What is it with gun control advocates? Do they not understand the entire point of the United States Constitution? Hello? It’s a document whose sole purpose is to limit the power of the federal government—so that the government doesn’t become a tyranny. Tyranny. As in a system that disarms citizens (duh) so that it can deprive them of their natural, civil and human rights. Like . . . Nazi Germany. So while while those of us who value our life and liberty mark the 75th anniversary of an incident that teaches us what happens to a disarmed populace the Boston Globe “celebrates” the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination with a call for universal background checks. You know: all sales monitored and approved by the Uncle Sam. Gun registration. Talk about myopia . . .
It’s hard to see how this bill would be a burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun purchasers, since most Americans live within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer, and the average background check takes just minutes. But that’s the argument opponents used to stall the bill.
No it’s not. The main objection: gun registration -> confiscation -> loss of liberty -> mass murder. Is that so hard to understand?
Globe editorialist Renée Loth is free to call that logic chain unwarranted paranoia (in a country where the government has slaughtered unarmed native American and interned unarmed Japanese Americans) but she has no right to mischaracterize gun rights advocates’ objection to universal background checks.
Question: is this willful ignorance or ignorant ignorance? Yes. That said, Loth isn’t wrong about the NRA’s equally flawed justification for opposing universal background checks simply because private sales aren’t causing a crime problem.
The National Rifle Association opposes requiring background checks for all private sales, noting that “acquisitions from strangers are the exception, not the rule.” But even one sale to the wrong person is too many. In October of last year, Radcliffe Haughton killed his wife, Zina, and two other women at a Wisconsin hair salon where Zina worked, then turned the gun on himself. Zina had obtained a restraining order against Haughton, who had a history of domestic violence, which specifically prohibited him from buying a gun. He would have failed a background check at a licensed gun dealer, but he was able to get a .40 caliber Glock handgun through Armslist.
It took only one privately purchased gun to kill those three innocent women. And of course, it only took one gun to kill Kennedy.
And it only takes one gun to protect ourselves from government tyranny. One gun at a time, anyway.
S&W Shield 40 in a PT1 holster. Conceals under a tshirt and completely stable.
“It’s hard to see how this bill would be a burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun purchasers, since most Americans live within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer, and the average background check takes just minutes. But that’s the argument opponents used to stall the bill.”
Why couldn’t I see this before? Because what’s good for “most Americans” is good for EVERYBODY, RIGHT?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. One nation under (insert relevant personal authority here), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. One Size Fits All.
And it would have only taken one gun, in Zina’s hands, to defend Zina and those three innocent women from her psychotic husband.
Case closed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIR97Ubfpa4
And how will these guards be able to carry in the city? Only cops can in the city…
Yesterday, I let them know that my Runner’s World subscription renewal fee just went to Gun Owners of America instead…. and then I went out for a trail run, me and my Kahr CM9.
Yeah, military promoting civilian disarmament, that won’t raise any flags…
Reno 911 on their day off.
A well-armed population, able to organize into an effective and independent fighting force, is necessary to ensure the freedom of the People and the security of the free Republic. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Another vet for pro 2A rights. Lets giturdun!!!
And in a hilarious bit of irony, the front end of the weapon pictured there is a M14. 20 round magazine, high powered rifle, full-auto, etc.
In terms of buying for my collection I’ll take the Sig because I’m not an HK fan.
In terms of having to carry one to the end of the world and threw hell, I’ll take either. Both will work just fine in the worst conditions for killing.
Glock as well, I won’t buy a Glock for my collection because I don’t like them. But when the SHTF I would be very happy to have a Glock in my hand because I know it will go bang.
Neither, never used either one and I won’t trust an untried gun. I’m with Dyspectic Gunsmith here. Pay 600 for the glock brand glock and when the cops throw it in an evidence locker go buy another.
if THAT’s the choice? the SIG. i love my HKs and all, but none of them are P30s.
at what point does the distrust of the people spill over into something else?
Yea, I dont know about “protect and serve”, this reminds me of the saying on the side of the police car in Transformers, “to punish and enslave”.
How dare you plebian subjects exercise your “rights”!
Hes definitely a Decepticon.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/attachments/2005-2010-mustang-talk/29976d1183945190-new-saleen-transformers-movie-punish-enslave.jpg
The repeated “I will shoot you in the head” talk really makes me relate this to some sort of silly school yard argument.
I’ve posted comments before about how my encounters with open carry guys have gone, and none of them went like this. This is because I remember the oath I took, both in the Army and for the police. You know what would be great, though? If more people who love the Constitution became cops. I know many people will be rolling their eyes or spitting in disgust at the idea of putting the badge on, but think about it for a minute.
Anyone who went through the public school system in the past fifty years knows that the environment there has changed dramatically over time. Like it or not, the schools have become liberal to the point of near socialist indoctrination, at least here in western WA. I place the blame for this squarely at the feet of the teachers, the boots on the ground of the education system. Enough people who wanted to push a liberal agenda signed up to be teachers that they changed the entire system.
What if enough people who wanted to push a Constitutional agenda signed up to be cops? I know, good luck trying that in NYC, or DC, or Chicago, or any number of liberal big cities. What about everywhere else? What about anyplace else that has stories about police corruption? My department is hiring right now, and we’re washing out over 90% of our applicants for one reason or another. Most places you go, it’s a similar story. What you see is the best of what applied.
I know I’m never going to get promoted, but every day I go to work, I know that I’m holding the line against erosion of liberty. I do this by speaking to people like human beings, by knowing the law and not acting outside of it, and by whenever I see someone on a call pushing the limits to try and make a case, stopping them and reminding them what we’re doing. So far I’ve never seen anyone in my department do anything illegal- this may be because I got lucky and work in a great place, or it could be because people know me and know I wouldn’t stand for it.
All I’m saying is, all the guys in the videos you think should work at WalMart? They need to be replaced by someone. Wouldn’t it be great if they were replaced by someone better? I want to work with people who can shoot better, know the law better, can speak more politely and don’t need to have a DOJ supervisor to avoid infringing on people’s rights. If that’s you, then maybe you can make a difference.
No, the Democrats won’t love Christie. In fact they hate him.
Consider New Coke. Coke wanted a new drink to convince Pepsi drinkers to switch back. Instead the Coke drinkers hated it because it wasn’t what they liked about Coke, and the Pepsi drinkers hated it because it wasn’t Pepsi.
Same thing happening to the GOP. They shift more and more to the Left and alienate more and more of their base, while the Democrats STILL won’t vote for them because they AREN’T DEMOCRATS.
Here’s what I think will happen. If Christie runs in 2016, the media will latch onto him as their favorite GOP candidate, because he’s likely to be the most liberal person running in the GOP–just like what they did with Romney. They latched onto the biggest RINO they could find that conservatives would hate, trumped him up and destroyed his competition. They set up an easy win for Obama in 2012 that way, and they’ll do the same for whoever gets the Democrat nod in ’16. They will sing his praises until he wins the GOP primary, then tear him down like they tore down all the rest.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. Control violence and there’s no need to regulate the myriad weapons used to perpetrate it.
As a side note, the amicus briefs for this case are a very interesting read.
“Loth isn’t wrong about the NRA’s equally flawed justification for opposing universal background checks simply because private sales aren’t causing a crime problem.”
I wouldn’t call that a flawed justification. It’s a perfectly reasonable argument. While the antis are arguing on bad faith, and violent crime isn’t their real issue. That is their claim — that we need more gun control to reduce violent crime. So if they want “universal background checks” to reduce crime, then how much crime would it reduce? What percentage of crimes were committed legally with owned guns that did not go through a background check? If it’s 1%, it doesn’t justify a huge expensive system that ignores 99% of the problem. The same could be said for bans on assault weapons, “high capacity” magazines, .50 caliber rifles, etc.
While Ralph’s three kind’s of gun control advocates might very well hit the mark. And gun control might be part of a progressive end game to force their laws on an unarmed populace. And the true believers might not care if crime will skyrocket because that will only allow them to pass even more laws expand the prison system. Et cetera. Regardless how true all that might be. It sounds nuts to the average person. So your main objection, “gun registration -> confiscation -> loss of liberty -> mass murder” gets dismissed as right-wing conspiracy theory. That it is a valid principled and historical argument makes no difference.
The antis present themselves as wanting to prevent violent crime. And almost everyone wants less violent crime. People see these horrible mass shootings presented in the media, and wish they could have been prevented. Most people don’t know anything about guns or criminology. They wouldn’t know John Lott from a .458 Lott. They can’t define an “assault weapon”, but they know it sounds bad. So when they hear the argument, fewer guns is less crime, it makes intuitive sense to them. That’s why the NRA and others make these pragmatic arguments. It’s necessary to address the issue as it is presented to the average voter. The vast majority of those who support more gun control are not gun control advocates with ulterior motives. They aren’t these progressive bloggers or astroturf asshats who want to ignore the facts. They are just people who simply want less violent crime. Which is a good thing. They want the same thing that most gun rights advocates want.
A major factor for the increased support for gun rights that has occurred in the last decade is the internet. With access to more information, more people support gun rights and oppose increasing gun control. Their motives or ideology hasn’t changed. It’s simply that when presented with the facts, they see that gun control does not achieve its stated goal of reducing crime.
Let’s just turn this direction and see if anyone still wants to defend these officers’ actions.
Picture a similar scene, 2 young men protesting legally in support of their civil rights, only this time its 1964 Mississippi and the young men are black. Now imagine them being detained by the police and told that if they keep legally protesting their rights to protest will be taken from them, as one officer says, even if it’s contrary to higher law (the state in the case of the video, the federal civil rights laws in my example).
Continuing, imagine that officer telling the protesters that the act of protest makes him suspect they are a threat and that he will shoot them ‘in the head’ if they make ‘furtive’ movements, then telling them that what they are doing is upsetting to the public to the degree that some people might murder them if they continue their protest.
Imagine that officer telling the men that every time they protest legally the police will respond in force, draw weapons on them, detain them, brow beat them, threaten them and look for any excuse to arrest them (‘are we within 1000ft of any place. . .’). Imagine the officer telling the men that the assertion of their civil rights is a ‘game’.
Actually all this is very believable in the Jim Crow south regarding two black men, all this and much worse happened. How many are willing to say that was reasonable and good? How many think those officers in the south who actively tried to prevent people from exercising their civil rights were doing the right thing to protect the public and enforce the law? Eventually the FBI investigated and a giant spotlight was turned on officers who would take it upon themselves to decide what civil rights people were ‘allowed’ to exercise. It took a massive public disapproval of their activities and a spotlight from the media to correct that situation and a few people had to die before it was finally resolved.
I think it is only because we’ve all seen so much more egregious abuse of the RKBA that we’re not up in arms about this incident. We’re desensitized and simply giving the officers a pass since they neither shot nor arrested these citizens and that is perhaps the most frightening part of it, that this seems acceptable in light of the worse abuses occurring, because this is not acceptable in a free country.
Given that this was unlawful detention (at any point did you hear an officer articulate a suspicion that a crime was in progress?) that was then used as a pulpit to suggest that the exercise of a civil right was apt to cause those exercising it to be murdered either by the police or by the citizenry this incident is a despicable example of what a police state looks like.
If you’re comfortable that these officers acted correctly and in a lawful manner I ask you to re-examine your beliefs about civil rights and the meaning of right and wrong. This was a disgusting and unlawful abuse of power that ought to be investigated (along with many such acts) under the 1964 civil rights act to see if it constitutes denial of civil rights under color of law. It probably doesn’t, but the more light you shine the less officers like this will be willing to step into that spotlight and the greater the share of liberty we will have.
Let me explain something about a well regulated militia. It is the gun owners who advocate and furnish gun safety; gun control fanatics refuse. It is the gun owners who are first responders in many, many cases just as the reporting party is often a first responder turning in an alarm request for aid. It is the gun owners who are the Good Samaritans while the gun control fanatics urge that you vomit, break wind, turn your back on your attacker or something else instead – anything but stand your ground.
This is what is meant by well-regulated: self-regulated, the core of our self-rule. It is the gun control freaks who announce to the world that they have no self-worth – that they do not believe they nor their loved ones are worth protecting in the absence of police.
I’ve started taking range videos and pictures and posting them to YouTube, G+ and facebook. YouTube is still big but I do think Facebook is going to end up like MySpace.
The story about your father and the 1911 was great. It is unfortunate that they are so dang expensive. I’ve stuck to mostly milsurp rifles due to the crazy prices until last week when I snagged a Colt M1917. It drew a lot of attention at the range and was fun to shoot. Someday I will find a USGI 1911 to add to the collection.