading type that gives you the willies?
You realize, I hope, that that would also mean for people like Rep. Lewis? And God knows how many others wrongly on these idiot secret lists?
John Henry, ref the build-your-own, there's a saying: "80% Sten receivers, in the plumbing aisle at Home Depot!"
"it disproportionately affects Arab-Americans"
A law prescribing prison for armed robbery is not racist and unjust simply because blacks are disproportionately more likely than whites to commit violent crimes.
As we say in Texas "Come and Take It". Fly the Gonzalez flag alongside the Gadsden flag.
If you don't know either, check Wikipedia.
"'No military style weapons'."
So basically any weapon then.....
Muzzleloaders up to the Civil War
The lever-action Henry rifle emerged from the Civil War.
The army fielded single-shot, breech-loading rifles after the Civil War.
The bolt-action Springfield rifle was used in WWI
The semi-automatic Garand rifle was used in WWII and Korea.
From where do people think that weapons design comes from?
I have not seen any of these, but I am sure I remember reading that the Brits provided instructions for "the underground" for how to make their own "Sten-guns," which was said to be possible for any moderately skillful farm blacksmith to make.
I have seen "factory made" Sten-guns, which were dropped to the underground and were carried by them when they came up into the daylight after 8 May 1945.
They were nasty things that easily went off on full auto when least expected, but would certainly be effective killing weapons against a crowd at short range.
"So it appears that the weapon that can kill the most people in five minutes time should be allowed to those on terror watch lists."
Do you agree that people on the "terror watch list" should not be allowed to vote, get subsidized housing, medicare, Medicaid, social security, foodstamps, instate tuition, and tax credit?
In fact, why not send :those on terror watch list" to Guantanamo Bay? Do you really want the terrorists to roam around us? Do you want them close to your children?
"Do you agree that people on the "terror watch list" should not be allowed to vote, get subsidized housing, medicare, Medicaid, social security, foodstamps, instate tuition, and tax credit?"
How would these measures save lives?
Just back from a weekly long walk with a liberal friend. Discussion of gun control with him is always "interesting". He's a smart guy, but there are some things he simply can not see or accept. In his view no one should possess a gun that is capable of being made into a fully automatic weapon--and he read somewhere 15 years ago that you could convert an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that converting a semi automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle aka "machine gun" is illegal. There's a law against it. Reply; Well people can do it anyway. Well, what if there was a law against owning AR 15s?
The faith of the left in passing new laws and regulations, and their childlike belief that more laws and regulations can solve any problem passeth all understanding.
Freedom of speech. Free exercise of religion. The right to keep and bear arms. Each of these rights recognized in the Bill of Rights is under active and aggressive attack by one of America's two major political parties.
We can see who the fascists are, quite clearly. And it ain't the GOP.
If the Republicans don't start calling the Democrats out for their sustained, multi-prong attacks on our civil rights, the GOP is dropping the ball on what is truly the most important fact in America today, that the Democrats are actively hostile to our freedom. Yours and mine.
Ann Althouse said...What is this fantasy Constitution you want and have you considered all the problems it would have? I'm living in the real world, where we have a Constitution, it works to some extent, and it could be better and it could be worse. But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place.
I'm not sure what to do with your last sentence in the context of American history--when the 2A was written & the Constitution ratified it was possible for an individual to own and use the most powerful warships that existed--but ok.
Perhaps you've mistaken my argument for one that says "the 2nd Amendment is absolute and no restrictions of any kind can be placed on any personal ownership of any weapons." I don't believe that and I haven't argued that. I do argue, though, that the position that "since the 2A isn't absolute then any restrictions on personal weapon ownership must be Constitutional" is both wrong and dangerous. That's how I get to the position that using that logic the Constitution isn't anything special.
I'm pretty sure I live in the real world, too, Professor. I recognize that giving Constitutional provisions/protections special deference causes problems. I accept that, and firmly believe that on balance the problems caused by respecting individual freedom & liberty are a small price to pay for that freedom & liberty, and that the alternative is both much worse and in itself no free from problems!
We've had discussions around this topic before on this blog and I understand you're not now and won't ever be a libertarian (previous discussions included one where the freedom of association bumped up against individuals using that freedom to discriminate against racial minorities). Ceteris paribus, though, I still have hope that you can be convinced that as a default we ought to understand the purpose of the Constitution (& esp. the Bill of Rights) to be ensuring that individual liberty & fundamental rights are protected in this nation. That's a consequentialist argument, sure--but it's qualitatively different from one that says the Constitution is nothing more than a tool to, say, keep us safe right now, so that when we feel like we're not being kept safe enough all we have to do is decide to change the meaning of the Constitution (without, you know, bothering to actually Amend the thing, since that's so darn hard).
All rights are subject to interpretation. Fine, ok, we're human beings so that's pretty much a given. For an awfully long time, though, that interpretation seems to have been more limited/constrained--we (as a nation) were comfortable nibbling around the edges (so to speak) but not reinterpreting the fundamentals of the Constitution itself. When we wanted to make a big change/reinterpretation we Amended the damn thing. Why is it OK now to abandon that? If we're abandoning that framework we ought to be honest about it, and my point would stand--the Constitution wouldn't mean the same thing ("wouldn't be the Constitution any more") and that would have...some consequences.
"Do you agree that people on the "terror watch list" should not be allowed to vote, get subsidized housing, medicare, Medicaid, social security, foodstamps, instate tuition, and tax credit?"
"How would these measures save lives?"
Explain why you want terrorists to be funded by the taxpayers. Explain why you think terrorists should be allowed to vote in our elections. Explain why should we let terrorists into our schools, our universities, our kindergartens.
We can save lives by starving the terrorists from receiving money. Otherwise - they can easily buy guns on the street and use them to kill our people. If we let them into our schools, they will poison people with terrorist propaganda. Agreed?
"But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place."
That's how some people think about abortions. And amazingly, there is no "Abortion Amendment" in the Bill of Rights.
No military style weapons for those on the no fly list. Unless you think it's a good idea. Let's see, how many more people can a terrorist kill in five minutes time with a military style weapon as opposed to a non military style weapon? What if you were to be in that theater or nightclub, which weapon would you prefer the shooter was using?
I assume that you are talking about semiautomatic rifles and carbines that look like military grade firearms. Even if you were talking banning ALL rifles and carbines, you would only be talking maybe 5x the number of deaths caused every year from these firearms than were lost in the one event in Orlando - roughly 250 per year, out of a population of well over 300,000,000, making the ratio roughly one death per million Americans. This is for all rifled long guns, whether they be single shot black powder or the latest AR-15. Auto accidents kill maybe 100x this number every year. Handguns maybe 8-10x. Etc. so,no, I don't worry about Islamic terrorists walking into night clubs and blazing away with their modern sporting firearms (e.g. AR-15s, etc). Here, in MT, I am probably more likely to get struck by lightning, or have to deal with a bear. (Turns out, MT is not that bad for lightening - my native CO is far worse).
"But if there could be no limit on what arms people have a right to bear, then the Second Amendment would have never been seen as an individual right in the first place."
It must be because I'm not a lawyer, but that makes no sense. The founders wrote- a lot- about the right of the individual- of a free people- to arms. And the 2nd Amendment was written to protect that. At the time, unless there was local ordinance in some places, there WAS no limit on what arms people owned.
Songs about the uninsured not mattering, followed by ballads itemizing the "sucks to be you" gloriousness of pre-existing conditions.
Which would have been a lie, since most states already had pre-existing conditions rules to begin with. But lies have never stopped the left from pushing their agenda before...
Unknown said...
"Do you agree that people on the "terror watch list" should not be allowed to vote, get subsidized housing, medicare, Medicaid, social security, foodstamps, instate tuition, and tax credit?"
How would these measures save lives?
How would yours? Since, because, Terrorist? They don't obey laws. Your little gun control ship has sailed. At this point there is nothing you can do short of confiscation to limit firearms in this country. Anybody with a 3D printer can get a firearm. But go ahead. Pass some meaninless laws. They won't be obeyed. They aren't now.
Cower in fear.
No, you cannot easily turn an AR-15 type rifle or carbine to fire in a fully automatic mode. Their lower receiver was intentionally designed not to work with an M16 trigger group. AND, if someone could design such, it would be classed as a machine gun, subject to the 1934 NFA, and ineligible for being added to the register of legal machine guns because it was developed 30 years too late. This is the exception to the fact that it is the lower receiver that is regulated by the Feds - anything that can turn a semiautomatic firearm into one capable of automatic fire is itself classed as a machine gun by the BATFE.
From where do people think that weapons design comes from?
Unicorns fart them out, but only designs for trap, skeet, deer hunting, and other totally fabulous peaceful purposes, with checkered walnut stocks, blued barrels, and iron sights. Because it says right there in the bill of rights:
A well regulated hunting party, being necessary to a well appointed dinner table, the right of the people to keep and bear hand-engraved Italian-made over-unders with gold inlay, shall not be infringed.
And then, those blood-thirsty NRA-white-male-Republicans pervert these totally peaceful designs, turning them into automatic bullet hoses with shoulder things that go up and assault ammunition clips, and give them out to gay-muslim-male-Democrats so they can shoot up a gay club.
Because Republicans are such haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaers. Hey, lets ban Republicans! Or better yet, put them all on a secret no-freedoms-evah list.
Gusty Winds said...
But Paul Ryan got his ass handed to him... No matter the right or wrong, or the reason, he completely lost control of the House, and he looks weak and ineffective as a leader... His intellectual capitulation to Dems is ridiculous.
6/23/16, 8:51 AM
Democrats throw a tantrum, sit on the floor and cry, and Ryan responds like an overwhelmed beta-dad. Typical weakling republican leader.
irony meter pegs when Dems seeking restrictions on gun ownership
(1) try to reduce/remove/restrict the ability of their constituency to protect themselves against illegal gun usage (where the majority of gun-murders occur).
(2) quote a revered black man who held a concealed carry permit and owned guns while under nearly constant surveillance/investigation by the FBI, and
"The vast majority of whom are foreigners living abroad. I have no problem with foreigners being prohibited from possessing guns while in the U.S. Especially foreigners in the country illegally."
So the Dems are just trying to prevent FOREINGERS from buying guns? OK, I'm onboard, didn't understand that. Not sure why we don't just make that the law. Probably wouldn't be very controversial.
So it appears that the weapon that can kill the most people in five minutes time should be allowed to those on terror watch lists.
Your ignorance is simply astounding. Try going to a gun range and finding out what guns are really like.
You insist on a 2nd Amendment with no limitations.
It worked for us for 150 years. But we are never going back to the original meaning of the Second Amendment, it is just a constant struggle to keep what we have.
Hope that your loved ones aren't the victims of your poor reasoning on some fateful day.
I'm more worried about them being defenseless because of your emotionalism.
Your ideological purity may one day turn your loved one into your sacrificial lamb.
No...my respect for the right to own a gun will allow my loved ones to defend themselves.....your ideology would turn them in sacrificial lambs.
NO ONE SHOULD OWN ANY FUCKING GUNS....
As I've never witnessed any guns copulating, I guess nobody owns any guns that fuck.
Wherein Althouse expresses feigned bewilderment at the idea that the state has any compelling interest in mitigating the number of deadly, random massacres inflicted upon its citizens. Yep, other than that IT'S JUST LIKE SODOMY!
...far too few to have any meaningful effect on actual gun ownership, let alone gun violence.
Yup. Those close to hundred dead in San Bernardino and Orlando weren't leading meaningful lives. Or they weren't numerically meaningful enough. Or something.
Alex Pareene, as he shits his pants awaiting bankruptcy proceedings for his tabloid cyber-rag - instigated by a lawsuit funded by Republican Peter Thiel, plumbs the depths of political prostitution as he ponders Joseph Stalin's quote about how one death is a tragedy, but many more is just a statistic.
Some would say people aren't better at reasoning because the put too little emphasis on reason and too much on their own emotions.
Some of us disagree with that approach.
Don't you usually DEFEND the idea that reason should be subservient to emotion in many cases, Professor? At the very least I am certain you have encouraged others to recognize that emotion plays a strong role in decision-making and opinion-forming for many people.
Doesn't that answer your question? People who don't respect or practice using reason aren't likely to be much good at it.
"Wherein Althouse expresses feigned bewilderment at the idea that the state has any compelling interest in mitigating the number of deadly, random massacres inflicted upon its citizens."
LEt's start by ending the moslem immigration to the USA. As you said, the state has a compelling interest in that. And maybe we should also get the FBI to monitor the mosques - since as you said, "compelling interesting". Agreed?
"I see the pussies with guns are out in force again today. I, of course, continue to live life on the edge, gun-free, defended only by my devastating manliness. I walk the streets, unarmed. I sit in my living room, unarmed. I go to bed, unarmed. Living the dream of freedom, freedom from paranoia."
Same people who strongly defend welfare state from cradle to grave, the federal government spending trillions of dollars on welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security, subsidized housing, foodstamps, regulating each and every step of every citizen - pretend that they are some kind of tough guys who live on their own.... This is hilarious.
Hey, tough guy, how about we get rid of all of that stuff, plus, get rid of minimum wages, government license for multiple professions, allow people to hire who they want, without regard to government - do you think you can handle such a risky world? Or should we expect you to piss your pants?
Hagar said...
@Todd,
Googling, I see that you are right.
Still I remember having my M-1 Garand taken away and being issued a M-1 carbine while actually at the firing range in Germany in 1956. This also happened to some other people, and some of them got what I distinctly remember was called M-1A's and we were cautioned to check to see what version we had been given, and if the M-1A to be very careful to check the fire selector setting before firing.
The next thing that happened was that the sergeant who had given us the warning went up to fire and evidently had not heeded his own warning. The full magazine went skywards and he almost went on his back. 60 years later the picture is still clear in my mind.
6/23/16, 12:15 PM
No worries! I would love to have an M2 but can't quite justify the $4K+ to get one (yet). Have a friend that collects M1s and he has quite the collection. IBM, Rockola, Winchester, etc. I [currently] have to make do with a very nice fully milspec Universal. It was one of the first 500 they rolled off the line and was made of milspec parts (sans receiver) whereas all of their normal production moved over to custom / non-interchangeable parts.
Comanche Voter said...
Just back from a weekly long walk with a liberal friend. Discussion of gun control with him is always "interesting". He's a smart guy, but there are some things he simply can not see or accept. In his view no one should possess a gun that is capable of being made into a fully automatic weapon--and he read somewhere 15 years ago that you could convert an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that converting a semi automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle aka "machine gun" is illegal.
6/23/16, 1:36 PM
This is correct for a number of different semi-automatic arms. In some cases, portions of the trigger group can be exchanged for different components converting it to full-auto. Had a gunsmith "friend" tell me that the difference between an AR-15 and an M-4 (the full auto version) is about $0.56 in parts. He has a gun manufacturers license and is allowed to make all sorts of things including full-auto weapons. Due to current law, those full auto that he makes can only be sold to government/police.
Additionally, in some trigger groups, if you file down some of the components (like the sear) in order to lighten and smooth trigger pull, you can accidentally take off too much and allow the system to double/triple fire. Not good. One does not like inconsistency in fire arms and one does not want to wind up in Fed prison for making an illegal auto weapon.
the difference between an AR-15 and an M-4 (the full auto version) is about $0.56 in parts. He has a gun manufacturers license and is allowed to make all sorts of things including full-auto weapons.
A little more complicated than that. A couple of more holes need to be drilled. And accurately.
That being said. Given enough time you can make almost any long gun into a machine gun. Or at least semi auto. What people fail to realize is that full auto is very hard to control and the weapons themselves are beefier to help control muzzle climb.
Also, part of the trigger group area in the receiver itself has to be milled out for the full-auto parts to fit.
Had a gunsmith "friend" tell me that the difference between an AR-15 and an M-4 (the full auto version) is about $0.56 in parts.
Here's a video showing internal differences and functions between an AR-15, an M-16 full-auto, and an M4 with 3-round burst:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxwPEL8winI#t=437.09145
Here's a video detailing the differences between the bolt carrier groups:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X_D6UH3dLM
And here's a video detailing a drop-in auto sear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdR7rEuLrvE
Here's a video detailing a "lightning link":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWVYYJN_2Q
Registered and transferable auto sears, drop-in auto sears, lightning links, and their kind were all manufactured prior to 1988, are in very short supply, and command exceedingly high prices.
The AR-15 has a different bolt carrier group than the AR-15. The cheapest one I've found on Brownells is $70.
The AR-15 also has a different hammer than the AR-15. The cheapest one I've found on Brownells is $26.
Then, unless you're going to do some machining and somehow legally acquire an M16 auto sear, you'll have to get your hands on a drop-in auto sear. Neither is very complex, but manufacturing one without a license is a pretty serious felony. Acquiring either one legally is going to be exceedingly expensive, and very time consuming, considering the hoops you'd have to jump through with the BATF.
The idea that you can easily, quickly, cheaply, and legally convert an AR-15 to full auto is a left-wing shibboleth, with no basis in reality.
And even if I could go down to the corner drug store and buy a drop-in auto sear for $0.56, how many mass killings in America have been committed with a full-auto machine gun in the last 10 years? If the answer is none, then why all the concern? Why is the "reality-based" community so focused on the gun the latest shooter DIDN'T use, while adamantly refusing to acknowledge the motives stated repeatedly by the shooter?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा