Boston Globe Anti-Gun Editorial Forgets the “T” Word

“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.

Any excuse to print the same thing over and over.
We know Lee Harvery got his through the mail.
Cant do that anymore.
But where did the gun used for the 3rd and killing shot come from???

Well oswalds came from the mail but I’m sure the guy on the grassy knoll got his through the gunshow loophole…

You wouldn’t understand; you haven’t lived in Massachusetts. I did, for 59 years, until I got the hell out of there and moved to America, aka Arizona. If you want to transfer a gun to a relative or good friend in MA, you have to fill out a form and send it in to the Department of Public Safety. Fortunately, many people fill out the form and send it directly to the circular file. MA sucks, as do NY, CA, NJ, CT, MD, etc., etc.. What happens in those People’s Republics has nothing to do with what this country is all about. The Boston Globe is a commie rag, just like its owner, the NYTimes. Here in AZ, we have the AZ Daily Star, which wants to be the Boston Globe when it grows up. Same cancer…just hasn’t been excised yet.

So is the 6.5 caracano 50 years old yet?

The government does in fact get records completely wrong. I’ve pulled over male drivers who were listed as female on their driver licenses and vice versa. One man remarked that the DMV would charge him to get the mistake corrected, so he leaves it as is.

My motorcycle registration is currently under contention – I paid the fees late and let the insurance lapse. I paid the fees, had fees withheld from my state tax return, and then paid a reinstatement fee. I’ve got AAA insurance. My registration “doesn’t exist” on the DMV website, and it isn’t on the automated call line. Further, I have photographic and bank records of my transactions – especially the one stating that my completed registration will be coming in the mail. That was literally on 6/21/13 at 8:14 pm. Yet I have no registration as of this writing. It’s a good thing that its only my registration, and not something of greater importance such as my healthcare (screwed up by the government and Obama) or my criminal history.

There are also many times when I’m working the road when the “system” has been down or unusually delayed. I’ve had days in a row where I’ve been unable to run driver histories, stolen vehicle checks and warrant searches. I’ve had warrant returns from a stop I’ve made hours before, with the driver long gone.

So why would any sane person subject themselves to such a flawed system at taxpayer expense? The “system” can let criminals go and vilify the innocent. Of course, those who are politically connected can usually handle such little “snafus.” The rest of us have to burn time and resources against government employees who have no personal investment in such matters. I bet most people reading these pages have an experience such as mine.

Since much gun ownership is dependent upon government blessing, it is clearly evident that the government has infringed upon American gun rights, and those of the slave states in particular. The government is not very good at policing itself, and has little incentive to reveal its own incompetence. I see no reason to expand the government, or to trust in its operation without scrutiny. What we desperately need as a nation is a return to the limited government that our forefathers intended.

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.

But even one sale to the wrong person is too many.

Yes it is. But it’s not enough to violate my rights.

We don’t want to sell a gun to somebody that is likely to use it in a crime. So open the NICS system and let private sellers run their own checks. Does it really matter if an FFL runs the check or the private seller does it?

Oh, yes it does. The private sellers don’t keep records, and any attempt to make them do so would be unenforceable.

It’s not about the check, any anyone who says it is is stupid or lying. It’s about the records. Just the records. Always the fvcking records. And the records have one purpose. Just one.

We all know those women would be alive today, because they’re invulnerable to all forms of harm other than bullets. They certainly wouldn’t succumb to an attack with a machete, which anyone can purchase at any hardware store, no questions asked. Or with a baseball bat, available at sporting goods retailers across the country.

Nope, just bullets.

Interesting item found on HuffPo today also:
Holocaust Survivor: ‘Nobody Has Learned Anything’
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/holocaust-survivori-despair-of-human-nature-nobody-has-learned-anything/527d22e778c90a2e730000cb
RF’s point made again.

//start of rant
To say the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government is to imply that the federal government is an entity in and of itself with power to do what ever it wants, which is quite the opposite of reality. The Constitution is actually the founding document or charter for the federal government. It specifies what powers the citizens of this country have granted to the federal government. The best place to see this is in the 10th amendment, which basically states that if a power isn’t in the constitution, then the federal government doesn’t have that power. Because of this the proper reading of the bill of rights isn’t that it protects the citizens rights, because if a right needs protecting from the government then it isn’t a right it is a privilege that the government bestows on the citizen. No the proper reading of the bill of rights is a series of examples of things the federal government is not allowed to do. Just because a right isn’t protected in the bill of rights doesn’t mean that the citizen shouldn’t have a reasonable expectation that the government won’t infringe upon it. We need to quit using the liberal/communist/socialist definition of what the constitution is and adopt the correct interpretation based on what the founding fathers established.
//end of rant

The crux of the problem is that most folks cannot get their mind around the fact that the 2nd Amendment is to protect the means of armed rebellion against a government that overreaches and doesn’t listen to the petition of the people for redress. Especially as our Government approaches that threshold

Robert, great that you’re emphasizing the real purpose of the constitution! I was born in Mass (not my fault) but was wise enough to GTFO and moved to Texas. Glad you wrote the article, but I’m afraid that you can’t expect much from people dumb enough to stay in Mass.

I laugh at the 90% support argument.

Suppose 90% wanted the US government to pass a law to track down and eliminate every ginger in the US. Would the NY Times and the Boston Globe support the law just because 90% wanted gingers dead?

I realize this is a strawman, but majority rule always degenerates to mob rule. And mob rule is a fickle bitch.

I believe it to be willful ignorance on the part of the most rabid antis. I believe it to be simply ignorance or rationalization on the part of those gun owners (and some ‘gun rights’ groups) who still feel that we must somehow engage in “reasonable discussions’ and have ‘common sense compromise’. Even if all of the crime statistics indicated that private gun ownership increased crime significantly, we would still need the Second Amendment to prevent tyranny and we would certainly need to exercise the individual natural right to self defense. Indeed, the higher the crime, the more one would tend to need to defend ones self. It is better to be free in a nation with high crime than to be in servitude in a nation with low crime… at least in my opinion. Typically, the more free one is, the more risk that can come along with it (a subset of the responsibilities of freedom). Freedom, risk, and responsibility are inseparable. Compromise on the RKBA and we, as individuals and a nation, present and future, will suffer. There is no escaping that reality.
————-
Our Constitution restrains government in an attempt to prevent tyrannical behavior by government. I think many people see the Constitution’s utility as ‘kicking in’ once a government becomes a tyranny (mostly or completely). You know, a ‘line in the sand’. The Constitution’s real value lies in its preventative property; as an effective deterrent to tyranny. The Second Amendment implies both a deterrent and a solution to tyrannical government. It has great utility not only before full on tyranny but afterwards as well. Each and every day of our nation’s existence, the Constitution has been the document standing guard; persistently re-asserting the authority of the People over their government. My view has always been that the Constitution is there to head off all of the ‘little tyrannies’ in addition to the ‘grand tyranny’, into which our government WILL devolve to if we, the People, fail to keep it in check. That power check is impossible, after AND before full tyranny, without an individual, un-infringed right to keep and bear arms. The deterrent value isn’t there and the ability of the People to restore our Republic is absent without it. The 2A makes very little sense if the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

Get the Obamacare website working, then come talk to me about Universal (registration) Background Checks.

If he bought it on Armslist,even private party sales has to go through an FFL because no guns can go through the mail without an FFL.So the transaction was illegal OR they did do that,he cleared a background check and as in Nevada,the Courts broke the law by not releasing records to Public Safety(NICS)

Liberty is a very hard concept for liberals to understand.

“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.

Come on people, the only goal of “gun control” is civilian disarmament. Any argument about the dangers of any firearm — and hence the justification for a gun control law — applies to all firearms.

Think about it. Handguns can be incredibly cheap and very easy to conceal … which is why criminals use handguns in almost all violent crimes. According to gun control proponents, that is a compelling reason to ban them. Semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are more expensive and much harder to conceal than handguns but they their projectiles have a lot more energy, often twice the magazine capacity of, and are more accurate than a handgun. According to gun control proponents, that is a compelling reason to ban them. How about shotguns? The Aurora movie theater spree killer killed most of his victims with a common shotgun. And the 2013 Navy Yard killer used a common shotgun to kill all of his victims. There is no doubt, a common 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is able to do a lot of damage. They are available everywhere and can actually be quite inexpensive. According to gun control proponents, that is a compelling reason to ban them as well. Finally, deer hunting rifles are capable of immense destructive capability for several reasons that compel gun control activists to ban them.

Gun control advocates want to ban all guns. There is no point debating them about the features, safety, beneficial uses, or destructive potential of any given firearm or class of firearms. Rather than debate them, simply stand up for your rights. Inform them that rights are not subject to majority approval. Tell them that it is offensive when they tell you what personal property you may or may not own. Make them understand that they are bullies. If they are a woman, ask them how they would feel if they could only use feminine hygiene products that you approve, that they must pass a background check before purchasing their feminine hygiene products, and that they must register their feminine hygiene products. If they are a man, ask them how they would feel if they could only use shaving products that you approve, that they must pass a background check before purchasing shaving products, and that they must register all of their shaving products.

The Federal Government has no say in the private sale of used goods within the borders of a state and between two of her citizens. Period.

Libturds……for the children.