Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot,
by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse.
" -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, December 16, 2012

The Jackhole of Newtown, CT, Part Two

(Part one, which you should read first.)

This is more of a warning to the gun community: More gun control laws, in some form or another, are coming.

Constitutional rights are not absolute. For example, in the last few decades, both legislatures and the courts have been working hard to eviscerate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. You effectively surrender your 4th Amendment rights against searches and seizures as soon as you put the keys into the ignition of your car. This happens because you can't realistically drive down the street without violating some traffic ordinance. When you do, a cop can pull you over and he can arrest you for the violation instead of giving you a citation. If he arrests you, then your car is towed to a police impound lot and it is given an "inventory search". Which means that when you get into a car, you have entered a police state.

First Amendment rights are not absolute. Depending on the form of speech, government can add time, manner and place restrictions. Content restrictions are harder to enforce, but they do happen.[1] "Protecting our children" is one of the reasons why content restrictions can be legal. It is one of the underlying justifications for restrictions on purveyors of X-rated materials. There are some materials that even possession of will land you in prison for a longer term than attempting to kill someone.

Second Amendment rights are also not absolute. You can't go down to Wal-Mart and buy a M-2 machine gun, a rocket launcher, a gallon of VX or a flamethrower.[2]

One of the mistakes that the gun-control advocates make is that they declare that a certain style of weapon "have no sporting purpose". When asked what weapons do have a "sporting purpose", to essentially concede that those such weapons are legitimate, they decline to do so.[3] The gun-rights advocates have not been gullible enough, at least since the 1980s, to play that game. And because the gun-control advocates won't budge from their "no" tactic, national legislation generally goes nowhere.[4]

The smartest thing to do, now is to say: "OK, so you say that EBRs[5] have no sporting purpose. How do you define a 'sporting purpose' and what firearms fall under that criteria?" They won't do that, they'll just keep with the "these guns are bad" drumbeat. And for now, at least, there will be no national change in gun-control legislation.

Even when the gun-control advocates proclaim that this needs to be done "to protect our children", then they should be made to define what firearms are OK to possess. They won't, for they probably feel that there are millions of families looking at what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary and saying "there, but for fate/luck/grace, go I" and they'll be able to ram a ban through. I think that a blanket ban will fail, for there are enough Democrats who know that they will lose their cushy legislative jobs if such a bill goes through.

Sooner or later, though, the gun-control advocates are going to break the code and offer to discuss what is and what is not a "legitimate sporting purpose". And then the "not now, not ever" gun-rights advocates are going to be faced with the same dilemma now faced by the "no tax increase, ever" crowd: Either negotiate or have something crammed down their gullets.

(Part Three follows.)
[1] Both sides of the political spectrum try this.
[2] I am not getting into a discussion of what weapons are legal and what are not.
[3] In this, they negotiate like the GOP on budget matters: "We want more cuts, so you tell us what more you'll cut."
[4] Expect to see a complete black-rifle ban enacted in CT, if not a few other states.
[5] "Evil black rifles".


Eck! said...

if you back far enough away from the general picture of guns the actual battle is about responsibility and mostly the lack thereof.

Those that advocate bans are irresponsible and poor at critical thinking to see that what they do is fob that off on the "state" in the hops they can sort it out. Which I add never happens as laws are general and courts are then forced to adjudicate the exceptions.

At the other end there is a belief that any restriction on life is bad. Well I have news for them, life is hard and responsibility is part of that.

In the end the anigun and the absolute no controls people exhibit the same problem, an extreme lack of responsibility.


Bustednuckles said...

Their standard knee jerk reaction, they are already talking about a gun ban when CONgress reconvenes.
Stupid bastards have a short memory. The Dems got their asses handed to them the last time they did it when Clinton was in office.

Eck! said...

one more comment on this as it was a powerful read.



CenterPuke88 said...

I was overjoyed to see a local columnist (Bud Kennedy, Fort Worth Star-Telegram http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/15/4487753/school-killers-mom-made-irresponsible.html) finally write what I have been thinking for the last couple of days. The mother here made a fatal mistake in allowing access to her gun collection to her unstable son. Granted, that is not proven...and may prove to be wrong, but it seems likely that there wasn't sufficient security on the weapons. If that turns out to be wrong, I'll apologize, but that simple fact is the genesis of many a gun tragedy.

On the non-sporting front, I work with people who own and shoot AR-15's and such for sport, and I owned an SKS at one time. I understand the arguments on both sides, but I'm hard pressed to argue for an absolute right to own an AR-15 vs. a more conventional deer rifle or such. Can you hunt with an AR-15, sure you can. Do you need such a rifle with a high capacity magazine to hunt, no you don't.

The tinfoil-hat crowd will trot out the resisting the government rational for military type weapons, but the reality is if the U.S. Government decided to suppress the people, a small group of "citizens" with such weapons would not stop a thing. That time is long past.

Certainly more of a move to enforcing responsibility would be a good step, and such laws are already on the books in many places.

w3ski said...

It is far past the time to have a Country Wide discussion about Mental Illness! Especially Diagnosis and Treatment.
To use up an old phrase "it's not the gun but the people pulling the trigger". This latest and it seems most all the other mass killers have one thing in common, they are Crazy.
why don't we try to deal with the crazy part? Oh yea, I know, half or more of the Republican Party could be considered crazy by any standard.
Really tho, we Need to wake up to the ugly reality of the level of Mental Illness present in our Country and deal with that.
I have been a gun owner for 49 years and I have yet to kill another human. Many more gun owners than crazy people can say the same thing.
Deal with the Crazy, finally.

Latitude 43 said...

I work with people who would fit the profile of a mass murderer. Probably about 2-5 people I would guess would someday kill us all at work if they snapped. Just my gut feel. Do they have a mental illness? I bet some of them do. How do you determine which one is a killer? Their parents are long gone, they live alone. Should we have a specialist interview everyone every 6 months to determine who's nuts? Don't think that will happen. How many people fit the profile, but never act upon their feelings? Do we lock up anyone who some "expert" feels may someday possibly try to pull off a mass murder? Be realistic.

Does the USA have the only people capable of mass murder? No, it's a human condition across all the nations. What is special about the good old US of A is the extent to which the disturbed can inflict damage, and we all know why. Yes, your hobby will be restricted, because nobody beats mothers protecting their children. I'm just sorry it had to come to this before action was taken.

squatlo said...

We dose our kids with Ritalin, put a copy of Call of Duty into their Xmas stocking, and go to sleep each night wondering if the ticking clock in the next room is about to make headlines.

Improving access to quality mental health care for concerned parents to use when they suspect a problem with their kids is the first step. Calling for a ban on guns is ridiculous, and you're hearing that from a guy who doesn't own one and thinks the NRA shares much of the blame for what keeps happening in America.

Letting folks play with assault rifles on gun ranges sounds fine to me. Letting them take one home with several fifty shot clips sounds like denial.

Joe said...

I'd like to echo Eck!, about responsibility. There's an important piece of responsibility missing, these days. When I was young, if I went to buy a gun, the guy behind the counter would have asked me, "What are you going to use it for, son?" And when I didn't have a good answer, no sale. And, given how far I could travel from home back then, he'd probably know my parents. In other words, mandatory background checks. The people who sell guns have completely abdicated their share of the responsibility.

Ms. Lanza was irresponsible, and has paid for it; when will the gun dealers have to own up?

Eck! said...

"Yes, your hobby will be restricted,.." Does that means we assume that personal protection of ones self is a hobby? I do hope that was a grammatical error.
I can see if you view target or hunting as "hobby".

As to mothers protecting children I suspect that that mother had been doing
exactly that but that does not change the fact that a person went out of control
in the most horrifying way.

That is the one use of firearms that has the most active debate. Do I as a person
have the right to defend myself with lethal force? Do I have to fight tooth and nail though a maze of incomprehensible laws to to get the license to do so at the whim of some arbitrary decision of one person despite background checks.


Eck! said...

Joe, He was not legal (underage) to buy a gun and stole (borrowed without permission and underage) his mothers. If he had ever been admitted as a
mental patient he would be ineligible.

If you try to buy a firearm and your too young, out of state or cannot pass the check you are not getting it. In some states like MA you need a
FID (checks applied prior to ownership) before you can buy a firearm or even a bullet. There are laws.

What people forget is to buy and own a firearm most cases you need to know the laws that are already in effect. That is part of the responsibility. The gun dealer is licensed and has to account for that sale as well its his responsibility.


Latitude 43 said...

I think you are being paranoid if you think you need an ar15 for personal protection. How many of you have pulled your assault weapon in defense in the last 10 years? C'mon man.

Eck! said...

OK you get your AR15, now is a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle a problem then, is a Ruger 1022 a problem? Wheres the line? Is a 12ga pump unacceptable. Paranoia is not an issue here especially for me.

How bout a compound bow? Wheres the line? Why is a AR15 so bad and a bolt action
1903 springfield or a WWII M1 Garand more or less OK?

Then again one of those .308 or .458 cal compressed air rifles and step outside even the draconian MA laws as its an air rifle and not restricted. Granted it
can take down a feral hog and is easily as powerful as a Kentucky long rifle. Though it can reload far faster. I think they are even legal in Canada.


Nangleator said...

We'll have to come to the realization that, as a society, we accept this as a cost for the freedoms we have chosen. There will be jibber jabber about gun control, and even mental health care, but no substantive changes will happen.

But the slaughters will continue. That's just who we are.

Buford said...

Just to enter a thought into this thread...as a hobby, hunting is becoming less of a hobby as the "hunted" becomes more scarce...the "managed" game is being "managed" into extinction...the price of a hunting has increased to a point where it is very expensive to hunt...once again hunting becomes a rich mans' hobby...I live in what used to be a wild game heaven for hunting....now, there is a noticeable decline in heard sizes, and an increase of illegal hunting techniques...so hunting cannot be used for any argument for any reason....these gun toting "hunters" have killed most everything out there...

Palli said...

Sadly, 'sporting purpose" & "recreational purpose" may be how these people are using lethal weapons. With the immediacy of a gun, the self-satisfaction of planning & executing these acts of perverse humanity has become an easy way to "feel better" and gain the strength to kill themselves-to end it all.

Cthulhu said...

No, it's not a problem. Simply restrict magazine size to 5 rounds max. You don't need a 30 rounds mag for deer hunting, or varmint control. You wanna shoot 30 rounds a throw? Join the Marines.

The problem with EBRs is the large capacity mags and the kind of people who Want them. If you want to carry a military rifle, join the military. You want an EBR? Fine. No more than 5 rounds in a mag, period. Get rid of anything larger, buy em back, ban the import and manufacture of them, impose severe and painful penalties for having them.

No need for those 50 cal jobbers either. Again, you wanna play sniper? Join the GD Army.

223 ain't the best caliber for deer hunting, any honest hunter will tell you. So that argument fails. Same for the AK. Not bad for varmints, tho.

But again, 5 rounds max. If you can't hit a deer with 5 rounds, it ain't happening. Back to training for you.

But I don't LIKE having to reload every 5 rounds! I hear the cry. Guess what? I don't either. Life is FULL of things you don't like but you have to deal with. Not getting everything you want is something you should have learned by the 3rd grade.

It's WAY past time to revamp the 2nd amendment. Or do away with it entirely. Que the outraged screams of rabid wannabe Wolverines

Another thing that would help reduce these shootings? Universal health care that includes mental health care.

We CAN enact sensible, well thought out ways to reduce the chance of these events and make our homes schools and streets safer. The only question is, do we have the moral courage to do so and hold our elected representatives feet to the fire.

The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact, and 20 dead first graders is simply unacceptable. If your gun is more important to you than those kids lives, something is wrong. With you.

I've spent 30 years of my life professionally carrying a gun, as a sailor, as a soldier and as a cop. I still have guns, like guns, and have a CCW. And I'm telling you, America, we need to do better.

Johnny Carp said...

All regulated hunting that I am familiar with (Illinois) restricts the type of gun, caliber, shotgun or rifle or handgun, etc. and magazine capacity while hunting.

Do all states do this?

If so, this should be the restriction for all domestic usage weapon sales....

Then on to nationwide registeration, insurance regulations etc.

Will it stop all mass killings? Of course not.

BUT!!! this would severly limit the opportunities for this sort of thing.

Comrade Misfit said...

Have you looked at what it takes to revise or eliminate a Constitutional amendment?

2/3rds vote of the House, 2/3rds vote of the Senate and then it has to be ratified by 34th of the state legislatures.

Or we can have a "constitutional convention", which requires 2/3rds of the states to call and 3/4th to ratify.

Neither is going to happen.

Personal ownership of guns is a guaranteed right. That is a reality which has never been accepted by the gun-control advocates.

Comrade Misfit said...

The guns used by the shooter in Newtown were registered with the state of CT. So what will registration accomplish? Even Canada has recognized that registration of rifles and shotguns is pointless.

Registration of firearms is pointless, anyway. People bent on breaking the law aren't going to give a shit as to whether or not a weapon is registered.

Keith said...

When you by a clothes iron, the iron has a sticker on it stating that you can burn yourself when ironing clothes that you are wearing at the time of ironing. Maybe guns should have a sticker warning that death or serious injury can occur if used improperly.
Personal responsibility is gone in America, the rule of law is non-existent. HBSC is but one example of this. Bring back a justice system that applies to all, hold all people to their actions, and hold politicians to their word.

Johnny Carp said...

Oh man! Now I'm gonna need to get back to you later on this.......I really want to right now but I gotta pay some bills first.

I hate being responsible......

Johnny C

Merlin said...

I don't usually comment. For the record. As a Veteran with direct knowledge of the damage a bullet can to to a human being I think everyone who has no knowledge of this damage should just shut up and sit down. This includes all of the posers out there with the highest caliber gun collection they could buy, just to make their di*k look bigger. Now everyone who has no children or doesn't give a cr*p about children, you sit down and shut up too. Starting in 1982, << that was the Regan administration, 83 percent of the mental health institutions in this country have been defunded, mostly by one party. Weaponry has been literally put on street, making access available to all, and I mean all, including criminal types and just plain simple people. Again mostly by one political party. Just use an ounce of though and you see this was not a good idea. Back to the damage done by a bullet to a human. Normally the small entry hole they usually show on TV is the least of your worry. Bullets regardless of caliber are made to tumble and roll and splatter on contact. Leaving an exit wound about 5 to 10 inches wide. No one can live more than 5 minutes with a hole that size in their body, not to mention the internal damage, most deaths are actually caused by "bleed out" you actually bleed all over the floor or dirt or wear ever you land after your 2 to 3 foot sail through the air. Now all those who think this sounds like fun or sport , there still is war going on over in the sand box Georgie boy liked to call Dickies money pit, I recommend you sign up! Taste a bullet.

Comrade Misfit said...

after your 2 to 3 foot sail through the air.

Might I suggest that you review Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

Eck! said...

Johnny Carp: Then on to nationwide registration, insurance regulations etc.

There is only one reason to register firearms... it makes it easier to get to the right door to collect them.

All I keep hearing and reading is "we gotta do..." which translated means someone else needs to create and enforce yet another useless and ambiguous law that doesn't stop this horrific crap. The "we" always means not me but someone else, This is an example of the ^&@(#) lack of responsibility I wrote about.


Eck! said...

Merlin: That was busted by the Mythbusters guys. Thanks for playing.

Most of what you said was reduced to so much noise by your last sentence.

I have seen what a 3" 12ga Brenneke slug does to a deer at 20yds? I do
and I fired that one. The deer didn't fly either all 160 field dressed pound of it.. though the bruise from the recoil was felt for a few days.

Your presumption of what people have seen or not is also a bit over the top. Yes, TV makes everything pretty or blow up but most people
understand that is not real life or maybe they don't and that is the
problem. Live long enough and you may get to identify a few very dead
bodies in you life I did before I was 25.

I bet you believe the barrel shroud is that think that goes up too just like NY-McCarthy.