THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer they’re only for killing people.”
WE SAY: “I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”
Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross
Author of Unintended Consequences
“When law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect of the law.”
— Frederic Bastiat
Publisher’s Note: I hope everyone has had a great holiday with friends and family. I was able to get all my children under one roof this season so I am blessed.
Part I is here.
My youngest son is on leave and he and I have spent some great range time together. He is a phenomenal shooter with reload times that see the spare magazine in the Glock before the ejected magazine hits the deck. -BB
“The downside to gun control is genocide.”
“Later that day [August 31, 1918] the head of the Cheka, [Felix] Dzerzhinsky, and his assistant, Jan Peters, ordered that ‘anyone caught in illegal possession of a firearm will be immediately executed.’ ”
Sean McMeekin, The Russian Revolution (pg 265)
Guns don’t kill people, physics kills people.
Yes, America is now Vichy France Version 2.0 during the War to Save Josef Stalin. Many Frenchmen resisted the socialist decrees in 1935 (ironically to disrupt communist political violence) to disarm the population but many did and when the German army rolled in, they simply confiscated government registration records and proceeded to round them up. Those that complied had their weapons seized or worse. Registration always leads to confiscation.
You may see an unprecedented assault on private weapons ownership in the near future, the communists are going hammer and sickle after non-government firearms following the path of other western countries in the past century stripping their subjects of the ability to defend themselves against both private criminal and existential government threats. The former being much more remote in probability than violence visited on you by your own government.
That red, white and blue flashing light bar in your rear view mirror when a road pirate pulls you over may be the truest representation of what those colors really mean.
You will note some of the worst excesses of government attacks on private weapons ownership occur under GOP auspices like the Republicans outstripping Democrats for gun-grabbing in the horrific 1968 Gun Control Act, the hoplophobic nonsense in the Orwellian-named Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986 and Bushevik I banning the import of cosmetically offensive weapons in 1989. Reagan has a long history of denying American subjects the right to bear arms like the Mulford Act in 1967.
Hence the Mango Emperor signing the idiotic bump-stock ban (one can use a rubber band to achieve the very same effect with greater accuracy). And Trump’s extemporaneous fellating of the coproach state by saying seize them first and due process later. So bold, so heroic.
You cannot rely on the GOP to protect firearms ownership; they are naturally wobbly-kneed in ANY rhetorical fight and have an idiotic relationship with the urinalists in the communist press in which they think that this time (this time!), they’ll get the respect they deserve.
There is not a single component of Federal weapons legislation that has any justification beyond regulatory power to deny owning and bearing firearms. Like hate crimes, charging of a malefactor with gun possession does not specifically address the act of committing a crime. It criminalizes possession of a tool and is merely an additional charge for the “just-us” system to stack them high to scare the accused into a plea deal.
As readers of this site know, I can’t make any rational, moral or consequentialist argument for the power much less the existence of the state hence my complete dismissal of the Second Amendment as a bulwark to protect these rights that exist prior to any government approval. That amendment like so many in the fetid Constitution is poorly worded and crafted in a way that encourages ambiguity and “literal interpretation” (a nonsensical notion in which humans are expected to need an interpretive framework for a literal construct). Mind you, the most compelling and elegant argument I have seen for the wording (which should have reversed the clauses) is the following:
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
But the rule of law is a myth hence the interpretive frameworks of modern courts will render whatever judgment they wish no matter how insane or illogical the ruling like Zombie Scalia’s “dangerous and unusual” chicanery in Heller and Commissar Robert’s decision on national socialist healthcare being a tax and therefore law of the land.
Exhibit A is the Second Amendment’s treatment in the “just-us” system such as the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1967 Mulford Act (CA), 1968 OCC & SSA and GCA, 1986 FOPA, Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990), Brady Act (1993), AWB (1994), on and on and on.
All perfectly legal and the law of the land despite the base interference with private weapons ownership. You will note in the history of the US, no government body at the Federal level has sought similar prohibitions against its legions of enforcers and coproaches.
David Kopel is a savvy observer of the 2A and wrote this interesting essay in 1999, which has since been superceded by other rulings the cranks on the Supreme Court have issued.
“In the face of this Supreme Court record, is it accurate for gun control advocates to claim that the non-individual nature of the Second Amendment is “perhaps the most well-settled” point in all of American constitutional law? The extravagant claim cannot survive a reading of what the Supreme Court has actually said about the Second Amendment. In the written opinions of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does appear to be reasonably well-settled–as an individual right. The argument that a particular Supreme Court opinion’s language about the Second Amendment does not reflect what the author “really” thought about the Second Amendment cannot be used to ignore all these written opinions–unless we presume that Supreme Court Justices throughout the Republic’s history have written things about the Second Amendment that they did not mean.”
To me, Kopel makes an extraordinarily compelling argument yet if the hundreds of appointees to the “bench” in the Federal judiciary are any indication, logic and morality mean nothing. Pure naked government power and the expansion thereof is the sole expository notion.
Remember that this is a system that has convicted 14 cops of murder since 1914 and the same coproach army has extinguished the lives of twenty thousand Americans since the turn of this century, four time the number of American combatants that have died in new-imperialist shit-pits planet-wide in the same time period.
Every killing by a cop justified. Every one.