Discussion in 'World Events' started by Kittamaru, Oct 2, 2017.
Ever read The American State Papers?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
all of 'em?
Do you have a favorite passage?
That's idiotic. All the "gunners" I know are very careful about the law and the constitution.
It seems to be the "leftists" that want to tell me and everyone else what to do. Hmm...
Curio and Relic rule, plus transferable automatics since '86, if you buy the tax stamp. Hell, I can go and buy a 20mm cannon if I put in all the paperwork...
Rare exceptions to the rule forbidding full auto weapons. I suggest we ban so-called bump stocks that allow a form of rapid fire from semi-auto weapons. It's been reported that was what the shooter used.
It's not my "interpretation". It's the "interpretation" of the police, courts, juries, judges, and legislatures, of the States and Nation involved. It's the law, in fact.
Why is that my job? I don't even own a gun. Competent and informed people should draw up these laws. The need is obvious.
Some obvious areas: Background checks, magazine restrictions, ammunition restrictions, and more stringent regulations on whatever is modified or easily modifiable to handle rapid "automatic" fire (that established to be a special category of weapon, as cannon were and RPGs are, because they can do mass murder even in the hands of an unskilled and untrained individual. Like high explosives kept in the garage, they disproportionately threaten the neighboring community the militia is supposed to defend).
Some other possibilities: criminal accountability for accidents (negligence presumptively indicated by the event), including those without injury. Training in firearms handling handled as driver's training is, and at the same ages (the license received then a public land hunting and other carry/transport permit, not an ownership license). Automatic restriction, including possible temporary sequestration, in cases of domestic violence and terroristic threat. That kind of thing.
Myself, I look more toward other arenas - clearly gun-focused laws are not addressing the central issues in the US. The racially biased gun violence from the US police, for example, is more significant societally than the mass shootings and more easily addressed by government - the police are government employees. So is the rise of gun-backed threat and intimidation from folks like the Bundys. So are the mental health aspects, including clinical depression and suicide preparations or attempts. But a small improvement is still an improvement.
In many US communities, the militia included - by definition, by law - every adult male. (Still does. I'm in one, last I checked.) They did not necessarily drill unless actually called up for some reason - that was voluntary, and guys were busy and lazy. And well regulated included well equipped, which was the only aspect directly addressed by the Second Amendment.
The firearms are a necessary condition - of course not sufficient, but necessary. So they are Constitutionally protected - along with the right to assemble, and travel, and speak with one another, and so forth. Whether the result is a competent and trained militia is another issue - the Constitution guarantees the necessary prerequisites.
The amount of drilling they did varied wildly. Another reason the concept failed in the execution. Many of the militia what were mustered to defend Washington had never fired a shot in anger.
We talk about the attitudes a lot, and it's true there are reasons for this. But there is also a question of practicality. As musician Caleb Keeter↱ explained while laying out his shift regarding Amendment II:
I've been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life.
Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses, and legal firearms on the bus.
They were useless.
We couldn't touch them for fear police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.
Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn't going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this fucking coward received shrapnel wounds.
We need gun control RIGHT. NOW.
My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn't realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.
We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.
Meanwhile, I'm also looking around for the tweet I passed over yesterday in which someone made the obvious point about the inadvisability of that many people—i.e., concertgoers—returning fire at the Mandalay Bay with handguns.
Sometime down the line I will acknowledge the point that once again it is only when these issues get close enough—Keeter literally uses the word "proximity" to make the point. Then again, when it's the imminent death of a shooting rampage, okay, you know, that's a bit different than what we usually complain about, like why Sen. Portman couldn't have recognized the problem with his attitudes toward homosexuals before his son had to make a difficult stand, or why Nancy Reagan couldn't have recognized the need for certain research before it was her husband who was dying. Still, though, it's true, their legal firearms were utterly useless. Were they really going to shoot back at the thirty-second floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel?
Years ago I tried the point about how a handgun isn't going to help me if someone is so determined to kill me as to snipe me; it never really had much effect in firearm discussions centering on the need for self-defense, but that's largely because those firearm discussions centering on the need for self-defense aren't really about self-defense; they're about killing.
Still, though, their guns were useless. And I'm betting we can probably disrupt the markets that empowered this shooter without taking the S&Ws and Colts away. But, no, apparently we're not supposed to do that.
It's not that they don't care that people are being cut down in cold blood; when cornered on the point, they'll honor the sacrifice.
But not a single one of them can tell us which of their rights this toll bought, or paid rent on, or what the hell ever.
They never can.
Probably because they can't.
I mean, that's the whole point.
What did we buy with twenty dead children in Connecticut?
Not a single one of these firearm cultists can answer. Instead, they change the subject, apparently trying to make the point that as a species humans are dangerous, but they just aren't smart enough to comprehend the problems with lionizing that danger and violence. How can we survive as a species, they ask, without dangerous people? Yeah, you know, there is a lot of danger in the world. Proudly adding to that danger for the sake of an emotional thrill, or moral justification of injustice, is .. ah ... shall we just go with problematic?
And remember: This is how they answer inquiries about presuming the innocence of an industry lobby despite evidence to the other. This is also how they flee questions of what these murders actually get us. When they show up to preach the Stations of the Gun, certain fundamental questions arise, and the answers can actually help the rest of us understand why these zombie-eyed fanatics think reciting articles of faith by rote and without any real mind toward context of application might be useful. Yet seeking those answers only leads to more, and more determined, evasion, even to the point where discussing how police operate is apparently teaching people to commit crimes, and, you know, if that's really someone's genuine complaint, let them wail, because their complaint is that the police conduct in question is criminal. No, really, think about it. The accusation is that describing behavior for which police are not prosecuted because it is not deemed illegal is teaching police officers to break the law. At some point, even the preceding sentence is giving such execrable blithering more attention and legitimacy than it deserves.
Cultists are as cultists do; the part where they defeat themselves is always a curious spectacle, especially as so many will just keep on keeping on. It's never quite clear what to do about it, especially as so many of us have never successfully adjusted to the difference between real and virtual inasmuch as, face to face, we can just shrug and walk away, and the words fade to memory, but these virtual divas seem determined to leave a lasting record of their incoherence.
And we should also remember the overlap; part of this weird bit about police conduct starts out in defense of Nazis.
Nor should we forget that we start with what appears to be a rich white guy shooting up a country music festival for no apparent reason, and the discussion somehow turns to white supremacist appeals to suppress historical discussion under some weird pretense that observing how things go is teaching people who do something how to do what they do.
No, really, did anyone else notice that? No, don't talk about the problem because talking about the problem is to teach people how to cause the problem, with the result being that, conveniently, nobody should ever discuss the problem. And here's a nasty irony: if you go back to my earlier post quoting Chris Hedges on a Canadian radio program↑, that excerpt is actually bracketed by discussions of white supremacism in the context of the "gun crazy" and "fetishizing" firearm culture the episode considers.
Meanwhile, it's really weird. Imagine a prosecutor in court explaining, "Your Honor, this is how the crime was committed," and the defense attorney complaining, "Your Honor! The prosecutor is teaching people to commit crimes!" I mean, it is true the intention was that criminal prosecution and conviction should be difficult, but ... but ... I mean, really? But think about it: A white supremacist complaint deriving from a defense of Nazis resurrected here in order to disrupt discussion of a massacre in which people are expected to attend and at least consider the premise that disrupting the marketplace of killing machines will have no effect on the use of killing machines.
Because, like, even Republicans can figure that out. Right? I was not joking↑, earlier, when I said David French↱ makes a certain point:
Given these [regulatory] steps, it's no wonder that crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As my colleague Charlie Cooke tweeted earlier this morning, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in three crimes since 1934.
But I was, 'tis true, using the point toward a different aspect. He was referring to a six-tweet thread by Stephen Gutkowski:
If the weapons were fully automatic, then he likely would have spent immense sums of money to obtain them legally, jumping through extensive legal hoops. This twitter thread, from Stephen Gutowski, is very helpful:
Since this is coming up a lot, I want to give some insight into the regulation of fully-automatic firearms in the United States.
First, the sale of new fully-automatic firearms was effectively banned in 1986 under the Hughes Amendment. [link]
Fully-automatic firearms that were registered under the National Firearms Act before 1986 were grandfathered in & are still legal.
However, in order to obtain a legal fully-automatic firearm you must apply to the ATF, pay a $200 tax, & register with the ATF.
Here is the form anybody who wants to own a pre-86 fully-automatic firearm has to submit to the ATF: [link]
The ATF has a registry of every legally-owned full-auto firearm & informs local law enforcement of all who own them in their jurisdiction.
Given these steps, it’s no wonder that crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As my colleague Charlie Cooke tweeted earlier this morning, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in three crimes since 1934.
That's why we're tangled up in this digression; reality simply does not suit some of our neighbors. And, apparently, on many levels. For some reason, that doesn't feel surprising. For other reasons, I find that lack of surprise somewhere between confusing and worrisome. I never know quite what to make of antisocial behavior posed as a virtue, these days. It all just seems dangerous.
Banning a thing doesn't make it unavailable, though, does it? I know it's childishly simple to convert a semiautomatic AK-47 to full auto, with no tools and a bit of wire.
My point is this: So the hell what? Illegal weapons will be used, legal weapons can be modified, and only the lawyers make any money. You can't legislate moral behavior, no matter how fucking thick the law books are.
Notes for #110↑ Above
French, David A. "Based on the Early Reports, the Las Vegas Shooting Is Very, Very Strange". National Review. 2 October 2017. NationalReview.com. 2 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2xbPtq7
Keeter, Caleb. "I've been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life". Twitter. 2 October 2017. Twitter.com. 3 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2xQvf7c
And every single citizen of the US was guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms with those facts directly in front of the authors of the Constitution.
So if you read the Second as a literate American, you can see that the preliminary reference to militia was not a restriction, but an expansion, of the right to possess lethal weapons. Not only was the government forbidden to disarm the citizenry altogether (as every monarchy and authoritarian regime of the time had done, in oppressing the peasantry), but it was forbidden even to restrict their arms to non-military weapons. Not merely hunting and varmint weapons (such as fowling pieces) or ornamental kit such as rich men's dueling pistols and swords, were protected, but weapons actually dangerous to the government and useful in armed rebellion by the peasants - militia grade weapons, at a time when militia were standard military forces - were protected, for every single citizen of the United States.
The authors were explicit about that, very clear, perhaps in part because they had seen the various excuses used in disarming the peasantry. They forestalled them. Possession of not just firearms, but firearms suitable for an effective militia, is Constitutionally protected for the people. All of them.
So we get an improvement - illegal stuff is more expensive and less common, and we become somewhat better off.
I knew a guy who stored dynamite illegally in the rafters of his garage, for example. But I only knew one, and he lived in an isolated farmhouse where he could get away with that - the laws against that kind of behavior have had a beneficial effect.
For the purpose of the common defense.
Was that connected to some thought you failed to share?
At what point do common defense and personal defense diverge? When you get to decide who's worthy of defense and who isn't? Sounds like Animal Farm.
Funny little toad.
Asshole little sockpuppet. What's your point, troll?
I can't keep up with your trolling, so why bother with more of a reply.
There's the high road. Good job.
Separate names with a comma.