What is wrong with the nanny state?

[vern_humphrey]

the government has the power to impose reasonable limitations on the ownership of firearms. at the moment, the line is drawn at automatic weapons (for the most part), barrel length, caliber and a few other items.

I don’t see this as a nanny state, but as the result of vigorous debate and compromise among gun owners and gun grabbers.

“Compromise” means both sides give up something they have. What did the gun grabbers give up?

 

[Wirraway]

“Compromise” means both sides give up something they have. What did the gun grabbers give up?

compromise also means giving up something they want.

I’m speaking of constitutional interpretation of the second amendment. the gun grabbers want all of your guns, of all types. they want this through outright confiscation or by tax or regulatory schemes that are intended to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. in this way, they doing what the democratic party used to to do to restrict blacks from voting.

 

[vern_humphrey]

compromise also means giving up something they want.

I’m speaking of constitutional interpretation of the second amendment. the gun grabbers want all of your guns, of all types. they want this through outright confiscation or by tax or regulatory schemes that are intended to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. in this way, they doing what the democratic party used to to do to restrict blacks from voting.

I am reminded of that an American diplomat (George F. Kennan?) said about negotiating with the Soviets.

The Soviets start by saying the Western diplomats have brought their wives, but the Soviets haven’t. So they propose the Soviets be allowed to sleep with the Westerner’s lives.

When the outrage dies down, the Soviets offer a “reasonable compromise” – “We’ll only sleep with half of your wives.”

You are correct, by the way, that “gun control” was originally intended to prevent Blacks from having guns – there was a 1940s-era Florida Supreme Court ruling overturning a white man’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, sayhing, “The statute was never intended to apply to white people.”

 

[Wirraway]

I am reminded of that an American diplomat (George F. Kennan?) said about negotiating with the Soviets.

The Soviets start by saying the Western diplomats have brought their wives, but the Soviets haven’t. So they propose the Soviets be allowed to sleep with the Westerner’s lives.

When the outrage dies down, the Soviets offer a “reasonable compromise” – “We’ll only sleep with half of your wives.”

You are correct, by the way, that “gun control” was originally intended to prevent Blacks from having guns – there was a 1940s-era Florida Supreme Court ruling overturning a white man’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, sayhing, “The statute was never intended to apply to white people.”

personally, I don’t have any reservations about gun control within second amendment limits. but given the political atmosphere, the NRA and other gun advocates must adopt a take no prisoners attitude.

 

[vern_humphrey]

personally, I don’t have any reservations about gun control within second amendment limits. but given the political atmosphere, the NRA and other gun advocates must adopt a take no prisoners attitude.

When I hear the left complaining about this or that government action being “unconstitutional” I point out the government is only driving through the hole that was left in the Bill of Rights when the left ripped out the 2nd Amendment.

If they don’t like the 2nd Amendment, they are free to try to repeal it. But if the 2nd Amendment can simply be ignored, why should the government respect any of our rights?

 

[Wirraway]

When I hear the left complaining about this or that government action being “unconstitutional” I point out the government is only driving through the hole that was left in the Bill of Rights when the left ripped out the 2nd Amendment.

If they don’t like the 2nd Amendment, they are free to try to repeal it. But if the 2nd Amendment can simply be ignored, why should the government respect any of our rights?

the second amendment is not being ignored, its the touchstone for all gun control laws. and sometimes the grabbers lose, as they did recently in the Washington, D.C. case. and you’re right, without the bill of rights, the government will become tyrannical.

although between us, I’m not disappointed that gun laws ban most private ownership of .50 cal. machine guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

the second amendment is not being ignored, its the touchstone for all gun control laws. and sometimes the grabbers lose, as they did recently in the Washington, D.C. case. and you’re right, without the bill of rights, the government will become tyrannical.

What part of “shall not be infringed” is being respected?

although between us, I’m not disappointed that gun laws ban most private ownership of .50 cal. machine guns.

Why?

In point of fact, private ownership of .50 caliber machine guns is perfectly legal – but you must pay a $200 transfer tax to buy one.

 

[Wirraway]

What part of “shall not be infringed” is being respected?

understand that no right enumerated in the bill of rights is absolute, and that all are subject to a balancing test between personal and public interests. the best way to explain is by analogy to the first amendment. laws against shouting “fire” in a theatre are constititional limits imposed on speech content.

In point of fact, private ownership of .50 caliber machine guns is perfectly legal – but you must pay a $200 transfer tax to buy one.

thanks for illustrating the above point (which I pointed out). the federal transfer tax is a starting point for MG ownership. some states and local governments impose additional restrictions and some places ban them entirely.

 

[vern_humphrey]

understand that no right enumerated in the bill of rights is absolute, and that all are subject to a balancing test between personal and public interests. the best way to explain is by analogy to the first amendment. laws against shouting “fire” in a theatre are constititional limits imposed on speech content.

That example is often used – but what is its application? Can you be punished for saying something that makes the stock market go down? Or saying something that makes people vote against a serving politician?

thanks for illustrating the above point (which I pointed out). the federal transfer tax is a starting point for MG ownership. some states and local governments impose additional restrictions and some places ban them entirely.

If you want a machine gun, you can have one – and when was someone last killed by a legally-owned machine gun?

 

[Wirraway]

“fire in a threater”] is often used – but what is its application? Can you be punished for saying something that makes the stock market go down? Or saying something that makes people vote against a serving politician?

crying “fire” in a theatre is the paragigm example, so, I’d guess, yelling “fire” in a theater can be a crime. I don’t really deal with the markets, but I suppose some market manipulation can result in civil or criminal penalties and be consistent with the first amendment, it depends on what, exactly, is being done.

political speech is the most protected kind of speech, so it depends what in particular you are thinking of. time place and manner restrictions are more common (which is why the government can ban soundtrucks in a residential neighborhood at midnight) but outrageous lies and claims about a candidate are usually left alone.

[If you want a machine gun, you can have one – and when was someone last killed by a legally-owned machine gun?

No, not everyone can own a machine gun just by paying the federal transfer tax, as I noted above, some jurisdictions impose other limits, some ban them entirely, others I think require the local sheriff to sign off on an application. I don’t know when the last person was killed by a privately owned machine gun. I don’t want them being used in bank robberies, which apparently was common before the firearms control act in the 1930s.
[/quote]

 

[vern_humphrey]

crying “fire” in a theatre is the paragigm example, so, I’d guess, yelling “fire” in a theater can be a crime. I don’t really deal with the markets, but I suppose some market manipulation can result in civil or criminal penalties and be consistent with the first amendment, it depends on what, exactly, is being done.

I didn’t say “market manipulation.” I said speech that makes the market fall – such as a newsman putting a negative “spin” on economic problems, thus provoking a sell-off.

political speech is the most protected kind of speech, so it depends what in particular you are thinking of. time place and manner restrictions are more common (which is why the government can ban soundtrucks in a residential neighborhood at midnight) but outrageous lies and claims about a candidate are usually left alone.

What about people who falsely claim Bush “lied” about the Iraq war?

No, not everyone can own a machine gun just by paying the federal transfer tax, as I noted above, some jurisdictions impose other limits, some ban them entirely, others I think require the local sheriff to sign off on an application.

If there was a state or local law that allowed the sheriff to close a newspaper, would that be constitutional?

I don’t know when the last person was killed by a privately owned machine gun. I don’t want them being used in bank robberies, which apparently was common before the firearms control act in the 1930s.

No – the cause of crimes like that was the lawlessness springing from Prohibition. It was ending Prohibition that toned down the level of crime.

Let me point out that criminals like Dillinger got their machine guns by robbing National Guard armories.

 

[tomarin]

i would like to purchase and learn to use a gun for home defense. but my wife is not thrilled by the idea (to put it mildly!).

 

[vern_humphrey]

i would like to purchase and learn to use a gun for home defense. but my wife is not thrilled by the idea (to put it mildly!).

First of all, find a range near you and visit it. Scout it out, and then bring out your wife. Let her meet people who have guns and enjoy shooting.

Next, buy the gun she wants.

 

[Wirraway]

i would like to purchase and learn to use a gun for home defense. but my wife is not thrilled by the idea (to put it mildly!).

don’t bother with the home defense nonsense. if you get a “home defense” shotgun tricked out with lights, lasers, “tactical” slings, recoil suppressors and bayonet lugs, tripods and whatever else they’re selling on the aftermarket, you’ll get to look like Rambo but never actually use it.

learn something like trap or skeet or sporting clays, enjoy a new sport. try a 28", 12 gauge pump, like a remington 870 express. inexpensive, lasts forever, good for upland game and waterfowl, and you can even use it for home defense.

if your local gun club has a league night, take your wife there, enjoy the country-club atmosphere.

 

[vern_humphrey]

don’t bother with the home defense nonsense. if you get a “home defense” shotgun tricked out with lights, lasers, “tactical” slings, recoil suppressors and bayonet lugs, tripods and whatever else they’re selling on the aftermarket, you’ll get to look like Rambo but never actually use it.

learn something like trap or skeet or sporting clays, enjoy a new sport. try a 28", 12 gauge pump, like a remington 870 express. inexpensive, lasts forever, good for upland game and waterfowl, and you can even use it for home defense.

if your local gun club has a league night, take your wife there, enjoy the country-club atmosphere.

I have long advised a pump shotgun for home defense, for many reasons. The Remington 870 is an ideal choice – although if the wife is an issue, a 20 gauge would be a bit better, since a woman wouldn’t be so bothered by the recoil.

Among the advantages of the 870 is that it has interchangeable barrels – you could have a short, smooth-bore barrel for home defense, a longer smooth-bore with interchangeable chokes for everything from turkey to ducks and geese, to quail, rabbits and squirrel, and a rifled barrel for deer and bear.

 

[Al_Masetti]

fcsa.org/

That’s the URL for a fifty caliber association.

The military has quit using 0.50 caliber machine guns for air to air combat. Because it took too many hits to get a kill. In fact, sometimes even after many hits we didn’t get kills.

The German Air Force used 20 mm cannon in WW2 fighters. After WW2, the Soviets used 37mm (and larger) cannon in their fighters. After seeing how our Saber jets with only 0.50 caliber machine guns did so poorly and how effective the Soviets cannon were, the U.S. shifted to a 20mm six-barrel Gatling gun for most fighters.

And that has become the U.S. standard for fighters now … meanwhile the Soviets use a 30mm gatling gun as THEIR standard fighter gun.

The notion that a single-shot 0.50 caliber rifle would make an effective weapon with which to shoot down an airliner is therefore false. And that is the argument offered with vehemence by gun-control advocates.

Gun banners ignore that right to carry states are safer than gun control states.

They ignore John Lott’s arguments.

amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493644

They ignore the Federalist Papers.

amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Signet-Classics/dp/0451528816/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210091007&sr=1-1

What more can be said?

 

[tomarin]

don’t bother with the home defense nonsense. if you get a “home defense” shotgun tricked out with lights, lasers, “tactical” slings, recoil suppressors and bayonet lugs, tripods and whatever else they’re selling on the aftermarket, you’ll get to look like Rambo but never actually use it.

learn something like trap or skeet or sporting clays, enjoy a new sport. try a 28", 12 gauge pump, like a remington 870 express. inexpensive, lasts forever, good for upland game and waterfowl, and you can even use it for home defense.

if your local gun club has a league night, take your wife there, enjoy the country-club atmosphere.

actually, what i had in mind was a small pistol. i’m not the laser type.

 

[vern_humphrey]

actually, what i had in mind was a small pistol. i’m not the laser type.

While I don’t discourage anyone from buying a handgun, a shotgun would be a much better choice for home defense.

1. It is more shootable – a shotgun is designed to be pointed, not aimed. The separation of the hands give you clues where the gun is actually pointed – something you don’t get with a handgun, especially in low-light situations.
2. It is more intimidating. You don’t want to shoot anyone. If you are holding a small handgun, and your knees are knocking and your teeth chattering (and they will be), you’re sending a message, “You can take this thing away from me.” If you’re holding a shotgun, the message is, “If you make a wrong move, this thing might go off.”
3. With a full choke and a load of small shot (#6 or thereabouts), it is not likely penetrate the outer wall of your house and the outer wall of your neighbor’s house.

 

[Wirraway]

actually, what i had in mind was a small pistol. i’m not the laser type.

in that case, find a hunter safety or gun safety course and take it, that might give you range time to get a little experience. a small pistol will harder to handle than a shotgun, and a small caliber pistol is not effective.

I handle shotguns constantly in competition so I don’t worry about my skill in using one in the unexpected HD role. having a gun around the house and not using it regularly it is, in my opinion, just fractionally better than not having one at all.

 

[Wolseley]

That seems pretty far fetched, that South American drug dealers would be able to supply the whole country’s criminals with guns, as cheaply and as easily as if they were bought in the U.S. Oh but if you say so…

Demand and supply, chum. Anywhere there’s a demand, somebody will make a buck by providing supply.
"cynic:

In my country, what gun related crime exists is ussually committed with sawn-off shotguns, sawn-off .22’s. In yours it’s with semi-automatic handguns, or even military style rifles. There’s a big difference in firepower - how many people you can kill. This is a direct result of restrictive gun laws, far more restrictive than the ideas I threw out there. And you don’t think even trying to limit the availability of these kind of guns is worthwhile because law abiding citizens have to jump through a few hoops?

It doesn’t matter if you’re killed with an automatic weapon or a rock—you’re still just as dead.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban the criminal doing the killing, instead of his weapon of choice?

cynic:

However if you are selling a deadly weapon to someone, shouldn’t you do your best to know what kind of person is buying? If the buyer had to be licensed then it would clear things up and the seller could make a responsible choice about who he passes these things on to.

If you’re selling a car to someone, should it be your responsibility to check to make sure what kind of person is buying it? Should you have to check to see if the person has a valid driver’s lisence? Should you interrogate him for an hour about what he plans to do with this vehicle? (“You’re not going to use this run over anybody, or transport illegal material, or something like that are you? I’m just trying to find out what kind of person you are.”)

Or should we simply go with the premise that everyone is an adult, and they’re responsible for their own actions, without anybody else (including the Nanny State) running along beside them and holding their hand, to make sure that dear-oh-dear!, nobody does anything naughty?

How many guns made in garages have high capacity magazines. How many can fire accurately as fast as your finger can pull the trigger.

In places like Peshawar, for example? All of them.

You’re smart enough and prepared to put in the effort. And I doubt you could churn out something akin to a Glock.

Once again you display your total ignorance. Glocks are about the simplest handguns in the world. Field stripped it consists of four parts, and the whole thing only has about 30 parts, total. If tribesmen on the outskirts of Islamabad can recreate AK-47’s and Stens, they can certainly re-create Glocks, and so can anyone else, with enough practice. Maybe they wouldn’t be able to reproduce the ballistic plastic for the receiver, but they could certainly use a workable substitute. The gun would be heavier, but it would certainly work.

So how come Britain has a higher crime rate today than it did before banning guns?

Touché. Game, set, match----and we haven’t heard from cynic since.

With a full choke and a load of small shot (#6 or thereabouts), it is not likely penetrate the outer wall of your house and the outer wall of your neighbor’s house.

It will make a dreadful mess of your panelling, however.

On the other hand, you’ll still be alive, and you can buy more panelling.