John Browning's Birthday Today

90miles from Tyranny

Mandated Gun Ownership

How would requiring the ownership of a gun be different from requiring the purchase of healthcare?  Its just a tax if you don't buy one, so why not the other?

The small town of Nelson, Georgia, (pop: 1,300) passed an ordinance in April requiring the head of each household to own a firearm (with exceptions for convicted felons, those not capable of owning a gun, and anyone who conscientiously objected. Despite the exceptions, and that the town’s police chief (and only cop) said he had no intention of enforcing the ordinance, the Brady Center for Gun Violence (an anti-gun more than an anti-violence group) is suing the city over what it calls an “unconstitutional” law.

-reason

from the comments:

The GOP should quietly threaten to pass a mandatory gun law if the Democrats don't repeal ObamaCarousel. Sure, deny it publicly, but make it clear that they'll do it as soon as they have the votes.

What part of the constitution grants the government the power to enact such a regulation?

The same part that says that the government can compel you to purchase a product from a third party.

In my book, the people in a state or a municipality can pass their own local constitution which grants their local government powers which do not conflict with the Federal constitution. Any authority the people have not granted to the local government in such way, the local government should not have.

If government can force you to have fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and low flow toilets and showerheads why can't they force you to own a firearm?

According to the FedGov, the National Militia includes every able-bodied man between specific ages. Requiring that everyone own a firearm supports this definition of "militia" in a very practical way. Too bad towns are having to do the work that the FedGov just isn't willing to do.

The government can't require people to do something unless there's some plausible argument that it serves a legitimate government objective, Perry said. While deterring crime could be considered a legitimate objective, it would be hard for the city to prove the ordinance accomplishes that goal, he said.

Step 1. Fight this lawsuit and ultimately lose because "it's hard for the city to prove the ordinance accomplishes that goal."

Step 2. Sue Chicago and demand they prove that their "common sense gun control" laws accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence.

Step 3. Sue D.C. and demand they prove that their "common sense gun control" laws accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence.

Rinse-repeat.

Just which Constitutional right does this law violate, again?

Note that this has nothing to do with any of purportedly limited grants of power to the feds, so the Commerce Clause and all that are irrelevant. If this is unconstitutional, it can only be because it violates a Constitutional right. So, which one?

In light of the Obamacare decision, which one indeed?  And why not try it?

Guns & Anti-Self Censoring

The Free Northerner pointed out in a recent link post that he rarely self censors.  That comment reminded me of a subject that I don't recall anyone writing about; no doubt becasue they'd fear the backlash for doing so.

One of the arguments against the private ownership of guns is the supposed anecdote that, "what do you tell the parent of a child who has accidentally injured someone with a gun?"

How indeed do you speak of such a subject without appearing uncaring or mean spirited?

Its not the time to point out the stupidity of the parents for leaving something dangerous where their kids could reach it.  Its not the time to criticize stupid grieving parents when their kid has been injured.

So instead of asking the parents if they leave rat poison next to the Captain Crunch or if its the sharp knife's fault that it was left on the table and then the knife's fault that it cut the kid, let's blame the inanimate object.

It wasn't your fault for being irresponsible, it was the fault of the inanimate, and unthinking, hunk of metal that your kid is injured.

Yes that, it!  Its not your fault at all!  We'll blame something else to make you feel less bad, and to hell with what is right and just!  And to hell with the rights of others!  I'll assume that this is the appropriate and morally responsible thing to say in your time of sadness.

The imbeciles that use arguments like this are absolutely vile.

Make the White House a Gun Free Zone

from John Lott's blog:

The Daily Caller has this word about a petition on the White House’s official petition website to make the WH a gun-free zone (see here).  

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around themGun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

3D Printed Guns Are Really Cool

Some links from the pioneering creators:

Defense Distributed

DEFCAD

An interview:

Ammunition Shortage

Our current shortage of guns and ammunition is quite funny if you forget about the seriousness of it.

Points to consider:

• Several mass shootings occur (in gun free zones)
• Liberals think the time is ripe to add more gun restrictions
• Gun owners believe the liberals mean to attempt to accomplish their goals, and so buy all the guns we can
• Cops complain about not being able to find ammunition to buy
• Some liberals claim that the people buying guns are irrational because guns won't get banned
• Other liberals say that the time is ripe to ban guns

All of this is a bit amusing, but another thing I find funny is that we are in a depression and therefore we should applaud businesses that are successful in this difficult time.  (Unless they are successful because the government gave them special deals.)  And yet, despite this, the fact that gun makers are financially successful is worrying to some liberals.

If we could all do the opposite of what the government wants elsewhere, then we might be onto something. 

Celebrate gun Control

My favorite author writes that attempts at gun control in America are amusing:

If I were an extremely cynical gun manufacturer, I would save some extra profits to give to Democratic candidates for president. Such presidents come to the White House under a cloud. No matter how many photo ops they hold with guns, many people suspect that they want to ban them.

It’s not a crazy assumption, either. In government’s ideal world, the politicians and their bureaucratic armies would have all the guns and the people would have none.

We know this from experience too. Look what happens in a natural disaster when FEMA takes over under martial law. They confiscate weapons. Heck, it’s true when the U.S. invades a foreign country. The people are disarmed, all in the name of keeping order. They did this in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So it’s not paranoia to suspect that government wants to disarm the population. That’s as true at home as it is abroad. It is all a matter of whether powerful rulers can get away with it.

Apparently many people in America do not like our government and do the opposite of what it wants us to do.

Even since Clinton’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, trial balloons have been a “buy” signal in the gun market. Really, the whole thing is hilarious. The president’s threat to ban even small classes of weapons — inevitably — causes a massive, populationwide scramble to buy as many guns as possible. Talk about unintended consequences! These small-time gun skeptics end up being the direct cause of a whole population of people arming themselves to the teeth!

His article is interesting in that he does not own guns but argues for them being legal.  It is a different perspective than the standard pro or anti gun arguments.  It is the same with me opposing smoking bans despite my dislike of leaving bars smelling like smoke.

In short, it is a bull market in weapons and ammunition. Ironically, the whole mania has been set off by the government’s own anti-gun language. It’s getting to the point that the best path to business success in America is for some powerful politician to suggest that your good or service might need to be banned.

What a symbol of the ineffectiveness of government in our time! The whole nation figures that government is up to no good (all polls show that government is more deeply unpopular than ever before), so whenever government says one thing, the people run out and do the other. It’s a great turn of events in the history of public policy and, truly, one worth celebrating!

Quote of the Day, 3/18/2013

If Pro-Gunners were as violent as Anti-Gunners say they are, logic would dictate that there would be no Anti-Gunners left.

-Skidmark via Wirecutter

If only guns were banned...

...then things like this would not happen.

Eleven Questions

The Whited Sepulchre linked to, and answered eleven questions on politics and liberty from Counting Cats.

Because I find the questions interesting and becasue I have my own blog, I'm going to answer the questions too.

Tim @ Spootville hunts, fishes, reads, and is a practical, logical sort of guy.

1. Who was the greatest political leader in the Western world?

William Henry Harrison was president for thirty days and then died before doing anything presidential.   No new taxes, no infringement upon our liberty, no bad stuff at all!


2. If you could change, introduce or abolish one law, what would it be?

Change: modify the second amendment to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Introduce: a balanced budget requirement

Abolish: I'd prefer all laws to be abolished rather than continue with what we have.  If I could pick only one then I'd like to abolish the practice of income tax withholding.  Everyone who pays income taxes should have to write their income tax check each year, preferably the day before the election.

3. What advice would you give to a sixteen year-old today?

First decide what you are going to do for a job.  Then try and get an entry level job in a company that does that.  Only go to a four year college if absolutely necessary.

Also, read Roosh, and do what he says.


4. Who do you most admire?

My Heroes


5. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of your country?

Wrong question.  

Correct question: which country will you be moving to?  Or will you stay and help pick up the pieces?

6. If you think voting for establishment parties changes little or nothing, what is the one thing we can do as individuals to cause real change?

Live your life the way you want, avoid dealing with laws when you can.  Stop getting news from the traditional news sources.  Stop paying attention to the media.  Pay as little to the government as possibly you can.  Try to show as many people as possible that the government is always incompetent, and encourage them to avoid the government as much as is possible.

7. When will we finally say good-bye to the state?

Never.  Although perhaps many of us may reach a point where we generally ignore the laws of the government because they are too ineffectual, and incompetent, to enforce them.


8. Should free people have the right to keep and bear arms openly or covertly without government permission, sanction or registration?

Why not?


9. What annoys you most about current politics?

I find it inconceivable that we don't have a balanced budget every year.   Even if all of policies are opposed to what I want, they should at least be competent enough to have a balanced budget every year.  We aren't really giving Keynesism/ Socialism /Communism / Progressivism/ Feminism / Leftism a fair shot because the people in government are to incapable of making the numbers add up.  Whatever your political persuasion, you should agree that you should earn more than you spend.  

The argument should be freedom with a balanced budget or socialism with a balanced budget.  Not socialism and huge deficits every year versus slightly less of each.

I also don't like how words don't often mean the same things twice.

10. Gold standard or fiat currency and interest rate control?

I like The Whited Sepulchure's answer:

"That question presupposes a false dichotomy.  We could have a gold standard, and a currency issued by a neighborhood bank, and another currency issued by Wal-Mart, and dozens of others.  Let a thousand currencies bloom!!  Anyone foolish enough to want a fiat currency could continue trading with his fiat currency and saving his fiat currency.  But one day he would look in his wallet and realize that his dollars are made of paper."

11. Do we have an obligation to help the poor?         

Personally: maybe

Through the government: NO.  

The Democrats' Plan for Balancing the Budget

I am getting weary of talking about the national debt and deficit.  But until these issues are resolved we will have political, economical, and other issues affecting our everyday lives.

We already know that the democrats do not concern themselves with these problems.

They do, however, take the time to criticize any attempt made by republicans to fix these problems.  Anything you hear from the left about the budget will, almost invariably, be about how bad a particular republican budget balancing plan is.  This may be a good political strategy for them.  They can blame republicans for wanting to cut spending and they present nothing for the republicans to attack.

When I attempted to determine what the democrats' plan to balance the budget is, the only replies that approximated a response were:

• "I already answered that."
• "Tax the Rich of course!"

Despite the lack of helpfulness from those commenters, we know that whenever the democrats admit to what they want to do to balance the budget, they will point out that they want to tax the rich, and cut military spending.

Let's try their plan and see what those numbers look like.

The White House has a page to list the "Historical Tables" for the financial information of the United States. 

Once again I will be using 2011 numbers because that is the most recent year for which the numbers are not estimates.

Table 1.1 shows the total revenues and expenditures (rounded to the nearest billion):

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion

Now I will subtract military spending from these numbers, and then divide the remainder of the deficit by the number of "the rich" to see how much they each need to pay as their "fair share."  Note that the amount "the rich"needs to pay will be in addition to what they already pay to the government (their current payments are already included in the "total receipts").

I have never heard how much the democrats would like to cut military spending. 
Let's see what the numbers look like if we cut 100% of military spending.

2011 spending on "National Defense" (table 3.1): $705 billion

I considered removing all "veteran's benefits" too, but I decided that while the democrats don't like the military, they do not oppose paying for their benefits. ($127 billion, incidentally)

Subtract all military spending from the total budget and we get the following numbers:

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays (minus national defense): $2,898 billion
2011 total deficit (minus national defense): $595 billion

By ending military spending we have halved the deficit.  (A fine point to note next time you talk to a democrat who wants to cut military spending: By eliminating 100% of military spending the federal deficit would still be about $200 billion more than the largest deficit under President Bush, which included military spending. table 1.1)

Now let's divide the amount of the new deficit amongst "the rich" and see how big of an additional check they need to pay each year in order to balance the budget.

According to the U.S. Census Clock (at the time of this writing) the U.S. has a population of: 315,230,903

How many of us are "the rich"?

We heard from many last year that "the 1%" are the problem.  1% of the U.S. population is 3,152,309 individuals.

Let's divide our new deficit by the number of "the rich":

$595 billion/3,152,309 people = $188,750.53 per each "rich" person.

We can use the democrats' budget plan to balance the budget if we end all military spending and each "rich" person would need to pay $188,750.53 each year in addition to what they already pay in taxes.

(This is, admittedly, a lower number than I expected when I started this post.)

How much does someone in the 1% earn each year?

According to this liberal sounding website (I couldn't find the IRS data.), the annual income needed to hit the following top percent marks are (in 2010):

Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048

According to this Forbes article the average annual income of the top 1% is $717,000.

According to the Tax Foundation (table 8) the top 1% paid 24.01% for an their average tax rate in 2009 (the last year for which they have data).

If the top 1% are going to go along with the democrats' budget balancing plan, then the numbers will work like this.

Average income: $717,000
Less average tax rate @ 24.01%: $172,152
Net current income: $544,848
Less budget balancing number: $188,750
Net income: $356,098

If we eliminate 100% of military spending and charge the top 1% with balancing the budget, then we will be effectively taxing their income at 50%.

The income tax rate in America has been as high as 90% in the past.

It is mathematically possible to balance the budget using the democrats' plan.

Could such a plan work in practice?

Even I, who despises the government and is very open to the idea of anarcho-capitalism, can appreciate that the government [maybe, perhaps, if you insist...] could exist with some merit to do some things.  That list of things are (thanks to Ayn Rand):

1. Protect citizens from foreigners
2. Protect citizens from each other
3. Provide a means of deciding disputes (courts)

If we eliminate national defense, like it seems democrats want, then how would we achive government objective number 1?

I propose a two part national defense plan:

1. Require all adult men (and now women, it seems) to own a fully automatic rifle, in good condition, and with it be able to hit a specified target with it (Note that fully automatics have been illegal since 1934.)
2. Maintain approximately fifty nuclear ICBMs which shall be pointed at the cities in the countries for whom we conclude are the most threatening

We have heard that during WWII the Japanese considered invading America, but were dissuaded from that idea because many Americans were armed.

Switzerland has been neutral in many wars thanks to its mountainous terrain and the fact that all of its adult citizens own guns and practice with them regularly.

related:

Look at Switzerland, for example. Switzerland has a very relaxed concealed carry law. Half the cantons in the country, you don't need a license, you just carry it. The other half, very easy to get a license.
 

They've had three big multiple-victim public shootings in the last 12 years. All three of those are in the very few buildings where guns aren't allowed in Switzerland.

Not only would this satify government objective 1 (protect us from foreigners), it would also help with objective 2 (protect us from other citizens).

The citizens should, if this is the plan, should be required to own a fully automatic weapon, not a lesser weapon, because if we do not, then we would be at a considerable disadvantage if we were invaded by armies that are armed with fully automatics.

I propose that if we eliminate the military and arm all adults with fully automatic weapons we could successfully be protected from nearly all foreign threats.

Maintaining a few nuclear ICBMs should be enough deterrence to prevent another country from using a WMD against us.

The costs of making sure that everyone owns a fully automatic rifle in good order, and maintaining nuclear weapons would cost more than $0, so I would then propose cutting the equivalent of the cost of these two items from elsewhere in the budget.  This plan starts with doing everything that the democrats want, so them giving up on a bit of something elsewhere should be reasonable.

The democrats should also be agreeable to cutting in a few other places.  This plan so far only balances the budget.  So if we cut say $200 billion from elsewhere in the government, we could pay down our national debt.

We should also look into the fact that doubling the taxes paid by the rich would cause them to leave and pay less in  taxes then they do now.  Like is happening in California.  And in France.  Did I mention that people are leaving California?

My attempt to fully flesh out the democrats' budget plan has a good start, and I will leave it to actual democrats to explain how they plan to force "the rich" to pay an additional $188,000 each.

***

If that is what the democrats' plan to balance the budget, then they should be advocating it.

Why haven't they stated their goal more clearly and plainly?

If you are a democrat and want to balance the budget by eliminating defense spending and taxing the rich, then feel free to copy my start at fleshing out a plan.  I realize that none of you have attempted to do so elsewhere.

***

What if by "cutting military spending" the democrats mean to only cut some defense spending?

How much would each member of the top 1% need to pay, on top of what they already do, to balance the budget if we cut only some, say 1/3, of current national defense spending?

Current numbers:

2011 total receipts: $2,303 billion
2011 total outlays: $3,603 billion
2011 total deficit: $1,300 billion

Numbers after cutting national defense spending by 1/3:

total receipts: $2,303 billion
total outlays: $3,368 billion
total deficits: $1,065 billion

Total deficit divided by 1% of the population:

$1,065 billion / 3,152,309 people = $337,847.59/ person of "the rich"

We could cut 1/3 of military spending and divide the deficit by the number of "the rich" and each of "the rich" would need to pay $337,847 each year in addition to their current taxes in order balance the budget.

Note that the liberal sounding website I linked to earlier says that someone in the top 1% earns at least $380,354 each year, and the new budget balancing payment is added to what they already pay to the government.  This means that the lower end of the top 1% would need to pay about 113% of their annual income to the government in order to balance the budget, if we apply the deficit amount evenly across "the rich".

The average member of the top 1%, earning $717,000 annually, would need to pay about 72% of their annual income to the government.

***

If somebody who reads this is a democrat, would you mind pointing out which option you prefer?

1. Eliminate 100% of national defense spending, tax the 1% at 50%, and require all adults to own and know how to operate a fully automatic weapon. (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)
2. Eliminate 1/3 of national defense spending, and tax the 1% at 72%.  (And cut federal spending a bit elsewhere in order to pay off our debt.)

I notice that whenever we hear about a budget, or other bill, from democrats it includes more government spending.  If we take either budget balancing option above, then that is at current spending levels.  If we spend more, then the rate at which the rich must be taxes will need to go up with the increased spending.  And if we take either option some spending should be cut elsewhere so that we can pay of the national debt.

***

One last note:

I once favored building a big wall, or fence, across the U.S./ Mexican border to prevent illegal immigration.  But the places that have fences across their boarders are there to keep citizens in.  The Soviet Union had a fence to keep its citizens in.  North Korea has a fence to keep its citizens in.

I now oppose building a boarder fences, because if the top tax rate in America goes to 50% or 72%, then many people will want to get out.  (Me included, even if I'm not one of "the rich.)

Gun "Facts" from the Left are Lies

Guess what!

People who support gun control, like President Obama, are willing to lie and deceve in order to convince you that they are right!

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

Apparently the President has claimed, "as many as 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check."

John Lott points out that this "fact" missed a few things, and is a bit out of date.

Actually, the number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration. More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994. In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.

The number of federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) today is only a fraction of what it was. Today there are only 118,000; while back in 1993 there were over 283,000. Smaller dealers, many operating out of their homes, were forced out by various means, including much higher costs for licenses.

The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.

But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.

If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.

We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.

(disclosure: a close relative had an FFL license in the '80s, he bought and sold guns but had no gun store.  Because of the laws he no longer has the FFL license.)

 A twenty year old 251 person survey of people's perceptions.  Does that sound like truthful "facts and stats"?

If you come across someone who uses this stat, then tell them that Washington D.C. with its near total gun ban sees 292 murders per year.  That was the number of murders in 1995.  Apparently it was 108 last year, but saying 292 per year is a better stat then the 40% number for several reasons.

Saying that Washington D.C. has 292 murders per year is more accurate than claiming that 40% of guns are purchased without background checks because:

• 292 murders is an actual statistic
• 40% is a rounded up number from a survey of 251 people
• the 292 murders stat comes from 1995
• the 40% stat comes from 1994

292 murders happen per year in Washington D.C. where guns are nearly banned.  My "fact" is newer and has actual data, not a survey of perceptions, supporting it.

***

Joe Manchin (D-WV):  “How many of you all believe that there is a movement to take away the Second Amendment?”

About half the hands in the room went up. 

Despite his best attempts to reassure them — “I see no movement, no talk, no bills, no nothing” — they remained skeptical.

In other news:  "On Thursday a group of Democratic senators led by Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw more than 100 different assault weapons, setting up what promises to be a fraught and divisive debate over gun control in Congress in the coming weeks."

h/t: Vox Day

***

There is no plan to ban guns coming!

40% of guns are acquired without a background check!

Mass shootings all occur in gun free zones!

Stop opposing sensible gun control!

Anti-Gun People are Intentionally Ignorant About Guns

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons...are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

- Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun lobby

quote found here

Many of us who like guns are very eager to explain guns to people who don't know.  The fact that the average people don't know anything about guns is the reason ant-gun people oppse "assault weapons."

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles"... 

- Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson

With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!

-Jason Ross

Anti-gun people gain their support through ignorance about guns.

The more we tell the public about guns, the more support that we'll have.

This is a good start.

[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

To save lives, shrink gun magazines

I found an exceptionally bad article about gun control at the Washington Post.

Let's take a look (his writing is italicized, mine is not):

To save lives, shrink gun magazines
by Jason Ross

With the White House poised to announce gun restrictions, many are wondering about the possibilities. Banning assault-style weapons is a no-brainer for many Americans. The argument practically makes itself: Assault? No, thank you!

Do you see why the anti gun people invented the term "assault weapon"?

Which of these questions is more likely to get the answer anti-gun people want:

1. Do you want to ban "assault weapons"?
2. Do you want to ban deer rifles and duck guns?

The fine writer Philip Caputo, a Vietnam veteran who was shot by an AK-47 while reporting in Lebanon, attested in The Post last month: “I am intimately familiar with what these weapons are designed to do, and that is to kill people.” 

The gun that wounded that guy was designed to kill people, but it didn't.  In any case let's compare his stats to mine:

guns bad: 0 killed, 1 wounded (P. Caputo)
guns good: 734 lived saved in U.S. since 8/30/11

Indeed. But AK-47s and AR-15s are hardly alone in that regard. The technology of firearms owes its existence to man’s desire to kill other men. For many years, combat guns and hunting guns were one and the same. 

...and still are, for the most part.  Hunting weapons have followed the history of the weapons of war.  Since 1934 however, civilians have not been allowed to buy the fully automatic weapons that our military uses.

That changed after World War II with the creation of the assault rifle. But the breakthrough innovation of these guns — their use of medium-powered cartridges — actually makes them less lethal than many other rifles. In fact, their civilian variants typically bear just one indisputably sinister element: high-capacity magazines. 

Look at his link, read it and ask yourself, "what is an 'assault rifle'? What is its definition?  The article gives what it thinks is the first "assault rifle."  But how is it different from any similar gun, for purposes of banning?

"indisputably sinister"  I don't know about that.  If anything is indisputable, then its the fact that having the government ban some, or any guns, is tyranny.

A more aggressive approach is also gaining steam among the left: banning all semiautomatic weapons, the large group to which assault-style rifles belong. This century-old technology allows guns to be cocked only once, thereafter firing a single shot for every pull of the trigger. Is such rapid-fire capability too great to allow in civilian hands? Perhaps. But, then, what should we do about manually actuated weapons that shoot almost as fast? Remington offers a black, pump-action .223-caliber rifle to police departments. Anyone looking at it — or being shot at by it — could be excused for mistaking it for an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. 

There are two options when considering banning all semi automatics.

1. Grandfather those already owned past the law (those that already exist will stay legal)
2. Ban all ownership

The problem with #1 is: If we already have several tens of millions (at least) semi automatics, then what would banning future production do? Guns last indefinitely.

The problem with #2 is that many people may keep their banned guns.  The U.S. already has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country, what good will it do to create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens?

The difference in the firing rate between a pump and a semi-automatic is negligible.  Therefore, a criminal can use a different gun, with essentially the same firepower, and still own a legal gun.  So what good is a semi-automatic ban?

All of these guns fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.



Unfortunately, by targeting guns’ form rather than their function, the efficacy of type-specific gun bans is questionable. The enforcement prospects, though, are downright frightening. There are probably at least 3 million assault-style weapons in American hands. As for semiautomatics in general — shotguns, rifles, pistols — the number is many times that. Buying them back would cost billions. Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies. 

"Seizing them would provoke violent clashes as the “Come and take it” crowd lived out its wildest fantasies."

:)

I propose that anyone who supports gun control be personally responsible for confiscating any banned gun from their neighbors.

The country needs a solution that limits the killing power of civilian weapons across the board — regardless of action type — while keeping enforcement costs and social unrest to a minimum. Luckily, we already have it: magazine control. 

In the "probably useless" realm is a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which was part of the 1994 assault weapons ban. A mass shooter can overcome the restriction by carrying multiple magazines or multiple guns—as many of them do anyway. The notion that an attacker can be subdued when he stops to reload works better in movies than in real life, where it is virtually unknown.

-Reason

The magazine is the part of the gun that holds the cartridges. The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun holds 17 rounds. Assault-weapon magazines typically carry 30. Those magazines drop out at the press of a button, to be replaced by fresh ones. 

I like how he writes: "The standard magazine for a 9mm semiautomatic handgun" as if he knew what that meant.

If there is such thing as a "standard magazine for a semi automatic handgun," then it is known as a Colt 1911.

Why do you suppose he picked his idea of a standard 9mm handgun rather than a standard semiautomatic handgun?  My guess is that he is armed with the information from a 5min google search.

BTW, some magazines are removed from the gun by a button and some by use of a lever.

Why would anyone care that "Those magazines drop out at the press of a button,"?  My guess remains: he has a small amount of information and he wants to show it off.

Let’s replace them with smaller ones. Lower-capacity magazines will fundamentally transform the character of these guns. Put a five-round magazine in an AR-15 and you no longer have an assault-style weapon. You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle. A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter, capable of holding a burglar at bay but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage. 
  
"You have the world’s ugliest varmint rifle."  For some reason, he sure wants to show that he has a very small amount of gun knowledge.

"A Glock becomes a plastic six-shooter" Glocks aren't made out of plastic.  Even if a few parts are, then parts that do the work (the barrel, etc) are made out of metal.  He has a small amount of knowledge and he wants to show it off.

"...but not capable of a Virginia Tech-style rampage." 

"At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho once again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre."  - The Truth About Assault Weapons

So he thinks he knows what is best to hold off a burglar, but does not know anything about his own example.

Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected, as they typically hold five rounds or fewer. Some existing guns with firmly attached magazines exceeding the limit could be exempted without creating a loophole for new guns. Others would need to be modified by gunsmiths to remain legal. 

"Most hunting rifles and shotguns would be unaffected"  How does he know that?

How nice of him to say, "Go get your gun 'fixed' or go to jail."  That's lots better than just banning all guns outright.

The federal assault-weapons ban passed in the 1990s capped the magazines of some guns but not others — an inevitable result of focusing on gun types rather than gun capabilities. The poor results gave Congress cover to let the law expire in 2004. Today, just six states limit magazines in some way. 

He admits that the last ban did nothing and yet wants to try again.  Maybe we should admire his dedication...before seeing if he wants to personally take our guns.

He doesn't say, and his link doesn't say which those 6 states are.  My guess is Illinois is one of them.  What's Chicago's murder count up to so far this year?  The link does say 6 states and D.C.  Washington D.C. does have the highest murder rate per capita in the country.

Perhaps: magazine size limits = more murders?

The politics of passing such a law are uncertain. What’s clear is that a limit on magazine capacity undercuts the hardest punch of the pro-gun side — “They’re taking away your guns!” — and leaves most hunters unmolested. Can New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) say the same about his proposal to ban assault weapons? 

He admits that some guns will be banned, but says  banning only some guns isn't banning guns.

And he admits that the new New York gun ban won't be effictive.

In fact, the biggest threat to magazine control might be from my allies in this fight: liberals. Few of my Wilco-listening brethren own guns. Many don’t understand how they work, and some actively loathe them. Will they see magazine control as a half-measure to be spurned? Or will they realize that the most effective assault-weapons law might be the one that melts down a grand total of zero assault weapons?

According to the government how effective was the last magazine band?

2004 Department of Justice study

"[I]t is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading."

That's what the government said.  When he says "most effective" what is he basing that on?

According to Senator Feinstein, so-called assault weapons have been used in 385 murders since the AWB expired in 2004, or about 48 murders per year.

But there were 8,583 total murders with guns in the United States in 2011, meaning so-called assault weapons were used 0.6% of the time.

This represents a decrease in murders from so-called assault weapons compared to the decade when the AWB was in effect, even though such weapons are more common today.

Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were commited with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.

- The Truth about Assault Weapons

Bring on the hammer/club/knife bans.

Anti-Gun Politicans Making Money From Guns

Last Saturday I wondered if the anti-gun politicians and gun manufacturers were teaming up to make money.

There's a story at National Review about the money being made by anti-gun politicians thanks to gun manufactures.  The evidence that they show is weak in regards to showing that there is deliberate collusion, because the anti-gun politicians simply own index and mutual funds that invest in lots companies, and some just happen to be gun manufacturers.

But anti-gun manufacturers are making money because of their opposition to guns.  And gun manufacturers are also making money because of the anti-gun politicans.

One more point to note: many politicians have their money in index and mutual funds.  They should know more about the economy then us regular peasants, because they make the market's rules, and yet they still invest.  Perhaps this is evidence that our economy won't be doomed in the very near future.  (I mean if you have a job.)

170 Million Dead Thanks to Gun Control

thanks to the Patriot Perspective:

(Take note of the defenseless in America starting at 30:00)

What the Hellis an "Assault Weapon"?

The best article that I have read on why "assault weapon" is a stupid term. 

Reason:

Making the case for a new and improved "assault weapon" ban, the White House predictably complains that "manufacturers were able to circumvent the [1994] prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons." As I have said before, what President Obama describes as circumvention was actually compliance, because the definition of "assault weapon" hinged on those "cosmetic" features. In other words, the law targeted guns based on features, such as bayonet mounts and threaded barrels, with little or no practical utility in the hands of mass murderers (or ordinary criminals). The same is true of New York's brand-new "assault weapon" ban, which benefited from more than two decades of experience with "circumvention" (starting with California's 1989 law), and it will be true of whatever new definition Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposes. The underlying problem is that there is no essential, objectively identifiable "assaultness" that makes these arbitrarily chosen weapons especially threatening. They are not even the weapons of choice for mass shooters, who prefer ordinary handguns.

...

Gays: More of an Ideological Fringe than the NRA

Many on the left claim that the NRA represents " an ideological fringe."

Just so that we're clear, a "fringe" means a small extreme number of people, right?

According to the Huffington Post: there are 4.2 million NRA members in America.  (That does not include millions of gun owning Americans who are not NRA members)

According to the same website: there are 4 million gays in America.  (That does not include...?)

The NRA wants to maintain or reduce our gun laws; how radical is it to keep laws the same as they were for the first hundred years of our country's history?

Gays want to change what "marriage" has meant for thousands of years; is that not more radical?

If we are going to criticize a group of people because of how small and extreme they are, then shouldn't liberals spend their time opposing gays instead of opposing the NRA?

4 million gays < 4.2 million NRA members

Hey liberals! Gays are more of an "ideological fringe" than the NRA is! 

Keep that in mind next time you attempt to belittle gun owners.

Nazi's Gun Control

Slate has an article called The Hitler Gun Control Lie.

Slate says that many pro-gun people point out that Hitler and the Nazis banned guns and, as a result, the Jews were unable to defend themselves and were exterminated.

Quote from the article:

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

 Just for review:  Wayne LaPierre said: Gun control led to Jewish extermination.

Quote from when the article tries to disprove the "lie":

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.

Notice how this article is claiming that LaPierre said/ implyed, "Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns," and yet the quote from him they give is: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

Note to Slate article author: nowhere did LaPierre say: "Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns," despite the fact that that is what you are claiming that he said.

Later in the article:

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns...

Just for review:

• LaPierre: Gun control led to Jewish extermination.
• Slate: Not everyone was disarmed.
• Slate: Jews were disarmed.
• History: Holocaust

This article then tries to argue that gun control did not lead to the Holocaust because despite:

1. Gun control then
2. Holocaust 

the gun control was no different than "urban planning."

Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning?

It is amazing how far this article needs to stretch the truth and stretch logic to argue against the fact that disarmed people cannot defend themselves.

Apparently if the Jews were able to defend themselves it wouldn't have mattered anyway:

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back.

You see: There's no point in defending yourself; you'll lose anyway.

Just because you may have been raped, robbed, and had family members murdered doesn't mean that you should make any effort to defend yourself; bad stuff was just going to happen to you.

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist who studies gun politics and chairs the political science department at SUNY Cortland, told Mother Jones’ Gavin Aronsen that the prohibition on Jewish gun ownership was merely a symptom, not the problem itself. “[It] wasn’t the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group,” he explained.

Do you understand liberal logic?  Being deprived of all rights is bad, but being deprived of only one right isn't bad?

Its no wonder that democrat voters are stupid and low information voters.  Look at how much baloney we need to sift through in this article, and I did not cover it all.

No guns for you, but plenty for me.

A good video, fount thanks to Rachel Lucas, about an fake anti-gun group trying to get anti-gun media to put "gun free zone signs in their yard.

Rachel's comments:

If you can’t watch, here’s the short version: the Project Veritas crew went to the homes of journalists (some from that New York paper that published the names and addresses of all the legal gun owners in the area), and also to the home of the well-known race-baiter Tourè from MSNBC, and also to the home of Attorney General Eric Holder – all addresses which are publicly available, by the way – and announced themselves as activists for a [fake] group called “Citizens Against Senseless Violence”. Most of the houses said that indeed guns are icky, and then the Project Veritas crew would ask if the homeowners would be willing to put a sign in their yard that says the home is “proudly gun-free”.

It’s comedy gold. Watch the whole thing if you can. Especially the bit with Tourè, whose vocabulary quickly devolves to “uh” and “uh”, with some “uhhhhhh” thrown in because he is smarter than you and because you are a racist.

Also at the end – oh my god I actually laughed out loud – one anti-gun resident says, “I got a nasty note from one of my most progressive friends, who says…because I wrote a column for stricter gun laws…he said, ‘You’re a fool because when the right wing takes over the government, we’re gonna need guns.’”

Hahaha! Goddamn, that’s rich.

See, you only need to worry about arming the people against potential tyranny when your vewy own pwecious pwogwessive boyfriend isn’t pwesident.

Otherwise, nothing to worry about, plebes. You think you need guns now and always? Silly paranoid peasant, you forget your place. His Majesty Barack has only your best interests in mind.

Sadly, none of the homeowners in the video wanted a sign proudly marking their morally-superior property as a gun-free zone.

I sure do wonder why. What are they afraid of? Haven’t they been watching the news and learning that gun-free zones are the only safe places in America? Don’t they care about The Children? How many more have to die?