Quote of the Day: Civilian Disarmament Is Not the Answer Edition

“I believe all the rhetoric in Washington is just that, rhetoric. You can’t really enforce legislation on rate of fire or size of clips or kind of ammunition because if you do, then the good guys won’t be able to get it and the bad guys will have it.” Ron Forsyth [son Ron above] quoted in Clackamas Town Center victim’s father weighs in on gun debate kptv.com

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

74 Responses to Quote of the Day: Civilian Disarmament Is Not the Answer Edition

  1. avatarIvy Mike says:

    I don’t think it is just rhetoric. The Wall Street-Pentagon Axis of Evil ruling class would love to disarm us. Although they did get a little wake-up call with the proles mobilizing.

    Here’s a good article.

    Why It Will Come Down Harder on the Cottagers Than the Gentry
    A (Brief) People’s History of Gun Control
    Kevin Carson | January 21, 2013
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/21/a-brief-peoples-history-of-gun-control/

    • avatarKeith says:

      Mr IV,

      Some of your stuff is thoughtful and concise, but too often it’s not.

      Please cool it a little bit. If you take more than 10% of the real estate in the comments section, you’re saying way too much.

      Just one opinion

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      I agree, it’s not “just rhetoric”. It’s dangerous rhetoric. But I like his logic regarding regulation.

  2. avatarDrDave says:

    Bless their hearts! Truer words have never been spoken

  3. avatarDaveL says:

    I’m perplexed by the focus on rate-of-fire in relation to gun violence. Most gun violence does not involve mass casualties, and as such can be committed without much of a ROF. Looking into mass shootings of the past, I’ve found that essentially none of them ever came close to exploiting the theoretical maximum ROF of semi-automatic weapons, nor even exceeded that easily achievable with manually cycled repeaters.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Cyclic rate of fire is a meaningless measure if you want to hit something. You can fire a modern magazine fed semiautomatic rifle at rates of 60-80 rounds per minute for short periods of time. Your P(hit) is going to be pretty low. If you are going to try to hit your target, i.e., you plan on taking aim, you are only going to get off 15-20 rounds a minute at best. You can do that with an M-1 with a more effective round to boot. So if the powers that be decide that you and only have 10 rounds in a magazine which would want — 10 rounds of 223 or 8 rounds of 30-06?

      • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

        Clearly 8 rounds of .30-06. Can we get a manufacturer to introduce a new M1 Garand, like Auto-Ordnance did with the M1 Carbine? And not put it in a price bracket out of reach for most Americans? Oh, and can I supersize that, get my M1 Garand (or Tanker Garand…damn…) with a M1911A1 too? Pull around to the first window? Great.
        That’s how a gun store should be…

        Personally, I’d prefer a Johnson M41 rifle…updated, with the kinks worked out. But, that’s my own personal dream…

        • avatarjwm says:

          Springfield armory briefly made new M1′s some years back. They were available in .30-06 and .308. Unfortunately, the design is all steel and wood and the price on these were high.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          I like all steel and wood; I may be younger, but I appreciate classic lines. I simply don’t have the disposable income to afford such pieces of art.

          Speaking of art, if you can keep a suit of armor and swords on display as “art” why can’t I get an IBA and a SAW to display as “art”?

        • avatarjwm says:

          Badger 8-3. I also like wood and steel. My favorites are the milsurp rifles. As for your “art” display, the pantie wetters would probably okay it if it was a non firing replica and it could be gauranteed children would never see it.

          At one time I was known as Baker 7-2. That was a lifetime and a half ago.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          jwm: This may sound terrifically childish, but their swords aren’t non-cutting replicas…/whine. And yes, I appreciate the milsurps as well. They feel…sturdier. More purposeful.

          I worked with a Captain, callsign Hooligan 6. Lucky bastard…

          Oh, and if anyone knows the A-10 driver BadKarma, I owe him a beer. Or three.

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        8 rounds of 30-06

        One shot, one kill.

        Kind of like a bowling pin shoot I empirically observed. (True story, all scientific and double-blind studied.)

        Guys there with lasers and semi-autos and multiple magazines blasting away a bunch of shots.

        Another guy shows up with a .357 Magnum revolver. Knows right where to hit the pin for maximum movement.

        5 shots. 5 pins knocked off. 1 bullet left in the wheel.

        Wins.

        I’m mostly Old School.

        Besides, the womenfolk like it not so frantic too.

        (Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.)

      • avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened says:

        I agree with you, but only to a point because is rate of fire has an inverse parabolic relation to accuracy.

        The slower you fire the more accurate, but as you speed up accuracy delcines…to a certain point, then accuracy starts to increase again the faster the rate.

        Case in point, the M134 Minigun has such a high rate of fire that shots on target are remarkably accurate.

        For sure a moot point, but the numbers don’t lie.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Accuracy is a relative term; an M134D is accurate inside of its target area, much as an MLRS is accurate inside of its target area…the fact that the MLRS is designed to saturate a square kilometer is, yes, moot. However, if the goal is to remove one individual from, say, a crowded street, the M134D is a poor weapon choice. Remember; the more specialized the weapon system, the less useful it is.

          Per the accuracy vs. ROF argument, one simply needs to read the studies on rounds fired per enemy killed; it spiked sharply from WWII to Vietnam, up to almost 50,000 rounds per kill (popularly reported number). Indeed, that is up from 25,000 rounds in WWII and a far cry from the reported 250,000 rounds reported in today’s wars. Personally, I think its a mental thing; if I only have 8 rounds before I am forced to reload, I’m going to slow down and aim better, versus having 30 rounds available.

          Mike, yep, shot placement is key, regardless of weapon system.
          “Only hits count: you can’t miss fast enough to catch up.”

  4. avatarPascal says:

    What Washington cannot do, it will be done at the state level.

    There is an agenda that must be met and no logic nor properly argued discourse that will matter. They will do something just to do something which is always the worst type of government.

    Obama’s agenda and thus the national democratic party agenda for the next 4 yrs is social justice. In political terms that means that if your not in the special group, then you just exist to pay taxes and we will lower your standards to favor another groups standards. Gun owners are the new enemy and civil disarmament is the goal and since the majority is the OFWG, you do not really matter in the bigger picture of the new United States.

    I do not even oppose gay marriage and some of the other proposals but looking at the bills I see I do not understand why I must be punished to elevate another group.

  5. avatarEric S. says:

    Mr. Farago, let us please refer to it as Citizen (not Civilian) Disarmament. Police are civilians, too. Anyone who is not military is civilian.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Citizen (not Civilian) Disarmament

      Citizen-soldier (Militia) disarmament has already happened, with national defense duties being usurped by the unconstitutional Standing Army. Instead of every common man being an important part of national defense, we’re just civilians, i.e., non-combatants, leaving national defense to the Hired Hessians who then get manipulated by the War Street-Pentagon Axis Powers into being “gangsters of capitalism” overseas, abandoning their Defense role to “Homeland Security.”

      Police are civilians, too.

      Only in theory. In reality, they’ve become so Federalized and Militarized that they are now the de facto internal control Standing Army.

      • avatarBecca Putman says:

        I haven’t figured you out yet. Either you are an anti-gun concern troll (pretending to be pro 2A) or you are a 2A extremist.

        Either way, there’s hardly an article on this site that doesn’t have your whining liturgy spilling forth. I almost don’t want to read the comments because I’m having to wade through yours.

        Give it a bleedin’ REST, son.

    • avatarPatrick says:

      That is true. More importantly, it’s disarmament, not “gun control”.

      There is marginal control over some guns, in that some are taken from unauthorized citizens, criminal or otherwise. Control by the state over the entirety of guns within our population, however, does not exist. Regulations are enforced most frequently towards the least threat to (the “law abiding citizen”), who is willing to comply. Even with them, enforcement isn’t comprehensive, not to mention those who don’t want to get caught. Taking 50% of the guns, belonging to the 50% who are most open and cooperative, does not lead to 50% less crime. I would even say that taking 90% (not likely) of the guns from least cooperative would not lead to 10% less crime (would probably not reduce crime at all). I would think it is bizarre if taking 90% of the guns from the most cooperative 99% of the population would not increase crime.

      Also, as we all know, building an automatic firearm that accepts detachable magazines does not require the newest technology. It’s not a microchip. Taking away our means to build them would leave us with a primitive society, with only simple tools and an overseer to ensure that we don’t get access to tools.

      I don’t use the term “gun control”. It’s manipulative.

    • avatarPascal says:

      @Eric S

      I would agree with you except that the Police are treated as “special” in many of the laws we make. Even after a police officer retires, in many states, they are given special privledges that normal citizens are not. For example, none of the new NY firearm laws will apply to active or retired cops. Amendments are being added so police do not have to follow the new rules. I can understand how the rules should not apply while on active duty, but when they are off the job or retired, I simply do not understand.

      When they have to follow the same rules I need to, then they are civilian. When they are excluded from having to follow the same rules, I do not consider them civilian. And this is where things go down the bunny hole because many want and enjoy those special privledges but then say they are just like the rest of us. I can assure you, that in my home state that has no law against open carry that if I simply wear a T-shirt supporting a local grassroots 2a group, that a call will be made to have me arrested and the police will arrest me for doing nothing (ask me how I know) but when a buddy of mine who is a cop does the same thing, he gets to walk and asked to have a nice day (again, ask me how I know). If I open carry, I will be arrested and while the courts here have dismissed the claims, you still must go through the legal hassel. While you can say they are just following orders, then if a cop is off duty and is open carrying he should be arrested and taken through the court system too if we are to apply the law (or lack of law) evenly.

      When we are treated differently, we are not the same. This is why many here have an anti-cop comment — because we have seen the abuse first hand.

      While I have no ill will against the police, I do not see a lot of support from them and they seem to enjoy a lot privledges the rest of us do not.

  6. avatarThomas Paine says:

    99.99% of the anti-2a arguers have some or all of the following:

    -poor historical knowledge
    -poor economic knowledge
    -poor understanding of firearms and firearm science
    -disunity – ie us vs them
    -bad statistical data
    -lack of knowledge or disregard of personal freedom and personal property rights
    -authority complexes or ulterior motives

    feel free to add if i missed any.

    • avatarRoll says:

      Spot on. They also seem to lack the concept of personal responsibility. They want to blame me and my rifle (which is safely in AZ) for the actions of that dirtbag that shot the kids in CT or that A-hole carrot top in CO who shot up the movie theater.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      Anti-complete-2A people–Rightwingers who dismiss a Swiss*-style citizen “well regulated” militia as adequate for national defense–often try to insert the word “renewed” into the Constitution.

      NO Appropriation of Money to that Use [raise and support Armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

      Do you see “renewed” there? I see a “NO” myself.

      It’s time to emancipate ourselves from the tyranny of a Standing Army. West Point has already targeted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America as a terrorist.

      ____________
      * “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

      • avatarjwm says:

        Ivy Mike, I know I shouldn’t but here goes. It does not say that when the 2 years is up another appropriation is against the rules. All this says is that each appropriation is limited to 2 years. It doesn’t limit the number of appropriations.

        Insult my loyalty to 2a if you must, but that’s how it reads to me.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          If it can be renewed indefinitely, what’s the reason for a 2 year limit? Do you really think the founders were being fastidiously detailed about accounting trivia on a single item?

          To weasel around the 2 year limit is to weasel around the whole intent of the 2A.

          Once you start weaseling, expect others to follow your example. Oh, they have already.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Mike,

          Are you saying that the founders limited Congress from raising and supporting armies for more than two years total? I realize that they didn’t want a standing army in times of peace and that has been violated for more than a century. From my readings, I got the impression that the two year limit was so that Congress would be required to re-visit the need for the army. They just didn’t want to let the military grow and grow without oversight or thought being put into the conflict which require the army in the first place.

          None of it really matters, the government can get away with anything that the people will let them. Until we decide we want freedom, liberty and a government that stays within the confines of the Constitution, the government will continue to grow and chip away at our freedom and liberty.

        • avatarelnonio says:

          theaton:

          “I got the impression that the two year limit was so that Congress would be required to re-visit the need for the army.”

          Actually, it’s the other way around. The two year limit is so that the armed forces (“we”) will have to come back to Congress every year to ask for money. Even then, we can only spend money for that which Congress pre-approves by law (NDAA), within the time limit that Congress sets, and only in the amount approved. It’s what fiscal law gurus call the purpose time amount doctrine.

          http://www.gao.gov/legal/lawresources/resources.html

  7. avatarj says:

    I agree. We might use the term “rhetoric” to define a tool used in debate and in an otherwise flat world, it would not be particularly useful. However, we are living in a time of sound bites and short attention spans. The average American knows very little about firearms technology or nomenclature which is evidenced by the slaughter of firearms language by our “sag”. legislators. In addition, the average American’s intrinsic understanding of our history as a nation is abysmal.

    The average American “knows” about our history from the leftist Professorial propagandists in our institutions of indoctrination and no longer have the drive or the care to learn it or even test what they have been taught, on their own.

    We are now in a time we once mused but never really thought would arrive. We have rounded the bend and are now in that time of steep decline where it is far easier for the average American to simply accept the fate assigned them by government rather than study, consider and act to preserve what so many have fought and died for over these many decades.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      The average American knows very little about firearms technology

      Correct. Why?

      • Because every man is no longer part of a Constitutional “well regulated Militia” national defense.

      • Because the NRA types support the troops bootlick the unconstitutional Standing Army.

      That’s right, the Standing Army is unconstitutional.

      What part of NO don’t you understand?

      NO Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

      “Renewed” is in there just like “hunting” is in the 2A.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        Just because I feel like it I am going call BS on you again.

        You keep refering to the two year rule. Appropriation can be renewed, i.e., Congress makes a military appropriation for an Army for 24 months. The next Congress can make another appropriation for 24 months. That is exactly what we do now. Military appropriations for personnel, operations and maintanence are made on an annual basis which satisfies the two year requirement. The requirement is based on the term of Congress — two years, and was not meant to prevent a standing Army. After all it was the same Framers who created the standing Army. That is the measure of a original intent. They did not like standing Armies but they did not prohibit them. They thought that Militia would be sufficient but wtihout a standing Army to train them the Militia would be ineffective.

        Go read up on the Battle Bladensburg. The regular army stood firm and retreated in good order after your mightly militia broke and ran. The next three American wars did not use the militia, we raised volunteer regiments who once trained were far more effective than the Militia.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          You keep refering to the two year rule. Appropriation can be renewed

          I’m calling bullshit on you.

          Your “renewed” isn’t in the Constitution any more than “hunting” is in the 2A. (Although that’s what happens. Hey, we have the Feral Reserve too. Not all precedent is Constitutional.)

          What part of NO don’t you understand?

          NO Appropriation of Money to that Use [raise and support Armies] shall be for a longer Term than two Years.”

          Just that checkmates your bullshit. But if you don’t think so, try to weasel around these:

          • “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

          • “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 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

        • avatartdiinva says:

          The Constitution doesn’t prohibit it either. It just says the maximum length of an appropriation is two years. I don’t think the Framers would go for disbanding an army in the middle of a war and since they only had experience with wars that lasted longer than two years they would not place a provision in the Constitution that would lead to a military defeat.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          If it can be renewed indefinitely, what’s the reason for a 2 year limit? Do you really think the founders were being fastidiously detailed about accounting trivia on a single line item?

          No, they weren’t. You just don’t like parts of the Constitution. Neither does DiFi. Well, you’ve got lots of company.

      • avatarj says:

        I agree. The Founders did not want a “standing army”. It is, however, also true that we have been at war for nearly our entire history (as has most of the world) and so training up an “army” (all military components) and then mustering them out at the end of hostilities would be nearly impossible.

        I spent 26 years in the Marine Corps and joined simply to serve my country. It was not a “subversive” act nor did I join because I believed this government was flawless. It was simply a recognition that the world was a dangerous place.

        Much of my family is deeply ensconced in the Corps and none of those members see this government as flawless or even constitutionally inspired, either and we are all well adept with more small arms than most American families.

        No I think the reason the average American knows little about our history and firearms is that they are simply lazy, uninformed and happy to stay that way. Keep in mind that barely 3% of the colonial population actually contributed during our revolutionary years.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          we have been at war for nearly our entire history

          True. But not for defense.

          “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

          P.S. The GWOT is a hoax.

          Endless Propaganda
          The War on Terror is a Hoax
          by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
          http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/02/04/the-war-on-terror-is-a-hoax/

          P.P.S. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration,, former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and Business Week. Not easy to dismiss as a “kook.”

      • avatarCharles5 says:

        Ivy Mike,

        I tend to agree that a large standing army may not be the best thing for society. However, I have to take issue with your interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the United States Constitution. Congress shall have the power…”To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

        The plain language of that means to me that any one appropriation of money to “raise and support” armies cannot be made to cover any one period of more than 2 years. I see no language to suggest that a new appropriation cannot be made at the expiration of or during the term of a prior appropriation. The intent I see of writers of the constitution is that they did not want to plan (or appropriate) their military budgets out any further out than 2 years at a time, because who knows where we will be in two years. It forces periodic re-examination of funding. Now, I also believe we are in violation of that because we have thousands of defense contracts out for terms greater than two years, a clear violation of the Constitution.

        Another issue I have with your contention that the constitution prohibits standing armies is the very next clause, Artcle I, Section 8, Clause 13: Congress shall have the power…” To provide and maintain a Navy;” Maintain indicates a state of going concern, meaning that if congress so chooses, they have the power to establish a navy and maintain it going forward without intermission. If you want to get really technical (“Do you see “renewed” there?”), Clause 12 only mentions armies and makes no mention of naval power, which is clearly delineated as a separate item in Clause 13. So, one might even argue that a Standing Navy is exempt from the appropriation restrictions set forth in Clause 12, whatever they might be.

        In short, I don’t believe standing armies are unconstitutional. I believe our DOD is many times larger than it needs to be, but there are many elements of national defense in today’s modern world that cannot be addressed with a militia type approach to defense. The technical skills and training required to operate the systems supporting a defense network that could effectively combat a sophisticated enemy attack are such that a part time force could not adequately qualify to run those systems effectively. In truth, they would be wholly inadequate. If standing armies were not to be permitted, why then have we had a standing army and navy since the ratification of the constitution, when the writers of the constitution were the people in power and could have immediately addressed a diversion from the intent of the constitution?

      • avatarelnonio says:

        “If it can be renewed indefinitely, what’s the reason for a 2 year limit?”

        We keep explaining it to you but you are simply refusing to listen. The purpose is to make sure that the Armed Forces have to come back to Congress regularly to justify their expenditures. It’s also the same reason we are not allowed (unlike the PLA used to) to have our own businesses, sources of income (we can’t stash away cash in CDs or stock what we don’t spend).

        But hey, suit yourself. Believe as you wish. I’m sure you will say “same to you”.

    • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

      You have summed up the issue quite well, j, thank you.

      You’re right. Americans do have abysmally short attention spans. There is literally so much to focus on in the “typical” day of your “typical” individual, 18 years of age and up that sound bites and talking points are all they have to go on. Is it any wonder that many have anxiety issues, suffer withdrawal from the internet and TV, and depend upon medication to make it through their daily journey?

      Taking a stand on any issue that is not socially popular will get you labeled as a kook, nut-job, or domestic terrorist. Americans as a whole have forgotten that the concepts of Liberty and Freedom are not safe nor easily attainable. Rather, true Liberty requires you to fight for it, struggle for it, possibly die for it, but in the end, cherish it and guard it jealously, for you know the sacrifice it required to be truly Free. “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.” Jefferson did not say that because he was a bloodthirsty ghoul, but because he knew that unless that value of Liberty was known, it would be forgotten, and thus it would be lost.

      America is a ship that is taking on water. We have not begun to sink, but keep an eye on the rats. When they start to abandon ship, it is time to stack your mags and dig in. Metaphorically, of course.

      v/r
      Badger 8-3

      Edit: Damn. Got stuck behind the standing army shtick again…

      • avatarIvy Mike says:

        One minute: not socially popular will get you labeled as a kook, nut-job

        Next minute: Damn. Got stuck behind the standing army shtick again

        You’re just like the Leftist turds you hate, crybaby. Better grow up and start luvin’ ya some complete 2A.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Nope, I am not. And calling me a crybaby and telling me to grow up doesn’t make your position correct or unassailable.

          I’ve never called you a kook, nor a nut-job. Do I think you are a single-issue individual? Definitely, hence the “shtick” reference.

          You know Mike, the sad part is that you and I agree. Where we differ is in approach. Oh, and when I asked you to stop insulting me, and mine (i.e. veterans). Glad to see though, that you have stopped accusing everyone of sleeping with Feinstein and “pissing on the Constitution.”

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          I’m not single issue, look at what I posted yesterday. But I do keep bringing up a singularly important issue, the 2A. Problem with the complete 2A?

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Sigh…nope. No problem. Did you read my post? I said we agree.

          As far as what you posted yesterday; great. So the “shtick” comment was out of line. Fine. Find it funny though, you raising issue with what I said, and you proceeding to turn around and sling a few names. Quite hypocritical*.

          *Hypocrisy: something the Founders were against. Guess you don’t love the “complete Founders.”

          Slow down on your foaming-at-the-mouth, vitriol-riddled reply. Just showing you how easy it is to get trapped by your own fervor.

          v/r
          Badger 8-3

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          foaming-at-the-mouth, vitriol-riddled

          You consider a spirited defense of the complete 2A to be that?

          I tell you what: you go around today and police everybody who might step out of line from, say, the standards of a formal British debate at Oxford, ok?

          Otherwise, you’re being a hypocrite, and just picking on my message because it hurts your feelings.

        • avatarBadger 8-3 says:

          Trying to get everyone to conform to the rules of debate or “legal-speak” is as pointless as trying to get everyone to acknowledge that the Second Amendment is the defense of a Free Citizen from tyranny (yes, to include a standing army) when the firearms community itself can barely agree upon what the Second Amendment protects.

          For example, it is akin to suggesting back in 1968 that the space program’s purpose was to establish a colony on Pluto, when we hadn’t even landed on the Moon yet. Baby steps, sadly, are the way to win our Second Amendment rights back, just like baby steps are how we have lost them.

          Mike, again, I agree with you. Your message doesn’t hurt my feelings, but to someone else who is not fully on our side, your posts do come across as vitriol riddled, because many don’t understand the basic Second Amendment, much less the complete Second Amendment. Stop fighting your friends, or soon you will find yourself alone.

          Regardless, I admire your fervor and resolve. To that end, I do not plan on replying to your posts concerning this topic; while we agree, our approaches are too different to be compatible. Best of luck to you and yours. Stay safe.

          v/r
          Badger 8-3

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          Truly enforcing the complete 2A would attract much support from the Democrats.

          It was written for 2 reasons:

          A. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….”means PEACE by preventing (Gerry, 1789) a Standing Army, copying the armed-neutrality of a Swiss-style (Jackson, 1791) citizen-militia, as a substitute (Hamilton, 1788) for an Army, for national defense. In the spirit of preventing a Standing Army, enforce the 2 year limit for “Armies” appropriations and cut out-of-control military spending down to 1/7th, about what Switzerland spends per capita.

          B. “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means EGALITARIAN power sharing. As Chairman Mao says about political power, it comes from a gun. The 2A shares that power. The colonists observed and admired (Axtell, 1986) the power-sharing egalitarian (Boehm, 1999; Service, 1975) Non-State tribal sociopolitical typology (the Indians,) which also triggered the French Revolution. “All men are created equal.” Or if you will, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.”

          Try two words on them: Peace and Egalitarian. Their ears will perk. Watch.

      • avatarKeith says:

        Well said.

        Don’t worry about IVMike. He has ideas worth discussing, but also troll-like tendencies. He’s seemingly on a quest to turn TTAG into the IVMike show. Do your best not to reply to him unless absolutely necessary.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          ideas worth discussing

          Indeed. The 2A is worth discussing.

          troll-like

          But you’re intellectually intimidated.

          You’d better think hard about what I’ve presented here.

          I’ve given you a path to gain the high ground in Democrat-speak. It’s like capturing their citadel.

          PEACE EGALITARIAN (see above)

          But it means you will have to accept and understand and acknowledge the wisdom in the complete 2A, not a truncated version.

  8. avatarAharon says:

    When I was in junior high school I got into reading post-apocalypse science-fiction literature. I used to think it would be cool to live in a land fighting for survival (me and my bolt-action) on a daily basis among the ruins of a once great civilization. I’m now much older and I don’t think the fantasy seems like fun.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Geez, I gotta slog through 10 Ivy Mike comments to get to one interesting Aharon comment. Could you post a little sooner Aharon and save me the trouble?

    • avatarj says:

      Amazing a few years makes, huh? I could bring up prophetic Biblical writings and try to merge that as well, I suppose. When I first read those depictions of what some of us believe are the final days of struggle here, I was fascinated to consider that in these last days people would no longer have the ability to “know” right from wrong; black from white. That they would immediately swallow whatever was given them. I imagined having conversations with folks about things that should be common sense not long debates about complex philosphical issues, just simple things that they would no longer be able to comprehend.

      I no longer find it fascinating nor do I relish getting into conversations with folks like this who simply cannot muster enough common sense or think critically anymore. The one thing I had not considered was what it would be like when; “They will no longer endure sound doctrine…”. For us, in this day, it is not only doctrine but history and common sense they no longer understand, tolerate or know.

      • avatarAharon says:

        I’m Jewish and have had some interesting conversations with Christian friends about End of Days prophecies. One prediction, I believe (it was a conversation long ago), was that evil would control the air. My Christian friends interpreted that as the crazy Ms. Information coming from TV, radio, etc.

        People are increasingly confusing right with wrong, common-sense with stupidity, ethics with perversion, etc. Values have been turned largely upside down. Fifty years ago America was far from a perfect country in that racism was far more acceptable and openly violated the rights of minorities and US imperialistic war-making was going on back then too. (Nowadays, it is of course acceptable to openly hate white heterosexual males.) However, Americans at home did often follow or practice a decent moral code based on sound traditional Judeo-Christian values. Technology and economic internationalism have impacted America heavily. Yet the two most impacting of all movements upon us the past fifty years have been feminism and political-correctness.

      • avatarAharon says:

        Ivy Mike,

        The linked article was an interesting read. Thanks!

        My favorite part was the following which seems to sum up the article well;

        “Archaeologists studying the rise of farming have reconstructed a crucial stage at which we made the worst mistake in human history. Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny”

        Humans are bent on consuming the world’s resources. The more we learn how to make things more efficient the more humans want more and breed more resulting in demanding even more. There is a point when people run into a steel wall.

  9. “the good guys won’t be able to get it and the bad guys will have it.”

    The only problem with that simplistic thinking is that the bad guys get the stuff from the good guys. There are no “bad guy” gun manufacturers. All (almost) the guns start from the makers and move to the dealers and then to the lawful owners and from there to the criminals.

    Restricting the lawful makes perfect sense.

    • avatarCharles5 says:

      We could ban all manufacture, sale, or ownership of guns in the U.S., but the bad guys would still have guns. Why? Many of them already have them now and because they are by definition bad guys (criminals) they are going to continue with their criminal theme and not turn in their illegal guns. Also, there are many arms manufactured outside of the United States. Those guns will be imported because there will be a demand for them, not to mention ammunition. Sure, you can pass a law making that importation illegal and I am sure it will be a smashing success. Just look at the laws against drug importation. No more drugs, right?

      • avatarAharon says:

        Marijuana is grown domestically in basements and outside in the USA. Marijuana is also smuggled into the USA. Joe-average can produce guns and ammo in his basement and they can also be smuggled in from abroad. Mikeb has trouble thinking outside his little box.

        • avatarCharles5 says:

          Yes, illegal domestic production is yet another example of a means of aquiring guns. Keep in mind, criminals don’t need dezens of guns. They only need one and just a little ammunition. Most criminals that use a gun in a crime use it for fear and intimidation, and usually don’t discharge the weapon. But the very real threat that they might shoot is why citizens need to have the ability to arm themselves effectively, because the bad guys WILL have guns no matter what the government does.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          They turn out a lot of junk in the Khyber Pass, but a few are pretty good.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

      • If we had proper gun control fewer bad guys would have access to guns. Because a thing isn’t going to be 100% successful we should not do it at all? Is that you idea?

        • avatarelnonio says:

          Actually Mike, there is something to be said for that.

          In other words, one could say that if you can’t be 100% successful in preventing criminals from harming me with firearms, then you shouldn’t retrict my ability to protect myself with one either.

          Any policy that knowingly leaves the door open to harm for some, in an attempt to benefit many, may make sense in a society where common welfare is superior to individual welfare. But that is not the American way (generally speaking). In our society, we value every single life individually. And every single individual can say, without the slightest hint of guilt, “Don’t you put me at risk to satisfy a ‘greater purpose’”.

        • My idea of proper gun control would not remove your ability to protect yourself.

        • avatarj says:

          My idea of gun control is exclusively related to the proper handling of a firearm. If anyone truly wants to address the problem of crime, they must look to the criminal – not his weapons of choice because his weapons of choice are, to the free man, simply a tool.

          In the end, this has nothing to do with solving the problem of crime or shootings. For the Bureaucrat, it is about compelling others to do his bidding. For the “citizen” who supports the Bureacrat in his efforts to disarm the populace, it is about abject fear of an inanimate object. If we allow those who are weakest in knowledge of this subject to follow through with their plans, we might well find licensing of hammers and screwdrivers next.

          When I joined the Marine Corps in 1972, it never occurred to me that this country would be so unrecognizable for that 18 year old, when he (I) retired, in 2003.

          I feel like a stranger in the land of my birth…

        • That line about bureaucrats wanting people to do their bidding is just Libertarian clap trap. Gun control folks want what’s best for the country. You just want to be left alone regardless of whether it does harm or good.

          You say, the free man can choose his weapons. Well, that sounds like some more clap trap to me. Having spent your entire life in the Marines, I imagine you know of a few weapons you are not allowed to own now. Do those restrictions make you something other than a free man?

          May I ask what rank you retired at?

        • avatarj says:

          Mike; first of all 5ake your titles and stow it! I retired a First Sergeant in a career that was entirely ’03 field to include a tour as an 8541. Do you know what that is? And yes I believe anti-gunners and gun control advocates believe they are acting as responsible Americans. But I also know they haven’t a clue their views and actions are not in concert with the Founders vision. You should read the extraneous writings of the Founders before voting to plunge this nation back into slavery. BTW; tell me how giving up the guns in my safe would have prevented any crime in the past and you may win your argument. Until then, you will not hear me agreeing with you.

        • Listen Sarge, you’re really contradicting yourself. First you said we just want to control, then you said we’re “acting as responsible Americans.”

          I’ve read a bit of the Founders writings, and my conclusion is their ideas for the most part are completely outdated and obsolete. Slavery, women’s rights and gun rights especially.

          I’m not a big believer in the AWB, and I certainly don’t think it’s an answer to our problems with violent crime. I do think it could be a small part in a comprehensive gun control regimen that would make a difference. These are my ideas, maybe you’ve seen them already.
          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/01/proper-gun-control.html

  10. avatarj says:

    …I believe the use of good and bad pertained to the intended use of the end user. From that vantage point there certainly are good and bad hombres. And from that vantage point the government will fail to meet its stated “goals”; curtailing violence or even gun violence. So it does not make sense for them to come into my house, and empty my safe.

  11. avatarLance says:

    Smart man hope his message gets out.

  12. avatarWilliam says:

    Funny, I think they mean exactly what they say. The author’s fallen victim to wishful thinking.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.