Firearms

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, Backlighting said:

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" (Ayn Rand)

What is frightening is that, as best as I understand this kind of thing, is that towards the end, the rate of decline increases at an exponential rate.  I remember Rand writing somewhere that as long as men were still free to speak and write what they believe it was too soon to consider revolt.  That makes sense.  As long a people are able to write and speak their minds, and as long as they are free to assemble, and as long as the elections are not rigged, then there is a chance to make things right.  With a badly educated, propaganda soaked, low information voter liberty may be lost anyway, but there is still a chance.  When the government shuts down freedom of speech, censors what can be written, starts to ban this or that organization, or rigs the elections, then there is no longer a peaceful path.

We are seeing the beginnings of the crushing of free speech popping up in the news.  (Which agency was it that asked the Justice department to go after any corporation that could be branded a 'climate change denier'?)  I don't know how much I trust the election results when it is really close.   We saw the IRS go after conservative organizations and we've heard the FCC make noises about Fox News.  The needed pathways haven't been closed yet, but the time looks like it is coming closer.  And I'd expect a very rapid acceleration in the loss of rights afterwards.

Charles Murray's book "By the People" has a stunning section of the modern regulatory state.  The statistics are chilling.  He describes the power of each agency to craft its own rules, to send out inspectors who get to decide when a business or citizen is in violation, they can carry out inspections without warrants, they do the equivalent of an indictment without judicial intervention or oversight, and fines or orders are imposed.  If the person isn't happy, they can go to 'court' - the agency supplied and staffed court that is no part of our judicial system.  If they lose, they can appeal - to the agency appeals court.  If they lose that they can appeal it to the proper judicial system, but because of Supreme Court decisions, the agency is given a presumption of correctness.  And to appeal it that far is extremely costly.  This short paragraph doesn't begin to do justice to that section of his book.

[Backlighting]

Yes Steve, the rate of decline is certainly accelerating...you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. I'll be checking out the Murray book you mentioned...thanks. -Joe

[SteveWolfer]

16 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

I'll be checking out the Murray book

I've only read the first half of the book, which documents the level of political problems we have in key areas (electing, legislating, the judiciary, the constitution, administration and the regulatory state).  His examination of these is worth the price of book.  The second half of the book is about recommendations and I just haven't gotten to it yet.  In my book on Progressivism, his book is the only one I quoted.

[Backlighting]

State Attorney General Puts End to Sale of Black Rifles in Massachusetts

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/state-attorney-general-puts-end-black-rifles-massachusetts/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160722_FridayDigest_379&utm_campaign=/blog/state-attorney-general-puts-end-black-rifles-massachusetts/

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Backlighting said:

State Attorney General Puts End to Sale of Black Rifles in Massachusetts

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/state-attorney-general-puts-end-black-rifles-massachusetts/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160722_FridayDigest_379&utm_campaign=/blog/state-attorney-general-puts-end-black-rifles-massachusetts/

"Nigger Powder" is next, I suppose.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

46 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Nigger Powder" is next, I suppose.

--Brant

lol.

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, Backlighting said:

State Attorney General Puts End to Sale of Black Rifles in Massachusetts

Quote

In the letter, Healey claimed that black rifles are “not weapons of self-defense,” but rather “weapons used to commit mass murder,” and that “they have no business being in civilian hands."

So, are there people who will paint your rifle white?  I'm sure that many of the owners of these black weapons don't want to suddenly find that they are committing mass murder.

It is an outrage that these know-nothings can work themselves up into an emotional snit based solely on their ignorance and then mistake that for moral justification to act as a total tyrant and passing decrees. 

If she tried that in one of the Western states (California excepted), as soon a people stopped laughing, they'd run her out of office so fast she wouldn't know what happened.

Massachusetts is where we had Boston Massacre of 1770, then the Boston Tea Party and it's where Samuel Adams and John Hancock stood up to the greatest military power in the world at that time over taxation and that spirit led to the shots heard round the world at Lexington and Concord.  George Washington became the general of the Continental Army and had his first victory with the Siege of Boston.  But look how times have changed.  This indignant, righteous twit is telling people of Massachusetts what guns they can buy... right down to the color.  How sad is that.

[Jon Letendre]

28 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

So, are there people who will paint your rifle white?  I'm sure that many of the owners of these black weapons don't want to suddenly find that they are committing mass murder.

It is an outrage that these know-nothings can work themselves up into an emotional snit based solely on their ignorance and then mistake that for moral justification to act as a total tyrant and passing decrees. 

If she tried that in one of the Western states (California excepted), as soon a people stopped laughing, they'd run her out of office so fast she wouldn't know what happened.

Massachusetts is where we had Boston Massacre of 1770, then the Boston Tea Party and it's where Samuel Adams and John Hancock stood up to the greatest military power in the world at that time over taxation and that spirit led to the shots heard round the world at Lexington and Concord.  George Washington became the general of the Continental Army and had his first victory with the Siege of Boston.  But look how times have changed.  This indignant, righteous twit is telling people of Massachusetts what guns they can buy... right down to the color.  How sad is that.

Damn, Steve, that was so well stated.

The strategy is to expand gun regulation, in any manner, to keep hammering away with the goal of normalizing growing state control.

Specificaaly, in this case, regulate an inessential feature, color. A segment of comatose voters will accept that "it's just color, and therefore silly to object." Then weight, materials of construction, slowly boil the frog, then functions, then everything.

They understand and resist the strategy with regard to abortion, and they're applying it to guns.

Every new gun regulation must be resisted, especially the silly ones that don't matter.

[Backlighting]

Perhaps Smith & Wesson will now move their operation elsewhere...Texas? I'm sure they'd get substantial tax breaks. Of course moving their manufacturing equipment, inventory and relocating their employees and/ or re-training new hires won't come cheap.

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

Damn, Steve, that was so well stated.

The strategy is to expand gun regulation, in any manner, to keep hammering away with the goal of normalizing growing state control.

Specificaaly, in this case, regulate an inessential feature, color. A segment of comatose voters will accept that "it's just color, and therefore silly to object." Then weight, materials of construction, slowly boil the frog, then functions, then everything.

They understand and resist the strategy with regard to abortion, and they're applying it to guns.

Every new gun regulation must be resisted, especially the silly ones that don't matter.

Thanks. 

I agree with you.  They understand about incremental regulation.  They've long practiced deception regarding where they are ultimately headed.  They want total control, but will settle for as much as they can get in this moment, while they plan to use this gain as the precedent for the next gain.  Progressivism is relentless and it is no accident that they don't give a clear explanation of what they are 'progressing' towards - they leave it open ended because there is no end to the power they crave.

[SteveWolfer]

12 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Perhaps Smith & Wesson will now move their operation elsewhere...Texas? I'm sure they'd get substantial tax breaks. Of course moving their manufacturing equipment, inventory and relocating their employees and/ or re-training new hires won't come cheap.

I believe they have revenues of around 1/2 billion a year, and they also make things like bicycles, hand-cuffs, foot-wear, knives, etc.  They have manufacturing centers in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Missouri.  Springfield, MA is the big firearm center, but if they were to orchestrate a move to a state like Texas, it would make a lot of sense.  Cheaper wages, lower regulations in many instances - not just firearms.  Like you said, tax breaks up the wazoo.  They could probably get a great incentive package from Texas.  If they worked with the NRA to make it a very public move it would help to discourage other states from letting their AGs behave like idiots which would be good for all fire-arm companies in the future.  I'm always in favor of letting there be consequences and letting those consequences be seen by those who think they can avoid any consequences.

[Backlighting]

Exclusive Video: Clinton Delegate Explains how Democrats Will Ban All Guns

http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-delegate-admits-goal-behind-common-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

[SteveWolfer]

4 hours ago, Backlighting said:

Exclusive Video: Clinton Delegate Explains how Democrats Will Ban All Guns

http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-delegate-admits-goal-behind-common-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

That's a great video. 

If Hillary is elected, the 2nd amendment won't stop her.  The progressive strategy is wear away at things - regulation by regulation while shifting each new graduating class coming out of college farther and farther to the left.  But if Hillary is elected, she will get it done in four years by stacking the Supreme Court and then they will just reinterpret the second amendment to mean that militias have the right to guns, but not citizens, and that the modern day militia is the national guard.  Done deal.

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

That's a great video. 

If Hillary is elected, the 2nd amendment won't stop her.  The progressive strategy is wear away at things - regulation by regulation while shifting each new graduating class coming out of college farther and farther to the left.  But if Hillary is elected, she will get it done in four years by stacking the Supreme Court and then they will just reinterpret the second amendment to mean that militias have the right to guns, but not citizens, and that the modern day militia is the national guard.  Done deal.

not quite.  The right to self defense is an unennumerated right and therefore  supported by the 9 th Amendment.  One cannot have the right to self defense and be forbidden the means to exercise it?  I have thought for some time now that  the 9 th Amendment is a better support for owning weapons of self defense than the second amendment.  It addresses the question why it is alright to own a firearm but not alright to own one's own a-bomb. 

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The right to self defense is an unennumerated right and therefore  supported by the 9 th Amendment.

Yes, that is true.  But that is only held in place by a Supreme Court decision (one written by Scalia, in response to a challenge to that view).  The progressives don't want guns and they will take any change from a future supreme court that they can get if it will let them effectively outlaw guns.

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

One cannot have the right to self defense and be forbidden the means to exercise it?

I agree.  But that is arguing for a moral position, or for a practical logical position (or both), and won't sway the progressive.  If you really want to understand what I'm saying about the progressive view on guns, read the dissenting opinions of the supreme court rulings that have upheld the second amendment.

 

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I have thought for some time now that  the 9 th Amendment is a better support for owning weapons of self defense than the second amendment.  It addresses the question why it is alright to own a firearm but not alright to own one's own a-bomb. 

You make an excellent point.  It also side-steps the progressive attempt to muddle the argument by talking about a militia.  I remember that Ayn Rand's lawyer, Henry Holzer, thought that the 9th amendment had the best potential for fighting for individual rights.

[Wolf DeVoon]

8 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

 I remember that Ayn Rand's lawyer, Henry Holzer, thought that the 9th amendment had the best potential for fighting for individual rights.

No case law, and not the direction of current thinking. 14th Amendment "equal protection clause" trumps everything else. If guns are forbidden to everyone, except sworn LEOs, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply. Supremacy clause makes it a Federal question.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

[SteveWolfer]

35 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

No case law, and not the direction of current thinking.

You are the lawyer. 

It was a long time ago that Mr. Holzer said that and things were different. 

Now we have an intensely partisan Supreme Court.  I don't think the 2nd, 9th, 10th, 14th or any other amendment will matter.  All that will matter is which faction has a majority. 

I would like to see the kind of Supreme Court justices that would say that individual's had the right to own guns before the existence of the federal government, and nothing in the constitution explicitly grants the federal government the right to regulate them.  I don't know how the supremacy clause would apply that kind of ruling to state attempts to control guns.

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

No case law, and not the direction of current thinking. 14th Amendment "equal protection clause" trumps everything else. If guns are forbidden to everyone, except sworn LEOs, the 9th Amendment doesn't apply. Supremacy clause makes it a Federal question.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

The 9 th has been little used.  It was invoked in Griswold v  Connecticut  recognizing the right to privacy as an unenumerated right.   No direct connection here to firearm ownership,  but an unenumerated right was established.  The right to self defense clearly must fall in this category so a court, so disposed,  could guarantee the ownership and possession of firearms (for personal protection).  It is at least possible,  however improbable. 

13 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

 

 

[Backlighting]

How does your state rank? registered guns per 1000 residents:

New York comes in at number 51, with only 3.3 guns for every 1,000 residents.

Wyoming has the highest number of registered guns per capita of any state in America. For every 1,000 residents, there are 195.7 guns, about three times the rate of second-place D.C. That's 114,052 registered firearms in a state with a population of only 582,658 people. See the complete list by below:

http://deslide.clusterfake.net/?o=html_table&u=http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/?ftag=ACQ812ebde&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

[SteveWolfer]

37 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Wyoming has the highest number of registered guns per capita of any state in America. For every 1,000 residents, there are 195.7 guns, about three times the rate of second-place D.C. That's 114,052 registered firearms in a state with a population of only 582,658 people.

I grew up in Wyoming.  There were five us in the family.  I remember there being about 6, maybe 7 guns.  One was the 45 caliber pistol that Dad brought home after WWII.  Not because he had any fondness for pistols, or any use for a pistol.  He never shot it, and it was just stored away.  He kept it because all through the war he had photos of Mom in a bathing suit under the clear plastic pistol grips.  One gun was an ancient 22 caliber rifle that Grandfather had given to Dad.  The other guns were used every year.  They were for hunting.  Shotguns for ducks, geese, sage chicken, and pheasant.  Rifles for deer, antelope and elk.  We weren't nuts about hunting as if it was a hobby or life-style.  It was just a normal thing to do at the proper seasons.  It occupied maybe 7 or 8 days spread out during the year.  This was the normal thing in Wyoming families.  There was almost no thought of using guns as tools of self-defense - we didn't even lock the doors back then.  And they weren't used much for target practice or any kind of competitive shooting.

What do you think they are hunting in D.C.?   My guess is that they lock their doors. 

Guns are tools so it makes sense to ask what do the tool-owners use them for, and is that different from state to state.  The Western states, to a large degree, have different traditions.  

And, things also change with time.  The current fervor for self-defense and the fondness for military style weapons weren't prevalent a couple of decades ago - not like today. 

Pistols are rarely ever part of hunting, so it would be interesting to see the stats for them separately.

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I grew up in Wyoming.  There were five us in the family.  I remember there being about 6, maybe 7 guns.  One was the 45 caliber pistol that Dad brought home after WWII.  Not because he had any fondness for pistols, or any use for a pistol.  He never shot it, and it was just stored away.  He kept it because all through the war he had photos of Mom in a bathing suit under the clear plastic pistol grips.  One gun was an ancient 22 caliber rifle that Grandfather had given to Dad.  The other guns were used every year.  They were for hunting.  Shotguns for ducks, geese, sage chicken, and pheasant.  Rifles for deer, antelope and elk.  We weren't nuts about hunting as if it was a hobby or life-style.  It was just a normal thing to do at the proper seasons.  It occupied maybe 7 or 8 days spread out during the year.  This was the normal thing in Wyoming families.  There was almost no thought of using guns as tools of self-defense - we didn't even lock the doors back then.  And they weren't used much for target practice or any kind of competitive shooting.

What do you think they are hunting in D.C.?   My guess is that they lock their doors. 

Guns are tools so it makes sense to ask what do the tool-owners use them for, and is that different from state to state.  The Western states, to a large degree, have different traditions.  

And, things also change with time.  The current fervor for self-defense and the fondness for military style weapons weren't prevalent a couple of decades ago - not like today. 

Pistols are rarely ever part of hunting, so it would be interesting to see the stats for them separately.

Unfortunately, among some,  guns have become a fetish.   Most fire-arms owned by Americans  are aimed weapons,  (rifles or small arms).  Most of the rifles are probably single shot (magazine fed)  and some are semi-automatic.  I doubt whether there many full auto machines guns and very few of those are likely to be large caliber  (like Ma Deuce).  So these fire arms are not  very useful for overthrowing a  tyranny.  If the government ever goes against the people it will be with planes, helicopters,  tanks,  bombs, Gatling guns  and even flame throwers.   Privately owned weapons will not avail against a determined,  trained and professional military force.   

I am all in favor of having available fire arms for either sport, hunting or personal defense.  But fighting the Evil Government with what most Americans have at home  will not do much good. 

[SteveWolfer]

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Unfortunately, among some,  guns have become a fetish

Why unfortunate?  Fetish?  So have baseball card, or Football, or model planes, or stamp collecting.  Who cares?

 

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Privately owned weapons will not avail against a determined,  trained and professional military force.   

True... up to a point.  But Progressives are NOT agitating for more and more gun control because of any of the reasons that they spout.  Nope, it is some kind of primal fear they feel.  Somewhere in their mind they are afraid that the people they know they are trying to control might get upset and they want them helpless.  Nothing else really makes sense.

So, that being the case, I like it that they are nervous.  It might even make them move slower in their drive to have total control over everyone.  And it is a fallacy to imagine that things go from just like they are right now, to huge numbers of armed citizens fighting the full might of American military forces.  Imagine all kinds of intermediate stages - like one where a group of citizens wearing pistols in holsters go to a town meeting and express anger and outrage over some regulation.  They never touch or threaten to use their guns.  It is a situation where a government official is going to use laws to threaten citizens in a subtle way, and the citizens make an implicit statement they too have access to force.  In that kind of exchange there is no military buffer for the official to hide behind.

I'm not advocating that kind of thing.  I'm just staying that having guns inhibits tyranny at least a little and that constant movement towards tyranny will generate increased levels of threat from the populace.  It is a process, a reaction.

[Backlighting]

2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Why unfortunate?  Fetish?  So have baseball card, or Football, or model planes, or stamp collecting.  Who cares?

 

True... up to a point.  But Progressives are NOT agitating for more and more gun control because of any of the reasons that they spout.  Nope, it is some kind of primal fear they feel.  Somewhere in their mind they are afraid that the people they know they are trying to control might get upset and they want them helpless.  Nothing else really makes sense.

So, that being the case, I like it that they are nervous.  It might even make them move slower in their drive to have total control over everyone.  And it is a fallacy to imagine that things go from just like they are right now, to huge numbers of armed citizens fighting the full might of American military forces.  Imagine all kinds of intermediate stages - like one where a group of citizens wearing pistols in holsters go to a town meeting and express anger and outrage over some regulation.  They never touch or threaten to use their guns.  It is a situation where a government official is going to use laws to threaten citizens in a subtle way, and the citizens make an implicit statement they too have access to force.  In that kind of exchange there is no military buffer for the official to hide behind.

I'm not advocating that kind of thing.  I'm just staying that having guns inhibits tyranny at least a little and that constant movement towards tyranny will generate increased levels of threat from the populace.  It is a process, a reaction.

Right on Steve. I also believe It is the fear by Progressives knowing that an armed citizen is more dangerous to them, in their quest for more control, than an unarmed one...and rightfully so.

[BaalChatzaf]

51 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

Right on Steve. I also believe It is the fear by Progressives knowing that an armed citizen is more dangerous to them, in their quest for more control, than an unarmed one...and rightfully so.

And citizens  either armed or unarmed would have a great deal to fear from tanks, planes, helicopters,  drones, hell-fire missiles and cluster bombs.   The guns are insufficient for overthrowing a modern well armed tyranny.  It is isn't guns or the NRA that will take the government down.  It is the death of a thousand cuts  administered by  citizens throwing grit and chewing gum into the works. 

[SteveWolfer]

21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The guns are insufficient for overthrowing a modern well armed tyranny.

And being totally disarmed would be more effective in overthrowing a modern well armed tyranny?

And would a populace that is totally disarmed encourage a would-be tyrant more than an armed populace?

23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is isn't guns or the NRA that will take the government down.  

Guns are a political issue and it is a significant portion of the populace that rally behind a significant number of liberty type of issues that stop a government from moving towards tyranny.  The NRA is an effective political lobbying force in the gun issue.  If people don't object where liberty is threatened, liberty isn't likely to last very long.