Civilian Disarmament: The Price is Not Right

Armand Derfner (above) has an article in South Carolina’s Post and Courier called Pay the price for the common-sense gun laws we need. Derfner calls for civil war, although he probably doesn’t even realize it. But before dealing with the blood-stained wretch aspect of his piece, let us look at all of his conventional errors . . .

Everyone knows the elements of a basic, common-sense gun law:

Of course we all know basic, common-sense gun law. Always treat your weapon as loaded, keep your weapon pointed in a safe direction, keep your booger hook off the bang-switch until you are ready to fire and be certain of your target and what is behind it! What could be simpler? Except maybe Armand and his ilk have a different idea?

First, a complete ban on possession of all high-volume guns and magazines . . .

Hmm, so it is common-sense to repeal the silencer portion of the NFA so everyone can own them, thus reducing the volume of their guns? Somehow I don’t think this is what Aahi have in mind.

Levity aside, though, whatinthehell is a “high-volume” gun? I can only assume that he means so-called assault weapons; probably semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. But then we run into the problem of defining what a fixed vs. detachable magazine is, and what other cosmetic features are especially scary looking dangerous and turn a mild-mannered semi-auto rifle into a ravening snarling murderous beast of an assault rifle which must be banned.

The other problem is, once they thrash all that out and get a law passed with its list of cosmetic no-nos, manufacturers will start complying with the law in order to keep selling their guns. Most people would consider this a good thing; a law passed and people are complying with it.

Based on past history, however, we know that manufacturers complying with the law will lead to Aahi screaming that manufacturers are exploiting “loopholes” in the law which must be closed, so they make up another list of no-nos, manufacturers make changes to comply, etc. ad nauseum.

But … I think I have figured out what Aahi actually consider to be an assault weapon. It was California’s brouhaha about bullet buttons that gave me the final clue. Whatever the antis may claim to the contrary, as far as they are concerned any weapon which can be reloaded in less than a geologic age is an “assault weapon”.

All the talk about barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs is just a diversion; the real problem is that these guns can be fired and reloaded relatively quickly.

Okay, now that we have thrashed out what our boy is talking about we need to look at what he wants to do about it:

. . . a complete ban on possession of all high-volume guns and magazines, with a reasonable buyback period for existing weapons after which they would be contraband and mere possession would be a crime.

The problem is that Armand and people like him have no principles and really can’t wrap their brains around the concept that some people do. I have spoken with Armand’s spiritual brethren about possession bans and I have tried, hoo-boy have I tried, to get them to explain how they are going to enforce this ban/buyback. Here’s an example of a typical exchange:

Me: So how are you going to collect the evil things?
Anti: Well we’ll set up convenient collection points so you can just go someplace and drop them off.
Me: But what if I don’t want to turn them in?
Anti: Well . . . you have to; it will be the law.
Me: Suppose I decide I’m not going to turn them in.
Anti: But it’s the law, you have to obey the law.
Me: Nope. Now what?
Anti: But that means you’ll be breaking the law.
Me: Yup, I’m going to disobey the law, we’ve got that. So, back to my original question, how are you going to collect them?
Anti: Well I guess the police will have to look at the registration lists and go door to door.
Me: No such thing as gun registration in most of the country. So, back to my original question, how are you going to collect them?
Anti: Well, police will have to go house to house looking for them and we can set up hotlines for people to call in when their neighbors have guns that they haven’t turned in.

This is the point where I bring up the other parts of the Constitution, like the 4th amendment (warrantless searches) and the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination) and then mention KGB and Stasi-style Snitch states, causing most antis to stomp off claiming that I don’t fight fair.

Then, of course you have . . .

Second, universal registration and background checks with no exceptions.

Okay, assuming that you can do the registration thing, what good does it do?!? I have seen claims that:

  • Registration would make the legal owner of a gun responsible for its safe use and transfer to another owner, dramatically reducing the flow of guns from the legal to criminal market.
  • Registration would also help police track weapons that are passed on to another person in a criminal or negligent way, including “straw” purchases where a legal buyer purchases guns on behalf of someone prohibited from owning them.

How could registration possibly make a legal owner “responsible for its safe use and transfer”? Lawful gun-owners, being the law-abiding citizens that they are, already exercise care in the use and transfer of their weapons.

On the other hand, illegal gun owners aren’t required to register their guns. Back in 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that requiring criminals to register their guns was a violation of the Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

Second the antis keep saying that law-abiding gun owners won’t be affected by their laws, so you can’t tax legal sales so who’s going to pay for it? According to the U.S. census, 15.8% of households move annually and there are 114,235,996 households in the U.S. That means about 18 million moves each year.

Let’s assume that gun ownership and purchasing is distributed the same across the movers as across the population as a whole. According to JustFacts.com, as of 2010 between 40% and 45% of households owned guns. A Gallup poll from 2005 puts that number at 42%, so let’s go with 42.5%.

JustFacts also states that as of 2010 there were 300 million privately owned firearms in the U.S.

That’s consistent with the 270 million guns in 2007 cited by GunPolicy.org given sales of 8-9 million guns per year from 2007 – 2010. According to numbers from the NSSF, gun sales topped 10.7 million in 2011 and 13.7 million in 2012.

So 324.4 million firearms in 114 million households is 2.85 guns per household (or GPH). This means that initially we will have to register 324.4 million firearms, and then perform 13.7 million new registrations annually. Add in registration updates on another 18 million households that move times 2.85 GPH = 51.3 million more registrations.

If we figure that each registration takes six person-minutes of labor (receive the postcard in the mailroom, distribute to data entry and actually entering the data), and the average data entry clerk works uninterrupted for six hours per day (lunch, bathroom breaks, coffee breaks, pop runs, etc.) that is 60 entries per day or 15,000 per year (250 work days). So just for initial data entry you’ll need 6,490,000 person days which is 25,960 employees for one year.

Add 15% for supervision and 15% for support (H.R., I.T., payroll, etc.) and that brings us to 33,748 new federal employees. For one year. According to FactCheck.org, the average taxpayer cost (salary and benefits) of a federal worker is $131,720 so for the first year, just to enter the data (we haven’t even begun to include infrastructure or any of that) and we are looking at a cost of $4.44 billion.

And then if sales stay flat at 13.7 million annually, the ongoing costs of registration will be $742,022,666 the first year and increase about $24.7 million per year (13.7 more guns each year, 15.8% of them moving and a 30% slop factor for supes and IT, etc.).

Of course that’s just commercial sales to private parties. According to the Legal Community Against Violence:

An estimated 40% of the guns acquired in the U.S. annually come from unlicensed sellers who are not required by federal law to conduct background checks on gun purchasers.

So registering those 5.5 million or so sales would add another $62.8 million or so for a total of $804.8 million dollars a year. Chump change, I’m sure.

As for “background checks with no exceptions” this is another one this supposedly won’t affect the law-abiding, but here’s a clue for Aahi; according to this Clinton-era DoJ report, less than 2% of criminals get their guns from flea markets or gun shows and about 80% get them from family, friends or a “street” source.

So, assuming that every single one of those flea market/gun show sales was not from a FFL, insisting on background checks for all sales will affect 1.7% of criminal sales and 100% of the law-abiding.

Furthermore since the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 (the latest version I could find) specifies “transfer” not sale, if someone comes up to me at a gun show and says “Cool rifle, can I take a look” the moment I hand it to him I have committed a felony.

Although not addressed in this bill other versions of “fixing the loophole” laws involve prison time for the operator of a gun show is a single transfer takes place at the show without going through NICS. See above about “cool rifle etc.”

Okay, that’s 1,600 words on Armand’s first few sentences, what does he have to say next?

So why can’t we do it?

Here are some of the things called obstacles that aren’t.

The Second Amendment? Every serious person knows the right to keep and bear arms has limits, just as First Amendment free speech has limits like laws against libel, pornography and false advertising.

Niiiice, gun ownership = porno. And BTW Armand, I don’t know if you’ve surfed the ‘net lately but there’s more than a little porn available out there.

As for libel and false advertising, these are actions which cause harm to other people; please explain to me the harm in my ownership of a Beta mag or two? Heck I’ve heard it argued that lives were saved by the Aurora shooters use of a Beta mag because it unbalance the rifle and the POS bound up on him, requiring him to change mags. And isn’t that what you and your ilk want Armand, for us to change mags more often?

If lawmakers think the Second Amendment is unlimited, why don’t they take metal detectors out of the Capitol building and let all tourists pack heat in the visitors’ balconies?

That’s a damned good idea Armand; in fact the MN Legislature has allowed us permit-holders to carry there for, oh, I dunno, decades maybe? Effectiveness?

Effectiveness?

Some people claim the 1994 temporary ban on assault weapons didn’t work, but if that’s true it’s because the ban was so leaky, applying only to future sales but not existing weapons, and exempting many weapons that should have been covered.

No, it “didn’t work” because according to the FBI’s UCR of 1995, table 2-10, between 1991 and 1995 of the 21,939.8 annual average of murders an average of 713.8 were committed with rifles.

Even if every single one was an “assault weapon” that still means that only 3.25% of murders were committed with rifles. By comparison, over the same period the annual average of murders committed with hands, fists or feet was 1166.2 or 5.31%.

As for “exempting many weapons that should have been covered,” I have said it before and I will no doubt say it again: You people wrote the damned law!

You included the evil shoulder thing that goes up, the horrific bayonet lug (to say nothing of the frumious flash hider) and all the other evil cosmetic characteristics that made those weapons so scary looking dangerous!

So you don’t get to say that it didn’t cover the dangerous guns that it needed to, unless what you and your ilk really meant was “a rifle that can be reloaded in less than a geologic age”.

So what spurious nonsense does Armand bring up next?

Hunters?

I have just returned from a family wedding attended mostly by hunters and gun owners. They have no interest in assault-type weapons, and no problem with background checks and registering all guns the way we register all automobiles.

Look Armand, putting aside the fact that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility; the fact that you and your inbreds in-laws are as ignorant as Jim Zumbo was does not constitute justification for infringing my rights.

Second while your (presumably reasonably affluent) “hunter and gun-owner” family may well choose not to own them, a semi-auto with 30+ round mags comes in mighty handy to defend your store in Koreatown after the cops pull out. Or defend your home in New Orleans after Katrina. Or defend your children anywhere that more than 3 or 4 goblins might appear.

Most important, they know lawmakers understand the difference between shotguns and assault weapons, and they’re not afraid that an assault weapon ban would be a “slippery slope” leading to curbs on hunting guns.

Yeah, that’s what the Fudds in the UK thought too. But they are correct, politicians would never ban their hunting rifles; they’ll reclassify it as a “sniper rifle” first. Furthermore the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting deer and everything to do with stopping thugs who are hunting you and your family.

Armand then segues into an analysis of how and why politicians are afraid of the NRA (which you might be interested to know has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists leaving the membership apparently unable to A) vote with their feet and leave the organization (which has experienced an upsurge (100,000+) of new members in the last 18 days) or 2) vote the ‘extremists’ out) and then completes the thought he laid out in his first sentence:

There’s a one-word key to getting a sensible gun law — money. …

Money is what we need now.

The basic bill outlined above is a litmus test. For those officials and candidates who won’t support it, start running hard-hitting radio and TV commercials and Internet posts targeting them by name again and again, making them very personally and very publicly accountable for their action or inaction.

It is obvious that, despite his position as a Trustee with Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law he has no idea just what kind of trouble he is borrowing here. He has put up and knocked down a bunch of straw-men, but one argument against confiscatory guns laws he fails to address is not their price, it is their cost. His belief that money is the sole obstacle to implementing his plan illustrates his abysmal ignorance on the topic.

This may seem like a digression, but it is not, trust me; the problem with people today is that so many of them have no real principles, and from what Armand says here I have to assume he is one of these people.

Don’t get me wrong, most of the time this is fine; as an insane libertarian I am a big fan of “live and let live”. The problem arises when people with no principles project their lack onto others who do not share that failing. People like Armand believe that we

are as spineless and unprincipled as he and his friends. Aahi have no tenets for which they would be willing to fight and die; conversely they have none for which they will kill.

Read Armand’s first sentence again and think about it for a moment; to Aahi a matter which we believe touches on our natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional rights boils down to a question of mere money and political expediency.

This could get interesting, because unfortunately for Aahi, many gun nuts are extremely principled. Aahi should remember that back in 1999 Bill Clinton, frustrated with the way things were going in Serbia, decided to change the Rules of Engagement. According to Wikipedia:

Rules of Engagement are rules or directives to military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which force … may be applied.

And Bill determined that the political leaders, bureaucracy, intellectual supporters and (pay attention here Armand) media infrastructure which supported the enemy were legitimate targets.

Armand believes we’ll sell our civil rights for money. We believe we will buy them with blood.

comments

  1. avatar LC Judas says:

    Essentially the logistics of gun control have not been considered by the people purporting it. Cherry picking your statistics until you sound right and getting the mainstream media to agree with you is not nearly as hard as actually making the half baked, hair brained and utterly unconscionable proposal actually work. Keep in mind, as the merry police go door to door and people who are so valiantly snitching on neighbours…are nor going to get it all right. Many homes would end up ransacked and innocents injured or killed.

    Foresight is only one key thing missing from the Civilian Disarmament agenda though. I laughed reading this, as telling it to any anti-gun nut will get thumbs in ears humming as a response.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      If the G puts up a snitch hotline for a gun grab I’m going to rat out people I know are gun hating anti’s. Let them reap the rewards of trying to start a police state.

      1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

        Will you be doing your ever so ironic swatting using a Spoofcard?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          No, I.M., I’d steal cell phones from some of the anti’s I know and use those to rat out the rest. You have to fight dirty in the resistence.

      2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Oh now that would be interesting to watch!

  2. avatar CCDWGuy says:

    One other point no one seems to bring up is Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Any taxes on ammo or additional registration would hit millions of middle class gun owners and break that promise. Oh, that’s right he does not face another election so that one can just be a write off.

    1. avatar WA_2A says:

      What are you talking about?! Of course he’s going to fulfill his promises! Just like he ended Bush Tax Cuts, brought unemployment below 8%, ended or began to end the war in Afghanistan, or close Guantanamo Bay!

      Oh wait.

      He didn’t do any of that.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      We already have gun registration. That form you fill out every time you buy or pick up a gun at the LGS sits at the gun store… for now. Don’t think for a minute the government criminals are not beyond ordering all stores to ship the forms to the kremlin.

      Remember the Japanese American internment where they used the census to round them up? The government criminals promised they’d never use the census for anything other than its stated purpose…

      Sure, some stores will refuse, but I’m sure many will comply because they don’t want to be swatted. Cheaper Than Dirt will be the first to send theirs in.

  3. avatar scottlac says:

    Thank you for specifying the “transfer” and “registration” legal and logistical issues. Not enough gun owners realize what all this means for them. If they did they would be less willing to cave on these issues.

  4. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Or, we could make it a felony to wear a Hawaiian shirt whilst sporting a Herman Munster smile. Randy

  5. avatar Dale says:

    Folks we NEED to start using some of the correct words.

    Not “Anti-Gun”, these people are “Anti-Rights”. In addition to being more accurate about what is going on, it’s still “cool” in many sectors to be “anti-gun” but not so cool to be “anti-rights”.

    WORDS MEAN THINGS

    1. avatar Brian says:

      Your suggestion just became a big part of the way I will argue from now on. Simple and brilliant! Thanks!

    2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Maybe not just “anti-rights” but “anti-human-rights”, that will really get their knickers in a knot.

  6. avatar Ivy Mike says:

    The Right Wing of this country has sold out the intent of the 2A for $$money$$.

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

    The Constitution calls for a Swiss-model citizen-soldier militia.

    “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

    And the Constitution calls for disbanding (specifically, starving it of money) any raised army after 2 years. (How can the self-styled “oathkeepers” keep serving if they’ve really read the Constitution?)

    Instead, we’ve got a Standing Army that acts as Mafia enforcement thugs for Wall Street. The 2A has been eviscerated to thunderous applause of Republican-voting money-grubbers running a racket. And for those jokers who say the Standing Army is OK because it is somehow “defending freedom,” you just joined DiFi in defying the Constitution.

    Now those chickens are coming home to roost, because the defense of the country is an exclusive career club run from the Pentagon as the worlds largest Welfare Tit and college fund, instead of actual defense being vested in every able-bodied man.

    Why should the Leftists heed the second half of the 2A if the Right wing won’t heed the first part of the 2A?

    1. avatar WA_2A says:

      I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to compare the U.S. and Switzerland extensively seeing as all male citizens over 20 are required to enlist in the army, partially because their government knows how to mind their own damn business and not declare unwinnable wars in the Middle East.

      That being said, there are some things in Switzerland that can be compared; mainly, that if a large amount of citizens are armed there is a low crime rate; that crime is dependent on poverty, not guns; and that even if you make it legal to obtain “weapons of war” (fully automatic rifles, anti-tank weapons, the whole 9 yards) that will not make a country any more of a dangerous place.

      1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

        Young Swiss men don’t join the Army per se; rather, they join the militiaas called for in the American 2A of the Bill of Rights.

        A small cadre of about 5% of the Swiss defense forces are full-time professional soldiers — as called for in American’s Article 1, Section 8 “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.”

        It’s time for the Right to quit pissing on the Constitution, because their embrace of the Standing Arm–that the 2A was meant to prevent–has been horribly corrosive to the Bill of Rights.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      I am sure the citizen’s militia would have done just peachy against the Wehrmacht.

      1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

        You’re correct, the militia did perform “just peachy.”

        Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: “You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?”

        The soldier replied: “We will shoot twice and go home.” [source]

        And you’ll note that tiny Switzerland was heavily outnumbered (and completely surrounded!) again in WWII by the Axis powers, yet remained free.

        Problem with remaining free, while surrounded by the Axis Powers, dude?

        Unfortunately, it’s people like you who piss on both history and the Constitution who have destroyed the 2A. Don’t blame the halfwit Leftists when it’s as much your own fault.

        It’s time for your type to man-up and face the truth; your pissing on the Constitution and 2A has been as corrosive as the Left’s disdain of the Constitution and 2A.

        1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          The Swiss live in a mountainous region which can be well defended by occupying a few mountain passes. They have little worth invading for in terms of natural resources, and they were willing to let the Germans use their banks. Of course they remained free.

        2. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          Hasdrubal, you’re pissing on the 2A, just like most halfwits on the Right who imagine themselves as defenders of it.

          Are you surprised that DiFi shares your low opinion of the 2A, as well as your love of a Standing Army, which the 2A was meant to prevent?

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          That’s because the men of the standing army were there to train them.

        4. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          That’s uncalled for. The 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution has nothing to do with the geography of Switzerland.

          Even though the Swiss aren’t a perfect example of the Constitution at work, that doesn’t mean it has no value. I would be very pleased if the American public trained and cared enough to form a militia like the Founders intended.

          There is still a place for a standing army, though. How else will you field an armored division, or a bomber squadron, or a ballistic missile sub?

        5. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          Funny every day watching Hasdrubal making love to his Big Government Dearest as much as Diane Fienstein herself.

          P.S. The founders were way ahead of you on a Swiss-model militia.

          “The inhabitants of SWITZERLAND emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.”

          ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791

          [source]

        6. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          There is still a place for a standing army

          Wrong, tyrant. To prevent a standing army is precisely why the 2A was written. Why do you hate the Constitution so much, anyway?

          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

          Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. ~Noah Webster

          “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” ~Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801

          “…no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

          “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.” ~Thomas Jefferson, 1803

          “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.” ~James Madison

          “This [citizen-militia] appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army…” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, Number 29

        7. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          I am against bans of pretty much everything. Except nukes, chemical, and biological weapons, I suppose. I am against databases of gun owners, whether federal, state, or local. I am against gun free zones, and against the need for any sort of permit or license to carry a weapon. I vote for whoever appears most likely to support laws that agree with these views.

          I am very much for the general public exercising their rights, especially the right to bear arms. I encourage people I meet as both a citizen and as a police officer to arm and train themselves, both for their own defense and for the good of the nation. I help my non uniformed friends, my family, and anyone who asks, with training, supply, and maintenance of their weapons.

          In four years as a police officer, I have not had to shoot any dogs, humans, or any other living thing. I have seized one firearm, from a suicidal man, who recovered his property within a week of being released from the hospital.

          I spent four years in the Army as infantry, and graduated from sniper school. One of the main reasons I left active duty was that I could not in good conscience serve under the current President.

          If you still consider me your enemy, then unless you are part of the sovereign citizen movement, you may not have many friends.

        8. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          How do you think the militia would best be able to call up an armored division, a bomber sqadron, or a ballistic missile sub? Or do you think the militia can fight a modern combined arms force with small arms?

          Granted, the Iraqis and Afghans have been doing just that, but they have also sustained a tremendous number of casualties. I don’t want to see that many dead Americans anywhere.

          My guess is that you’re an isolationist. This is completely impractical in the modern world, for a variety of reasons, many of which have little to do with a standing American army. But, that’s a separate discussion.

        9. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          A cop? Now wonder you’re so dumb. No, I’m not part of the “sovereign citizen” movement, liar.

          I just know the Constitution and historical context behind it….and you obviously do not.

        10. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          If you don’t like what is written in the Constitution, why don’t you move to, say, North Korea, where you’d fit in better?

          And if you’d bother to ever read the Constitution, you’d discover it provides for a permanent Navy, and a temporary raised Army that gets disbanded after a period of 2 years.

          You’re like DiFi herself, raising all kinds of objections to the provisions of the Constitution she doesn’t like. Go ahead, take a big crap on it, she does too.

        11. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          I can tell you’re very angry. I’m not going to engage in these ad hominem attacks, but I don’t consider myself either a tyrant, a liar, or dumb. Posting copies of my test scores would be childish, and you would probably just call me a liar again.

          If you feel so strongly that you believe I should move to North Korea, then you should also consider most of the American population to be your enemies, especially anyone who enlisted in the military. Except the Navy, I guess. If anyone who served in the Army is a tyrant, and the purpose of the militia is to fight tyranny, then do you support the killing of American soldiers by… American patriots?

        12. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          Do you support the Constitution?

          Nope. You consider the Constitution your enemy, because you want your precious Standing Army that the 2A was intended to prevent.

          So it’s not surprising that you’d say I’m angry. DiFi pulls the same ad hominem garbage on supporters of the Constitution, suggesting they’re terrorists or murderers. Oh right, you’re a cop; obviously a rather dishonest one who doesn’t mind making false accusations.

        13. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          We don’t seem to share a common definition of ‘ad hominem’ attacks. I take it to mean basically, insulting the person while ignoring the message or question. Things like calling them a tyrant, a liar, or dumb.

          Asking if or inferring that someone is a member of a group like sovereign citizens is not an insult unless you have a strongly negative attitude towards that group, like the Nazi party. I don’t believe the sovereign citizen movement is comparable to the Nazis, so I did not believe that was an insult. However, I do have that attitude towards Senator Feinstein, so I believe your comments towards me about her were ad hominem attacks. Maybe they were not intended as such, but I think this is unlikely, since you seem to hold her in even lower regard than I do.

          I don’t believe asking questions about your reasoning is a personal attack either. For example, if the army can only be called up for two years, and it is composed largely of the citizen militia, how do you propose they field an armored division? Or, do you think the temporary field army only needs small arms? If the militia should have a wide range of modern equipment including tanks, then who should own them? The militia members themselves, as traditionally they owned their own small arms, horses, and sometimes even cannon?

          If the Navy is permanent, can they have aircraft, since the Founders did not have any stated policy about air forces? Should aircraft be limited to carrier and other ship based, or can they also have standing forces of land based aircraft like P3 squadrons?

          If the Navy can have aircraft, should the Air Force be disbanded, or should they be folded into the Navy as shore based assets? Should the Air Force be considered part of the Army, as it was in the Second World War, and therefore only called up two years at a time? Can effective pilots and ground crews be trained in two years, or will the militia be responsible for flight training as well?

          The current situation is not ideal, but if you want to make dramatic changes, I am interested in hearing how you see them best applied to warfare. And to say someone seems angry is not really a personal attack either, unless you think that all angry people are ‘terrorists or murderers.’

        14. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          Regarding personal attacks; call your mommy up today and ask her about “dishing it out if you can’t take it.” Obviously you missed that lesson in your youth.

          And you need to read about the Swiss militia. You’re completely misinformed.

          You keep claiming that the “standing army” that the Constitution and 2A was written to prevent is somehow necessary to field armor.

          Wrong.

          The Swiss field the Leopard main battle tank with 224 in service.

          Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

        15. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          Ah, a reference to my mother, from someone who called me a liar, a tyrant, dumb, professionally dishonest, and ‘like DiFi herself,’ while complaining about my assumption of anger as ‘ad hominem garbage.’

          I think the Swiss model is rather similar to our National Guard, where the force is organized by the government, the government owns all the heavy equipment, and the government runs the training. I don’t have a problem with this, but it is somewhat different from the original colonial militia where the citizens brought their own rifles and stayed home if they chose. Whereas, the Swiss have universal conscription for able-bodied males.

          And all this because I noted that nobody tried to invade Switzerland during the war. I respect the Swiss military, and I don’t think I’ve said anything to show otherwise. If we went to the Swiss model, though, we would have units called up constantly for overseas duty. Don’t take that as an endorsement of overseas military adventures, but as a complaint that the public keeps electing men who do.

          Here’s perhaps the biggest question of all, and you don’t need to answer me so much as the American people. Considering that nearly 100% of the people who actually voted, willingly voted for either Romney or Obama, neither of which support a return to strict interpretation of the Constitution, how do you force them to be free?

          Either way, I don’t think this particular discussion is worth any more of my time.

      2. avatar WLCE says:

        the jews during the warsaw ghetto uprising did considering they fought elite Waffen SS troops with merely stolen and domestically fabricated weaponry.

        of course, this is not the first time ive corrected you on your blatant disregard for armed irregulars.

        1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          You make a good point; however, the militia, Constitutionally, was to be far from “irregular.”

          The Militia of the 2A was supposed to be “well-regulated,” with a small Swiss-style cadre of officers, “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” as specified in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Let me explain the concept of how a standing army trains a citizen army to you. Each company can train a division. Each battalion can train an army corps and each regiment can create a numbered army. That’s how we built the Army in both World Wars. In practice the Army training establishment draws a cadre from the regular army and they train levies of drafties, i.e., the militia, that fill out the formations.

          I suspect that that WWII is abstract piece of history to you but for me it is a real thing. My uncles all got drafted and were trained by people like my father who was regular army. He was a plank holder in the 505th Parachute Infantry and he was selected as airborne school cadre. He trained elements of every airborne unit that the army fielded Without men like him the militia would have been an armed mob like we fielded in the War of 1812.

          Nations require standing armies because, in the immortal words of Leon Trotsky, “you might not be interested in war but war might be interested in you”.The founding fathers’ concepts for national defense failed in the first decade of the Republic and that is why we have had a standing since the days of Thomas Jefferson.

          We are in the midst of the bicentenial of the War of 1812. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn a little history. I highly recommend you read some.

        3. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          tdiinva pisses on the Constitution like a DiFi, with the same excuses. “Wahhhh! It’s just a tired old document! It’s all different now! The founding fathers’ concepts failed!

          Christ, you must be her speechwriter. You’re as ignorant and wrong–and hence, tyrannical–as she is.

          P.S. Call the Swiss and tell them how their citizen-soldier militia–the same as called for in the Constitution–isn’t working somehow. They’ll laugh, like me, in your vacuous face.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          So you are saying that Thomas Jefferson pissed on the Constitution?

        5. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          “The founding fathers’ concepts for national defense failed…” ~tdiinva, Jan. 12, 2013

          I’m going to ask you again:

          Are you Senator Diane Feinstein’s speech writer?

          You both hold the Constitution in disdain.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Are you MikeB’s. Doppelganger? There is no constitutional prohibition on a standing army. The two year limit is on the appropriation of funds not time of service. You are not only historically illiterate you can’t read either.

          In light of this it is a waste of time arguing with you

        7. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          There is no constitutional prohibition on a standing army.

          Oh, now you’re like DiFi, who says with the same sneering contempt for the 2A on her face, “There is no constitutional prohibition on [you name it]” if it isn’t precisely named in the document, even though a study of the founders context provides strong evidence to the contrary.

          And you’re still as wrong as her, tyrant.

          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

          Your ilk has destroyed the 2A as much as the Leftists.

        8. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          “The two year limit is on the appropriation of funds not time of service.”

          If Congress cuts funding as required, the army is GONE, which is precisely the founder’s intent — they all hated a Standing Army.

          You hate the 2A and love a Standing Army, thus you weasel like a the Progressives weasel with words.

          You must have attended the Homer Simpson School of Political Weaseling along with Diane Feinstein.

          “Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel.” ~Homer Simpson

        9. avatar tdiinva says:

          The standing army is funded by Operations and Maintanence appropriations. That money expires after one year and is then reappropriated. R&D money is good for two years and procurement for three so the last category does violate the two year rule. And you don’t have the foggtest idea about what I am talking about.

          Look I am ok with you owning an AR-15. It’s only a limp wristed 22. Now I might have problems with you owniing a man’s rifle like an M-1

        10. avatar tdiinva says:

          One more thing. The two year rule applies to all appropriation not just defence. It is the term appointed for the sitting of Congress. Do you think that founding fathers meant for the government only last for rwo years?

        11. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

          That’s what the Constitution says, the opposite of your Right Wing Authoritarian tripe that has destroyed the purpose of the 2A.

    3. avatar WLCE says:

      weve disagreed on something before, but i agree 100%.

      we need a philosophical re-evaluation of the role of the military industrial complex and our own government plays in our lives. who or what do we turn to!?!?!?!? oh wait…the constitution. imagine that!?

      1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

        You’d think self-styled “fiscal conservatives” would love to spend 1/7th of the money on defense and still remain as safe as a Swiss citizen.

        Instead, “Conservatives” piss on the intent of the 2A, embrace the Standing Army it was meant to prevent, and throw tax receipts at it like drunken Communists.

  7. avatar Scott Henrichs says:

    States are already balking at the suggestion of further infringement. I suspect a move like this would result in roughly 45 states standing against the federal government.

  8. avatar Javier says:

    A few choice words to Armand and his ilk:
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
    ▬Edmund Burke
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    ▬Benjamin Franklin
    “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
    ▬ Edmund Burke
    The dictators of the past have all started by the disarming of their victims.
    And surely lets not forget the YOU FIRST argument.
    THE CRIMINALS DON’T AND WON’T OBEY THE LAW. IT WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR ANY ONE TO ENTER THE SCHOOL WITH A FIREARM, YET LANZA DID IT. The LAW only applies to those who obey the law.

    1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

      good men to do nothing

      Now is the time for all good men to call for the disbandment of the expensive and liberty-killing Standing Army that the 2A was written “to prevent.”

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        I’ve been doing that for years, Mike.

        1. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          Hurrah! Then you’re one of the few Americans who support the complete 2A.

          The military-industrial-complex lovers weasel-out of the intent of the 2A “to prevent a Standing Army” by lying about the “ambiguity” of the first part of the 2A.

          Thus the Standing-Army-Conservatives have destroyed the 2A by making the militia inconsequential to national defense.

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          “Thus the Standing-Army-Conservatives have destroyed the 2A by making the militia inconsequential to national defense.”

          and deploying our own national guard overseas to iraq and afghanistan (and bosnia, etc).

          what. the. f^ck. tell me what twilight zone dream did that come from!?

        3. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          War is a money-making RACKET, as two-time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient MAJOR GENERAL SMEDLEY D. BUTLER, USMC wrote.

          War Is A Racket
          http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

          In other words, “the continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands,” as George Bush Sr. stated so honestly.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        The problem with a standing army is they get tired of just standing around…

        1. avatar WLCE says:

          like all standing armies in history, they rot when they sit at home.

          and it becomes harder and harder to justify their need. that is why we nation build overseas.

        2. avatar Ivy Mike says:

          I wonder how much “building” done by a Standing Army a nation can tolerate.

          Here is a photo of a street in Baghdad 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after the war for O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation.)

          “I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” ~Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

  9. avatar Goodbarrel says:

    Just for fun, here is a different SWAG at estimating the costs associated with universal registration:

    Number of guns in US: ~320M
    Population of US: 311M
    Number of automobiles in US: ~250M
    Number of DMV employees in CA: 8879
    Population of CA: 37.6M
    CA DMV employees per capita: ~ 236 (per M)
    Estimate of DMV employees in US = 236*311 = 73k
    Est cost per DMV employee: ~ $100k
    Est total employee cost of US DMVs: ~$7.3B
    This excludes infrastructure and operating costs

    Imagine having to go into your local DFA (department of firearms) every year to renew your tabs

  10. avatar CZJay says:

    They say you can own sticks, stones and muskets alone.

  11. avatar peter says:

    Is it just me or does it seem that most of the anti gun arguments are based on a really scary “After School Special”?

  12. avatar tdiinva says:

    Whenever I here some so-called “Progressive” say something like “I know all these hunters who support a ban on assault weapons” I know this person doesn’t know any hunters. I do know a couple of people who are naive enough to believe that it’s only about assault weapons and not your “good” hunting guns.

    I am one of those hunters who doesn’t care to own an evil black rifle but I’m not stupid. I know they want my evil sniper rifles and my evil 1911. We hang together or we hang seperately. I choose to hang together so maybe we don’t have hang at all.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      It’s the equivalent of claiming to have black friends who laughed when you told them the appallingly racist joke you just got called out for.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. “Please introduce me to these relatives of yours so that I can ask them directly. No? Is that no, as in they wouldn’t back you up on this, or no, these hunters you claim to know don’t actually exist?”

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    Derfner is just an old-fashioned, 75 year old leftist mouthpiece who stopped being relevant in 1969. Some guys just don’t know when it’s time to go out to pasture and STFU.

  14. avatar blehtastic says:

    That guy’s nose is red.

  15. avatar GS650G says:

    ” Hunters?

    I have just returned from a family wedding attended mostly by hunters and gun owners. They have no interest in assault-type weapons, and no problem with background checks and registering all guns the way we register all automobiles.”

    Nice, so relatives of this bozo decide the debate for all of us.

  16. avatar pat says:

    Old commie looks like he’s tired and needs a nap. Maybe he is at the end of his life and will take a dirt nap. Soon, I hope.

  17. avatar Don Ruane says:

    Washington would be a great place to turn in our guns.
    We could call it the FIRST AMERICAN ” TURN IN and TURN OUT” in our Republics history.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email