Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Kevin Williamson on the #GentryProg's remarkable ignorance on guns: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...ew-york-times/

Incidentally, Froot's boy Tahiti Coates said that Williamson is amongst his favorite writers. He rarely agrees with him, but he always reads him because "he can write so damn good."

Also, David French writes about Gun Violence Restraining Orders: https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/...rian-critique/

This article is sort of in the middle of a debate, but it's not hard to pick up. GVROs strike me as exactly the type of targeted law that makes sense. As I mentioned, I favor a 1st A approach to the 2nd A -- i.e., one that is generally pro-rights w/ very modest limits on the edges (e.g., time, place, manner restrictions are similar to permits). Under the 1st A, context matters a great deal. A primary exception to the cherished notion that political speech is sancrosanct is that words that incite imminent lawless action are not protected. So, a speaker can talk about, e.g., the evils of the local sheriff department all she wants in a coffee house amongst friends, but that might change if she says the exact same thing to an armed, angry mob immediately outside the sheriff's office. With the 2nd A, the comparable variable to the speaker is the gun owner. Focusing on that particular context makes all the sense in the world to me.

To use the example I'd rather not use, but whatever -- it's important that we're allowed to yell "Fire!" -- most of the time it's vital. But, you know, the old crowded theater thing. But we don't say the 1st A doesn't protect yelling "Fire" -- just under very certain circumstances. The 1st A also deals with speech differently based on whether it serves the core purpose of the Amendment -- political expression. So, courts permit more regulation of purely commercial speech and, technically, allow obscenity to be regulated. I'd follow that same line of reasoning with other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

[AlabamAlum]

I like Williamson, too.

[Jeff Buchanan]

So, after posting details of FL HB291 (which is intended to prohibit possession of a specific list of assault weapons or large capacity magazines), I asked Kapture to offer an argument as to why he thought he needed to own one of these.

If I'm reading the applicable response, Kapture posted a picture of a mini14. If I'm reading the details of HB219 correctly, this particular weapon would not be among those prohibited in the FL law. I think you cherry picked the section of HB219 you quoted as the entirety of it includes an "and" clause that further defines an assault weapon and that, as I read it, would exclude the mini14 from the list of prohibited firearms.

What bothers me about your response, Kapture, is that it is an example of what those opposed to any level of gun control legislation (e.g., in the FL case a well circumscribed type of assault weapons) default to. I'd call it obfuscation and/or avoidance of answering questions regarding the need for private ownership of assault firearms (according to the federal definition).

Additionally, we had talent chime in with the "never going to happen or this (I assume HB219) isn't going anywhere." talent goes on to raise two issues when he "wonders if it’s (HB219) retroactive and confiscatory or prospective..... and the Heller decision and I am assuming here referring to District of Columbia v. Heller then suggesting 1st Amendment (Religion, etc.) jurisprudence is a template for interpretation of the Second (Right to bear arms). Well, I'd call this throwing in more highbrow reasoning why all attempts to regulate assault firearms are unworthy and bound to fail not on their merits but rather on technicalities.

In working on this response, I noted that in the Heller decision, the SC did not rule on the State's authority to regulate firearms. However, in a subsequent ruling, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the SC ruled that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities. So, I'm learning as we go along here.

If I'm reading the law correctly, both of these rulings involved hand guns. I don't think Assault Firearms are a protected weapon under the Second.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1612PU.

The ruling referenced above is fairly new and I can't say with certainty whether or not it has been reviewed and/or reversed. If not, and I think that is the case, Assault Firearms (not hand guns) CAN be regulated by the states. So, here we are back at sqaure one:

Kapture, why do you feel you need to own an Assualt Firearm and further as you have spoken to defend your home with one (you used the term semi-automatic)?

On another issue, and this is beyond the narrow scope of the question I'm asking Kapture, the article I linked to above includes a comment on an essential concern underlying the current debate raised by the FL killings,to wit:

.......Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote about empowering voters, not courts, to decide whether to adopt gun restrictions. “To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny – this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation,” he wrote.

So, for gun advocates who attempt to expand the meaning of the Second to meet their purposes and further tend to obfuscate or confuse the arguments against regulation of assault firearms let's get down to the nut cutting here. There is no rational argument that I can accept for owning a military style, assault firearm. Moreover, as I read it, there is no reason that the states cannot regulate assault firearms as the state of FL, among others, are attempting to do. Therefor, talent, I find your dismissal of FL's attempt to do so on the basis that it's not going anywhere is weak sauce.

Finally, in a cursory reading of the provisions of FL HB219, it does appear to be retroactive and confiscatory. However, there is a defined process of how owners of a covered Assault Weapon (as defined in HB219) may lawfully dispose of one. I think this renders Kaptur's concern about being a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of going into homes and seizing firearms. IOW, these concerns can be legitimately dealt with in the law and raising them is just another attempt to place roadblocks to sensible gun regulation.

[Kapture1]

So, after posting details of FL HB291 (which is intended to prohibit possession of a specific list of assault weapons or large capacity magazines), I asked Kapture to offer an argument as to why he thought he needed to own one of these.

If I'm reading the applicable response, Kapture posted a picture of a mini14. If I'm reading the details of HB219 correctly, this particular weapon would not be among those prohibited in the FL law. I think you cherry picked the section of HB219 you quoted as the entirety of it includes an "and" clause that further defines an assault weapon and that, as I read it, would exclude the mini14 from the list of prohibited firearms.

What bothers me about your response, Kapture, is that it is an example of what those opposed to any level of gun control legislation (e.g., in the FL case a well circumscribed type of assault weapons) default to. I'd call it obfuscation and/or avoidance of answering questions regarding the need for private ownership of assault firearms (according to the federal definition).

Additionally, we had talent chime in with the "never going to happen or this (I assume HB219) isn't going anywhere." talent goes on to raise two issues when he "wonders if it’s (HB219) retroactive and confiscatory or prospective..... and the Heller decision and I am assuming here referring to District of Columbia v. Heller then suggesting 1st Amendment (Religion, etc.) jurisprudence is a template for interpretation of the Second (Right to bear arms). Well, I'd call this throwing in more highbrow reasoning why all attempts to regulate assault firearms are unworthy and bound to fail not on their merits but rather on technicalities.

In working on this response, I noted that in the Heller decision, the SC did not rule on the State's authority to regulate firearms. However, in a subsequent ruling, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the SC ruled that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities. So, I'm learning as we go along here.

If I'm reading the law correctly, both of these rulings involved hand guns. I don't think Assault Firearms are a protected weapon under the Second.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKBN1612PU.

The ruling referenced above is fairly new and I can't say with certainty whether or not it has been reviewed and/or reversed. If not, and I think that is the case, Assault Firearms (not hand guns) CAN be regulated by the states. So, here we are back at sqaure on:

Kapture, why do you feel you need to own an Assuat Firearm and further as yo have spoken to defend your home with one (you used the term semi-automatic)?

On another issue, and this is beyond the narrow scope of the question I'm asking Kapture, the article I linked to above includes a comment on an essential concern underlying the current debate raised by the FL killings,to wit:

.......Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote about empowering voters, not courts, to decide whether to adopt gun restrictions. “To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny – this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation,” he wrote.

So, for gun advocates who attempt to expand the meaning of the Second to meet their purposes and further tend to obfuscate or confuse the arguments against regulation of assault firearms let's get down to the nut cutting here. There is no rational argument that I can accept for owning a military style, assault firearm. Moreover, as I read it, there is no reason that the states cannot regulate assault firearms as the state of FL, among others, are attempting to do. Therefor, talent, I find your dismissal of FL's attempt to do so on the basis that it's not going anywhere is weak sauce.

Finally, in a cursory reading of the provisions of FL HB219, it does appear to be retroactive and confiscatory. However, there is a defined process of how owners of a covered Assault Weapon (as defined in HB219) may lawfully dispose of one. I think this renders Kaptur's concern about being a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of going into homes and seizing fireamrs. IOW, these concerns can be legitimately dealt with in the law and raising them is just another attempt to place roadblocks to sensible gun regulation.

Sorry, I had just got done listening to the argument that the mini 14 was based on the M14 which was a Military rifle and all military "style" semi automatics should automatically be considered an assault weapon. Fucking twitter.

Feinstein's last gun ban actually banned the transfer of grandfathered so called assault weapons, meaning my father could not leave me his guns that he purchased legally.

In terms of you asking why I would need an AR15, I would first say the same reason I choose to buy a corvette over a Buick. But beyond that, the 2A is a free people's last defense of liberty. With all the talk that Trump is orange Hitler, the idea they all want him to take away the guns that would allow us to fight fascist rule is comical. It will not be likely in my lifetime, perhaps and hopefully not my kids life time, but the right to own weapons approaching what our own military has is to guard against our own government going tyrannical. There has been plenty of examples of this happening within the last 100 years if you think that it couldn't happen. I would also point you to the 1940's when we rounded up all Americans with Japanese descent and threw them in camps if you think it couldn't happen here. Jordan Peterson touches on this a number of times, that you wouldn't have to imagine too long and hard before you can see yourself forcing a political prisoner to carry a 100 pound bag of salt to one end of the camp and back.

You may consider that paranoid. You may consider that out of bounds. You Might consider that the rare chance of foreign invasion or domestic usurpation not being worth the risk of kids lives being in danger. You might even attempt to argue that the 2A was for hunting or that just after going to war with the greatest military superpower the modern world (at the time) had seen and winning their freedom in a bloodbath that the Founding Fathers never would have guessed that tyranny could ever occupy governmental control (although I think they were well aware) and therefore didn't write the 2A for that. All of those are fine, I have heard them all. But this country isn't just a piece of land, it's not just a place one is born, it's an idea that has lit the world for two centuries. It's not just a tribute to our living, but to those that gave the last full measure of devotion. It will be defended at the barrel of a gun, even against itself.

[iam416]

First, Buchanan, Florida, as with all states, is bound by the Constitution. To the extent that one thinks the 2nd Amendment means what it says, then the Florida is very much constrained.

Second, the Courts are rarely the roadblock to enacting legislation on gun control. It's far more often the political process. The notion, as expressed by Judge Wilkinson, that the Courts have taken this issue from the polity is an absolute fucking canard. The reason I said the Florida legislation isn't going anywhere is exactly because of this -- the legislature won't pass it.

Third, in terms of actual policy -- whether the proposed sweeping ban of roughly 80% of the firearms sold today is a good or bad idea -- there are a couple points. One, we had a ban on semi-automatic rifles with detachable cartridges for awhile under Federal law. That did not reduce crime or murders (though, god bless, homicides have been dropping since the 1990s). That's policy, not reactionary hysteria. Second, semi-automatics are, in fact, widely owned. We're not talking about banning fully automatic M16s or cannons or tanks. Third, no one on the other side has offered a shred of actual evidence that withstands any scrutiny that the bill would meet the objectives. It's more along the lines of "we've got to do something!" I find that an awful, awful reason to pass legislation.

I will not change your mind one iota on this, nor will you mine so this post is an exercise in futility. But, you addressed some of my thoughts and I ought to give you a response.

Well, I'd call this throwing in more highbrow reasoning why all attempts to regulate assault firearms are unworthy and bound to fail not on their merits but rather on technicalities.

Not all. Most. Incidentally, I'd support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. TBH, I don't care that much one way or the other, but if I were pressed I'd vote for its repeal. But, that's the Constitutional process we're afforded to get rid of it. The Constitutional process is, IMO, very much NOT allowing an unelected, unaccountable judiciary say that the words don't mean what they say (as the 4th Circuit willfully did -- along with ignoring Heller). That is not the fucking process. So, call it high brow or whatever you want to call it in order to justify your "Ends Justify the Means" approach. But, as I've said on numerous occasions, process matters a great deal to me. In fact, I find your dismissal of process way, way, way more disagreeable than your overall guns position.

[AlabamAlum]

By in large, when people say "assault rifle" they are talking cosmetics. One may argue that capacity (how much ammo it holds) is the difference, but that is actually not the case because many of the rifles that have that hunting rifle look (that most are okay with) can accept a high capacity magazine.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Kapture ...... golf clap.

talent ....... fair points, all of them. I'm not dismissive of process and especially as it ties in with your comment that the courts aren't blocking gun control, the legislative process is.

In my initial post on the subject of FL HB219 and regulation of Assault Firearms in general, I spoke of the need for local action and I should have been more precise as I feel that includes working your elected state reps. So, I understand and respect the implications of the legislative process on achieving any goal involving the regulation of assault firearms.

Appreciate your response.

[hack]

The kids don't care about any of these details. They're keeping it simple, stupid. Just like the rest of the world does on this debate. I don't think this is the tipping-point shooting, and the kids protesting here and now aren't going to change a thing, IMO. But its closer to a tipping point than ever before, now that we have loud victims. Supporters of any nuanced argument here had better hope the school shooters of tomorrow target younger children in the future, and not high-school kids just about to find their political voices. It would be a very predictably American thing to do to wildly overcorrect and have the world's most restrictive gun laws.

[iam416]

I guess CNN had some sort hokey townhall or something last night where people/ kids could scream at politicians about not passing gun laws and call them murderers. Charles Cooke raises a pretty good point, IMO -- a lot of people love it because they imagine themselves as those who are screaming; they see their opinions given voice. But what goes unsaid is that a lot of people -- perhaps even more people -- see themselves as Marco Rubio, not the berating teen.

[AlabamAlum]

How many firearm murders do we have a year? 8000? (Suicides usually gets lumped in with the number, I pulled those out - there are twice as many firearm suicides as actual murders)

- 2% of the counties in the US account for over 50% of those murders (almost all pistols).
- And on the other end of the spectrum, 70% of the counties in the US have 1 or fewer firearm murders per year. The whacko mass murderer is responsible for less than one half of 1% of the murders.

There is a problem with firearm ownership. But it's a very obvious and localized issue.

(The following is not intended as a strawman, just a logical extension of extremes we can go to in order to give up freedoms for public safety)

But sure, outlaw guns (either with an actual ban or de facto ban by making so many permits and regulations that they are unobtainable) in the name of public safety. But don't stop there if we really want to save lives. We have around 10,000 alcohol-related car crash fatalities in the US. Bring back prohibition and make the speed limit 35 mph with speed governors mandated on all cars. Outlaw cigarettes and save 500,000 people a year. After that, we can go after sugary and high fat foods and work our way down the list until we get to hang gliding and mountain lion wrestling.

[hack]

So the idea is that most people would have more sympathy for a politician than for a kid who eight days ago was huddled under his desk hearing the gunshots and fearing for his life?

[hack]

How many firearm murders do we have a year? 8000? (Suicides usually gets lumped in with the number, I pulled those out - there are twice as many firearm suicides as actual murders)

- 2% of the counties in the US account for over 50% of those murders (almost all pistols).
- And on the other end of the spectrum, 70% of the counties in the US have 1 or fewer firearm murders per year. The whacko mass murderer is responsible for less than one half of 1% of the murders.

There is a problem with firearm ownership. But it's a very obvious and localized issue.

(The following is not intended as a strawman, just a logical extension of extremes we can go to in order to give up freedoms For public safety)

But sure, outlaw guns (either with an actual ban or de facto ban by making so many permits and regulations that they are unobtainable) in the name of public safety. But don't stop there if we really want to save lives. We have around 10,000 alcohol-related car crash fatalities in the US. Bring back prohibition and make the speed limit 35 mph with speed governors mandated on all cars. Outlaw cigarettes and save 500,000 prople a year. After that, we can go after sugary and high fat foods and work our way down the list until we get to hang gliding and mountain lion wrestling.

Public policy isn't always driven by facts. Arguably it is increasingly driven by feelings. If you are convinced by these numbers, you'd maybe want to do some form of gun control now, before the ranks of voters swell with people who don't give a crap about any of these nuanced approaches at all.

[AlabamAlum]

Oh, I know, hack. I know. Facts often have no place in public policy.

[Kapture1]

So the idea is that most people would have more sympathy for a politician than for a kid who eight days ago was huddled under his desk hearing the gunshots and fearing for his life?

I'm not disparaging anyone by saying that being a victim of this attack or any attack doesn't make someone an expert at policy.

And it's not just kids and it's not just guns, When Jimmy Kimmel trotted out his son and cried about saving 0bamacare, first off, he's not on 0bamacare exchanges. Second, just because your kid has something wrong with him, and I'm glad he is ok now, but that doesn't make you an expert on the healthcare system, it doesn't make you an expert on policy, and it doesn't mean that a victim status makes your opinion anymore valid.

These kids are an expert at being in a traumatic situation. I don't think they have studied the issues long enough to be an expert on the topic in the slightest. Hell, I would argue that a victim is exactly the wrong person to be setting public policy.

[Kapture1]

Public policy isn't always driven by facts. Arguably it is increasingly driven by feelings. If you are convinced by these numbers, you'd maybe want to do some form of gun control now, before the ranks of voters swell with people who don't give a crap about any of these nuanced approaches at all.

lol


If we want to keep things simple, I would just ask the control freaks what they think of the cops, what they think of Trump. Then ask them if they want the police and government in charge of 100% of the guns.