Saturday, August 24, 2013

How A Nation Can and Does Change...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any
pretence, raised in the United States."

–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution, 1787

That was then.

In an interview with the Daily Times Herald in Carroll, Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

Muhlbauer, a Democrat from the western Iowa town of Manilla, is a cattleman and farmer. The newspaper reported that he owns a .410 shotgun, a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol.

“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer told the newspaper during a December 19 audiotaped interview. “We can’t have those running around out here.

Dan Muhlbauer, Iowa State Representative.

This now.

Will an eventual call for confiscation and a complete ban on owning firearms be made by our statist national leaders? Perhaps only the Shadow Knows for sure. But, don't count it out because a bit of internet searching will turn up a lot of individuals who would be perfectly happy with just such actions being taken.

85 comments:

  1. This and the other calls for theft of firearms in several other states makes me tempted to get a gun before I can't. And to use the gun show loophole so I won't be on the national registry, and it would bbe harder for them to come after me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aren't 80-90% of the guns manufactured today considered semi-automatic?

    ReplyDelete
  3. At no time in the foreseeable future will there be a confiscation of all civilian firearms in America. It's silly to believe otherwise. Just 30-40 years ago there was strong support for banning handguns, but even then not enough. At this time, we can't even get friggin' mass murder clips off the streets, or keep guns out of bars. The Gun Nuts are living up to their idiom quite successfully these days.

    I wouldn't worry too much about it.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I wouldn't worry much about it " is precisely why maybe we should.

    With rights there are attendant responsibilities. Acting responsibly ensures the continuation of said rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all well and fine to be a vigilant advocate for your Second Amendment rights. It's silly, crazy, paranoid, loony nonsense to actually believe the government will be coming for all your guns anytime in the foreseeable future. It is not in anyone's interest. Yes, one day we may see more intelligent and responsible regulation of the militia, but now? No. For Christ's sake, we can't even know if people on the terrorist m'f'n watchlist have guns!!!

      This is a diversionary issue, with no real purpose but to keep our eyes off the real life, real world, real issues of the day. You're a fool to be suckered in by this.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey said: " It's silly, crazy, paranoid, loony nonsense to actually believe the government will be coming for all your guns anytime in the foreseeable future"

      If that is true, then the threats from all these Democratic leaders to specifically steal our guns should be ignored?

      "This is a diversionary issue"

      Then tell these Dems to stop threatening our rights.

      two more examples

      I'd be all for it, Jersey, if the Democrats would stop diverting us from the important, real world issues of the day, with nasty threats like this to steal guns. They are the problem, not those pointing out that their laws are very bad ideas.

      Delete
  5. Do you not understand that it would take changing the Constitution? Do you know what a difficult process that is?

    As Jersey stated, we can't even get BACKGROUND CHECKS, which a huge majority of Americans want. How in the hell would hand gun confiscation happen?

    Everyone knows that will not happen. This sounds like scare tactics to get people to buy more guns, something the gun manufacturers encourage. Scare folks about taking away their guns; and gun sales increase. See D. Luthor's comment, for example. (BTW, D. Luthor, the NRA is keeping a secret "gun registry" on gun sales, and the gun buyers don't know it.)

    There is no danger whatsoever of anyone losing their 2nd Amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw: then you need to tell those Democratic Party officials all over the nation to stop scaring us with their calls to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate". That is where the scare comes from.

      Mulbauer is only the latest of many examples. Scary disregard for our human rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

      Delete
    2. D. Luthor, you actually believe that owning a gun is a human right?

      OMG!

      Delete
    3. And Shaw? Tell me more about this secret NRA registry. Can't I avoid it by refusing to have anything to do with the NRA? Regardless, I doubt very much the NRA would use this registry to steal guns. That however is a real danger with a government registry.

      Complete apples and oranges, Shaw.

      By the way I support background checks as long as any record of the check is completely destroyed after. Make sure of this, and I am on board.

      Delete
    4. I have an idea, D. Luthor, you tell those scary cons to stop making it harder for Americans to vote, and I'll tell the Dems to stop threatening to take away your rocket launchers, mkay?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. D. Luthor, you're not paying attention. You don't have to have anything to do with the N.R.A. They take the names of gun buyers from those who sell guns and the N.R.A. keeps a registry of who bought the gun and who they are. You obviously are unaware of this clandestine data mining by the N.R.A. That is a real danger with an N.R.A. registry.

      Delete
    7. Shaw: I am paying attention more than you are. If you pay cash, no one will know you are. And all the more reason to go to gun shows.

      Delete
  6. "Do you not understand it would take changing the Constitution?"

    Hold that thought.

    .......

    Do you mean like by, say, amending the Constitution? If so you are right, it won't happen. In our lifetime anyway.

    Regulations, aimed at slowly chipping away at second amendment rights is a step in that direction.

    I reiterate that with all rights there is the need, indeed a demand to act responsibly. This is something I believe the NRA, Ted Nugent, and the oher nut cases like that redneck sheriff awhile back fail to recognize.

    Society does change and evolve. It does not mean we have to give up or lose our Constitutional rights. It does require however we are smart in how we go about insuring their continuation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Shaw believes that one of our basic rights is not worth protection. Curious, RB, would you abolish any part of the Bill of Rightz? Yourself, if you had the power?

      Delete
    2. D. Luthor believes in disenfranchising African-Americans.

      Oh, wait.



      You didn't write that?



      Well neither did I write that one of our basic rights is not worth protecting.

      Delete
    3. Shaw said: "D. Luthor believes in disenfranchising African-Americans."

      Of course not.

      "Well neither did I write that one of our basic rights is not worth protecting."

      You appeared to scoff at the idea that the Bill of Rights protects our basic human rights. You even said "OMG". Any reading of that shows that you held one of our basic rights as not being worth protecting. I am glad you have backed away from your earlier comment.

      Delete
    4. No. D. Luthor, I wrote OMG! when you declared owning a gun was a "human right." If you believe that, then you need to report Japan as a country that violates human rights on a regular basis, since that country all but denies gun ownership to its citizens. Have you witnessed hordes of Japanese rioting in the streets because of this violation of their "human rights?" If not, why not?

      Japan is a constitutional monarchy, like England, another country that limits gun ownership. Hand guns, automatics and semi-automatics are illegal to own.

      So you need to include Endland as a country that denies certain human rights to its citizens. Why are their citizens rioting against the restrictions on their human rights?

      The United States far surpasses other countries in terms of gun related violence and death. The low numbers of gun-related deaths in countries that have strict gun control tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.

      A particular quote by Benjamin Franklin says, “Anyone who will trade freedom for security deserves neither.”

      Although the freedoms enjoyed in this country must be protected and upheld, statistics show that personal security within the United States is greatly hampered by lenient gun control laws.

      Delete
    5. Dennis is talking about his own Bill Of Rights. That is discernible due to the fact that he spelled "rights" with a "Z". In his "Bill of Rightz" African Americans disenfranchise themselves due to their not having the proper ID. And, yes, a gun is a "basic human right", as is using that gun to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical (socialist/progressive). The people that lived before guns were invented surely were lacking in that basic human right. They had a basic human right to a bow and arrow or a sharpened stick. Not as good as a gun, for certain, but good for killing anyone who thought they could force you into collectivism.

      Delete
    6. "No. D. Luthor, I wrote OMG! when you declared owning a gun was a "human right."

      I was specifically referring to the Bill of Rights.

      "If you believe that, then you need to report Japan as a country that violates human rights on a regular basis"

      I believe that the Bill of Rights protects inalienable human rights. You, quite clearly, again, do not, and are attacking the Bill of Rights.

      Japan? Japan is not subject to the United States Constitution. Sorry, Shaw, you are going way out in left field.

      "Japan is a constitutional monarchy, like England, another country that limits gun ownership. Hand guns, automatics and semi-automatics are illegal to own."

      Just because other countries do wrong things does not mean that the Us has to.

      "The low numbers of gun-related deaths in countries that have strict gun control tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws."

      It is easy to cook up statistics in an intellectually-deceptive way as you are doing in your argument to take away our basic rights. And it is equally as easy to puncture the abuse of statistics by pointing out facts such as the high gun homicide rate in US cities with strict gun control.

      "Although the freedoms enjoyed in this country must be protected and upheld, statistics show that personal security within the United States is greatly hampered by lenient gun control laws."

      They don't at all, especially considering the fact of crime committed by those who are in violation of these laws.

      Shaw, I don't know or care what kind of gun you have in your house. Or not. It's really not my business.

      Delete
    7. Here is some more evidence that the real threat of destruction of one of our basic rights.... the confiscation (theft) of our guns.... is a real danger. A scare tactic created entirely by progressives/Democrats who make scary statements.

      This one is from one of the most powerful elected Democratic Party leaders in the nation.

      "In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”

      “I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

      Cuomo continued, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

      From National Review

      (I checked this against other sources)

      Yes, it's a scare tactic coming from the Left.

      Delete
    8. RN said: "The defense rests."

      Les, it's obvious that there are many in the Democratic Party pushing for confiscation. Jersey might be partially right saying this will never happen when he says: "At no time in the foreseeable future will there be a confiscation of all civilian firearms in America. It's silly to believe otherwise."

      ...but considering that it keeps coming up from officials in one of America's two major parties, it is far "sillier" to completely dismiss this threat and pretend it doesn't exist.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, RN and Luthor. Cuomo is speaking of a specific type of assault weapon, not all weapons. Even the GOP's idol, Ronald Reagan agreed with Gov. Cuomo.

      "...in particular, Cuomo said, 'our focus is assault weapons,' because current state laws regulating the weapons 'have more holes that Swiss cheese.' ”

      "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'" --Ronald Reagan


      Assault weapons were banned in the past and even conservative candidate George W. Bush PROMISED to continue the ban, but then broke his promise.

      Luthor's statement on dismissing what Japan or England does with respect to the gun laws is inane. Luthor brought up the idea that owning a gun is a "human right."

      Do you feel "human rights" are important only for Americans, Luthor? Japanese and Englishmen are humans, are they not? Why wouldn't you concern yourself with countries that deny or limit human rights to their citizens?

      Sorry, RN. But the defense doesn't rest, since Gov. Cuomo is talking about a particular weapon that two conservative presidents also believed were unnecessary for hunting, Cuomo is not talking about banning ALL guns.

      I think this discussion could teeter on the hysterical if we don't keep to the facts.

      Delete
    10. RN said at 10:41 AM on 8/25/13 the following... "Regulations, aimed at slowly chipping away at second amendment rights is a step in that direction.

      I reiterate that with all rights there is the need, indeed a demand to act responsibly. This is something I believe the NRA, Ted Nugent, and the oher nut cases like that redneck sheriff awhile back fail to recognize.

      Society does change and evolve. It does not mean we have to give up or lose our Constitutional rights. It does require however we are smart in how we go about insuring their continuation."

      On that I rest the case I and no doubt millions of other reasonable Americans stand.

      Now, with respect to the one line response to my old buddy Derv, you may have misinterpreted the actual meaning of, "I rest my case." It was meant in that response line in a different context. I think The Shadow might be smiling.

      Delete
    11. In response to Shaw's 12:31 PM on this day 8/26/13... "Regulations, aimed at slowly chipping away at second amendment rights is a step in that direction.

      I reiterate that with all rights there is the need, indeed a demand to act responsibly. This is something I believe the NRA, Ted Nugent, and the oher nut cases like that redneck sheriff awhile back fail to recognize.

      Society does change and evolve. It does not mean we have to give up or lose our Constitutional rights. It does require however we are smart in how we go about insuring their continuation."

      Society does change and evolve. It does not mean we have to give up or lose our Constitutional rights. It does require however we are smart in how we go about insuring their continuation."

      On that I rest the case I and no doubt millions of other reasonable Americans stand.

      Now, with respect to the one line response to my old buddy Derv, you may have misinterpreted the actual meaning of, "I rest my case." It was meant in that response line in a different context. I think The Shadow might be smiling.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. It is sadly laughable when fully-indoctrinated worshipers of the state like Jersey and Shaw cite the constitution.

    Constitution? What constitution? That firewall between the powers, the ramparts of freedom protecting the liberties of the people against a tyrannical government? That constitution?

    That constitution is no more. It's ramparts have been sapped by special interest rent-seekers, and the firewall is a swiss cheese, eaten through by successive generations of progressive rats and cockroaches.

    The 4th Amendment is de facto, if not de jure, nonexistent. If it ain't dead, it's definitely on life support.

    Progressives of all parties stand on their little hind legs and wag their tails and cheer when Big Daddy Government blows away another right, so long as the cannon is aimed at their political enemies.

    It makes me sick to my stomach that otherwise apparently smart people refuse to see this. That is why we are going down the toilet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silver, stop lying. Liberals are right there with you guys on the anti-constitutional misbehavior of the government. Asking for a well regulated militia is not asking for some "progressive/liberal" distopia. The Constitution stands as long as the people want it. That's how it works. As long as you gun nuts demand an unregulated militia, it is you who are putting the Second Amendment in danger, because one day things may get so bad that the people actually do demand confiscation, and you guys will have only yourselves to blame.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. So there is no more Constitution, Silver? Were you stopped from attending your place of worship? Did a government agent come to your door after posting the above comment? Did the newspapers get shut down in your state? Can you and your neighbors assemble to criticize the government without being hauled off to jail? Has the government quartered soldiers in your home? Do you still have your guns? And can you not buy as many as you please? Do the accused get trials by juries? Or does the government arrest and electrocute or throw in jail for life everyone who is accused? Wouldn't you say electrocution or lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, but do you not support the right for states to execute whom they want?

      Your concern only with the Fourth Amendment does not mean we've thrown away the Constitution. If you don't like what's happening to the 4th Amendment, organize, get involved and do something about it instead of insulting and denigrating people. It's so much more intelligent and useful. Have a nice day.

      Delete
    3. What a tendentious answer. Of course there is still a constitution. My point is, the we say so progressives of all parties trample it at will when it serves them. And people like you and Jersey cheer it on.

      So, you are not concerned with the 4th Amendment violations?

      Oh, yeah, you're Boston strong, where storm trooper wannabes rousted pliant sheeple out of their houses and then shot up a man's boat.

      Your answer says it all. You love giving it up for big Daddy government.

      I want to see a republican in the white house again for no other reason that to hear you libs squeal again about rights and the constitution.

      Progressives are unprincipled, loving big government of the left, but hating when a George Bush moderate wields that same power.

      You both you do an intellectual self-inventory and examine your motives.

      Delete
    4. Silver you said, "I want to see a republican in the white house again for no other reason that to hear you libs squeal again about rights and the constitution."

      I certainly can relate to how you feel, progressives can be, shall we say overbearing and certainly wrong at times.

      If the republicans would nominate somebody that really meant what they say about fiscal responsibility and protecting the rights of the individual I'd vote for em in a New York minute.

      However, the reality has been the verbiage and the results haven't matched. So, as it stands now I will likely be voting third party AGAIN.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps, perhaps.Assuming of course he makes it through what will no doubt another gathering of circus clowns known as the republican DEBATES.

      Too early to make a decision on a potential candidaate to support, there is lots that can happen between now and then.

      For now I hoping Gary Johnson decides to run again as a LP candidate and a real spit fire surfaces as his running mate. One with real intelligence though. Not a Bachmann or Palin lightweight type.

      I guess I'll be voting my conscience when it comes down to the wire. Unless the republican party gets its act together, highly unlikely, I will be voting third party candidates wherever possible.

      In general the big fat elephant is shall we say full of hot air. As well as being as void of principle as ever a party was.

      If Rand Paul really had principles he would change his party affiliation to LP now and make the stand for what he professes to believe. I'm not holding my breath.

      Delete
  8. The day will come when RN, Dennis and Silverfiddle will join up with the rebel army to overthrow the US government. This could happen under president Hillary. As I recall Hillary wanted to sign some UN treaty that would result in a total gun confiscation. Have you started stockpiling your arsenal yet, RN? If not I suggest you and Dennis start attending those gun shows and accumulating as many fire arms as possible. You might need a shoulder fired rocket launcher to take down a drone (if they send one for you). Better add that to your shopping list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Derv old boy, as a restatement you said in response to me (yes, I take it personally)... "The day will come when RN, Dennis and Silverfiddle will join up with the rebel army to overthrow the US government. This could happen under president Hillary. As I recall Hillary wanted to sign some UN treaty that would result in a total gun confiscation. Have you started stockpiling your arsenal yet, RN? If not I suggest you and Dennis start attending those gun shows and accumulating as many fire arms as possible. You might need a shoulder fired rocket launcher to take down a drone (if they send one for you). Better add that to your shopping list. "

      Which leads me to believe you didn't bother to read what I said, I have reproduced it here for you re-reading, or perhaps in your sanctimonious case amusement... "I reiterate that with all rights there is the need, indeed a demand to act responsibly. This is something I believe the NRA, Ted Nugent, and the oher nut cases like that redneck sheriff awhile back fail to recognize."

      Have a good day Derv old buddy.

      Delete
    2. RN, I said "the day will come". For now it is in all our own rational self interests to act responsibly. I was referring to the day when the jack-booted Progressive brown shirts come for you. Then you'll need to be prepared, right? That you would deny this is understandable, though... given the very real possibility that someone at the NSA reads this blog. Now doubt they've probably already identified RN as someone who could give them trouble. Maybe it's time to shut down your blog and go underground?

      Delete
    3. Derv, you're losing it old buddy. But if spinning, twisting, and intentionally taking my words out of context so as to intentionally misrepresent them makes happy then have fun. Your doing so shows two things, 1) I have hit a nerve and your are made uncomfortable because of it and 2) I am right and you know it.

      And Derv old buddy, just a further data point for you, I am not going to allow RN USA to turn into a SWTD clone.

      Oh, almost forgot, I ain't shutting down my blog or my voice as much as you and possibly the NSA may salivate over that thought So thanks for mentioning it.

      Delete
  9. I'm still scratching my head thinking about this idea that we should keep our guns so we can overthrow the government.

    The life of the mind leads you to following the Syrian model, RN?
    It doesn't make me sick to my stomach as rational arguments do some gun loons but I really think it's a heavy does of romanticism that is at odds with your supposed reason.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that Shaw, Ducky, Jersey, and Dervish should all put signs on their front lawns informing the passers-by that their houses are gun-free zones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know my home is gun free? Maybe it's not. Just because I'm not a stupid idiot moron who blindly follows the NRA (guN ManufactuRers of America), that doesn't mean I'm averse to owning a gun.

      Do you gun loons really think that everyone who argues for a well-regulated militia is anti-gun? Projecting simpleness, Will?

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey said: " Just because I'm not a stupid idiot moron who blindly follows the NRA (guN ManufactuRers of America),"

      And just because I don't want to see our basic Constitutional rights eroded doesn't mean I am any sort of gun nut. Or that I even own a gun.

      Delete
    3. Excuse me, Will. Have you special information on what is in my house? Have you visited it without my knowledge? LOL! What Jersey said.

      Delete
    4. Will, don't be a fool.

      The break in will occur when you aren't home and they'll probably steal your gun.
      If that happened I would support a law that brought criminal charges against you for improper storage.

      Delete
    5. Ducky said: "The break in will occur when you aren't home and they'll probably steal your gun."

      All the more reason to have conceal-carry and take your gun with you when you go. Then, no storage problem. It is true that a gun in an empty home provides no protection.

      Delete
    6. Hmmm. Jersey said: "How do you know my home is gun free? Maybe it's not. Just because I'm not a stupid idiot moron who blindly follows the NRA (guN ManufactuRers of America), that doesn't mean I'm averse to owning a gun."

      Lets fact check this shall we?

      According to CNN: "5,400 -- Licensed firearms manufacturers in the United States in 2011."

      How many members does the NRA have? According to USA Today: NRA membership stood at 5 million in May 2013.

      Do the math... let's see.... the total of gun manufacturers, assuming 100% of them are in the NRA, is a tiny fraction of 1% of the total NRA membership.

      You might be confused, Jersey, with the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Federation), which is a trade group for the gun manufacturers: "The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 8,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers." Its membership total of 6,500 is pretty close to the humber of gun makers.... and also nothing at all like the membership of the NRA. There are a couple of other such organizations, also very tiny, like www.saami.org.

      It might serve you better, in the future, to get your organizations straight. Your sentence collapsed to the ground, shot full of holes by your assault weapon of carelessness.

      By the way, I have several friends who belong to the NRA. None of them is "stupid and blind". They may have different opinions than yo, Jersey, but it is sleazy of you to call them "stupid and blind" for not partaking of Jerseythink. None of them is a gun manufacturer (fitting in with how a tiny fraction of 1% of NRA members make guns.


      Delete
    7. The fact of the matter is that gun laws don't work. Washington DC instituted a gun ban and the crime rate went up and when they started allowing concealed carry the murder rate went down. And if you look at every recent multiple murder episode, all except for one took place at one of these supposed gun free zones. You're the frigging simpleton, Jersey/Shaw, thinking that the government can pass a bunch of laws that do literally nothing more than ban a line of guns based strictly on cosmetic features and inconveniences law abiding folks with meaningless background checks (which I'm willing to support a) because it seems to give people solace and b) because it shuts idiots like you up).

      Delete
  11. Is it just me or is this thread turning less serious? What do you think Derv old buddy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shaw said: "Sorry, RN and Luthor. Cuomo is speaking of a specific type of assault weapon, not all weapons."

    Assault weapon is a meaningless, emotion filled "definition" that is invalid in firearms classification. It is a non-technical term, and sometimes even hinges on the color a gun is painted, or whether or not it has a handle in a certain place. At least you acknowledge his greedy, extreme views, in which he did advocate stealing people's guns.

    Shaw said: "Luthor's statement on dismissing what Japan or England does with respect to the gun laws is inane."

    Your bringing up irrelevant foreign nations and how their citizens have less freedom is what is inane. Might be relevant in a conversation about foreign policy, but not in this conversation in which you are repeatedly wanting to deny Americans the human rights which are protected and enumerated in the "Bill of Rights".

    "Luthor brought up the idea that owning a gun is a "human right."

    Yes, because it is part of the Bill of Rights. If you don't like it, don't buy a gun, mkay?

    "Do you feel "human rights" are important only for Americans, Luthor?"

    Diversionary tactic, Shaw. Anything to get around the contempt you have for the Bill of Rights, which is part of the law of the land of the United States of America. Sorry, I will not go down the path that we can't protect our rights as Americans because nations on the other side of the globe have different policies.

    "I think this discussion could teeter on the hysterical if we don't keep to the facts."

    Once a discussion brings up so-called "assault weapons", it has veered far from the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Criteria of an assault weapon:

    Note: There are differing criteria from state to state of what constitutes an Assault weapon. This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.

    The term assault weapon, when used in the context of this law, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.

    Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. The mere possession of cosmetic features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

    In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possessed a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:



    A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.


    An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher
    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine.

    The federal assault weapons ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons.

    Luthor, where do you get the insane idea that I do not respect the Bill of Rights just because I believe assault weapons, [as described above,] along with President Ronald Reagan, should be banned?

    Rocket launchers and dirty bombs could be described as "arms." Do you support every American's right to bear those "arms" as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So a semi-automatic hunting rifle that doesn't like an "assault" weapon and which can do just as much (and probably more in that the force is greater) damage isn't a problem as deemed by the feds? This is just flat-out stupidity.

      Delete
    2. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz2HDvmXgJG

      Delete
    3. ... In response to "since Australia cracked down on guns, homicides by gun dropped 60 percent", Politifact says Mostly True. The United States has about the same number of gun homicides every day as happened in Australia last year (2012).

      Delete
  14. Shaw, thanks for proving my point about gobbledygook legalize that has nothing to do with the nature of the weapon being discussed. Something so worthless that a weapon in question is an "assault weapon" whether or not it has a pistol grip.

    A friendly suggestion: Google the definition of assault weapon. It is all over the place, and it is attacked by neutral sources as being meaningless.

    "Rocket launchers and dirty bombs could be described as "arms." Do you support every American's right to bear those "arms" as well?"

    Dirty bombs can contaminate the neighborhood. A prudent reason to control that. A rocket launcher? Hmmm. Avoiding your "irrational phobia, trust the government and not the people" approach, lets look at it rationally. If someone has a rocket launcher in their house, I will never know about it. Sure, he can decide to use it against me, but such a person can also destroy my house with a few gallons of gasoline, some matches, and a dozen wine bottles.

    Let's ban gasoline, mmkay?

    (By the way, glad to see you using Reagan as support now. This must mean you supported his tax policies and views on PATCO, right?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very poor logic, Luthor. Very poor. Just because I'd agree with you if you stated that Mozart was a musical genius, it doesn't mean I'd agree with you if you stated that Sarah Palin was a political wunderkind. Agreeing with one thing doesn't mean agreement with something else.

      Delete
    2. Luthor, you were more rational as dmarks.

      Now, I love these idiotic "let's ban ..." arguments. They often emanate from the Libertarian sandbox as "let's ban knives..." after a stabbing.

      Now to help you spot your fallacy, unlike knives or gasoline i would like you to list a few non military functions of a shoulder fired rocket.

      Delete
    3. 2% of crimes are committed with these "assault weapons". Does any sentient being actually think that these crimes will not still be committed with the use of a different and equally lethal weapon? Come on, people! It's the same old hackneyed playbook here; pass a law and create yet another level of bureaucracy. Can you at least be a little creative with your statism, for Christ?

      Delete
    4. I'm wondering where all these "anti-government-interference-in-our lives" and strict adherence to our laws were when GOP-run states were interfering with and restricting a legal medical procedure and that, in some GOP-run states, actually forced an unnecessary vaginal probe on women.

      I don't remember any of these same folks talking about how outrageous this is.

      It appears it's only outrageous when firearms are involved.

      Delete
  15. Ducky said: " Now to help you spot your fallacy, unlike knives or gasoline i would like you to list a few non military functions of a shoulder fired rocket."

    Why? Unless one has a completely authoritarian mindset, where everything must by default be banned. You showed absolutely no fallacy on my part, Ducky, but you did reveal that you are all about "control, control, control!" As Will said, please be creative with your statism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Col. Sanders said: " African Americans disenfranchise themselves due to their not having the proper ID. And, yes, a gun is a "basic human right".

    The first refeference is a nonsequitur, but yes it is problematic when any voter (a group, by the way, which is mostly white) does what you describe and attempts to use an improper ID (I.e. commit election-related fraud). Your mention of "African-Americans" is an attempt to iject race into an issue that is not race related at all. An attempt which failed completely.

    You are correct on the second point, though. And we all know how contemptuous you are of the basic human rights protected in the "Bill of Rights". You have insisted many times that free speech belongs not to the people, but only to a narrowly-defined (I.e. government approved) press.

    In distinct contrast, I am a civil libertarian, and am not focused on ways to abolish any parts of the Bill of Rights.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And yes there are typos in the above comment, Col. I know that invites spelling flames, but only from you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Ducky: I would support a law that brought criminal charges against you for improper storage.

    Only a doctrinaire progressive would hatch such a brain-diseased idea.

    Locking something in my home is proper storage. But I suppose you want government inspectors in our homes...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And make the "storage" so onerous that if a break in does occur, the individual can't get to in time to defend him or herself. Yeah, it is a pretty brain diseased idea alright.

      Delete
    2. Silver: the only really improper storage going on is people like Ducky wanting repeat offenders released from storage so they can repeat the crimes being discussed.

      Delete
  19. Will: I think a better solution is to secure the thieves who would steal guns behind very onerous locks. The burden belongs on them.

    Sorry, Ducky, a person who leaves a semi-automatic on the dining room table in front of a picture window while they go camping for the weekend is, when you get right down to it, completely blameless if it gets stolen. And also completely blameless for anything the thief does to it.

    No one has any right to steal and break in, period. Let's stop blaming and burdening the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You are right dmarks/D. Luthor. But, ya gotta admit the guy would be one pretty stupi dude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh yes, RN. Very stupid. But being stupid is not immoral and not illegal. Theft is.

      Speaking of theft, it is clear from the threats and boasts of Muhlbauer, Cuomo and others that confiscation... the avarice of greedy thuggish politicians who want to steal the propery of law-abiding Americans who have done nothing wrong... is a real threat now. And Shaw, who trivializes the importance of our human rights as enumerated in the Constitution, thinks it is a great idea. Based on this policy, I am glad she is just writing blog comm.ents and is not making policy. She rightly rejects authoritarianism when it comes to marriage equality, but on this she has a careless and silly (ban guns due to their color????) disgregard for rationality and rights.

      Delete
    2. Luthor: "And Shaw, who trivializes the importance of our human rights as enumerated in the Constitution,"

      Luthor has a very bad habit, as does dmarks, of lying about what people say. If he's going to engage in character assassination, he should be prepared for the consequences of slandering people on blogs.

      He is dishonest and a shameless liar.

      Luthor: "She rightly rejects authoritarianism when it comes to marriage equality, but on this she has a careless and silly (ban guns due to their color????) disgregard for rationality and rights."

      Luthor, you have a disgusting disregard for accuracy and truth, and you've been caught have been made to apologize for your lies in the past. You're at it again.

      I've never said a g-d thing about overturning the 2nd Amendment, EVER! or banning guns because of their colors.


      You, Luthor, are a shameless liar and the lowest of the low. Either find evidence for your stupid accusations about me or cease and desist.

      Otherwise, you'll be treated likewise all over the internet.


      Delete
    3. The Second Amendment? You scoff at its importance, that it is a human right. Your severely downgrade it. You most definitely trivialize our rights.

      Confiscation on color? The assault weapons bans you support include some models being banned because they are painted differently from other models.


      That you bring up the past dispute we had, in which I mistakenly attributed racist views to you when you were instead quoting someone on your blog, I thought it was settled. I apologized and have ever since referred to it, even defending you recently against those trolls. You had said it was settled.That you bring it up now shows your lack of character and an overall nasty grudginess. Only something "the lowest of the low" would do. It has nothing to do with this discussion: you are not quoting anyone.

      I have a high regard for truth and accuracy, which you find disgusting when inconvenient for you.


      I will not "cease and desist" from opposing authoritarianism and supporting human rights. No way.

      Can we stay on the topic without careless character assassination and the immature venting of old settled grudges? You are denitely in nutty troll mode for once.

      Delete
    4. I have searched to find where Shaw, the "Wicked One" has come out and stated explicitly she is against either human or 2'nd amendment rights. In reviewing her positions they have been consistent, as has yours and mine.

      I am in partial agreement with Shaw, the nation needs to find a solution to reducing firearms violence and I see no danger in registering firearms and tightening the current loopholes that make it easy for those who should not have firearms legally to obtain them. Background checks, cooling off periods (waiting periods), required firearms safety training, etc. are all reasonable consideration/requirements.

      The area of disagreement lies in exactly what constitutes so called "assault weapons" and the to what degree magazine or clip capacity should be restricted. I do not recall Shaw, "The Wicked One" ever calling for hand gun bans, hunting rifle bans, shotgun bans, or any ban at all on firearms used for hunting or sporting.

      So, S.Luthor/dmarks, perhaps you could direct me, and others should they be inclined to check, exactly where Shaw made the alleged statements supporting suppression of human rights or 2'ns amendment rights.

      As a person who has been viciously and unfairly attacked I am sensitive to statements that are in fact meant to slander a person's character, whether that person be conservative, libertarian, green, progressive, socialist, or any other political leanings they may have.

      I await your response.

      Delete
  21. I refer to her opposition to the Bill of Rights being human rights, RN (her OMG statement about one important right is in a comment in this very post). And also to the erosion of our rights by confiscation without regard to background check or any due process. Thanks for not having a tantrum. Her support for gun bans is found in comments that include her support for the gun policies of other countries, including Japan, over those of the US. Policies that include banning.

    RN, I am in favor of background checks as long as the info is not saved (not even by states and cities). As for a registry of owners... that is problematic. Especially when we have politicians including the one in your post making scary statements. A registry would be great for law enforcement... but not for confiscation purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's what Shaw the "Wicked One" said, in response to your prior comment, both reproduced here:

      Your comment... "Shaw: then you need to tell those Democratic Party officials all over the nation to stop scaring us with their calls to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate". That is where the scare comes from.

      Mulbauer is only the latest of many examples. Scary disregard for our human rights as enumerated in the Constitution."

      "The Wicked One's" comment... "D. Luthor, you actually believe that owning a gun is a human right?

      OMG!"

      The definition of Human Rights... "Human Rights: noun
      The rights you have simply because you are human.

      If you were to ask people in the street, “What are human rights?” you would get many different answers. They would tell you the rights they know about, but very few people know all their rights.

      As covered in the definitions above, a right is a freedom of some kind. It is something to which you are entitled by virtue of being human.

      Human rights are based on the principle of respect for the individual. Their fundamental assumption is that each person is a moral and rational being who deserves to be treated with dignity. They are called human rights because they are universal. Whereas nations or specialized groups enjoy specific rights that apply only to them, human rights are the rights to which everyone is entitled—no matter who they are or where they live—simply because they are alive.

      Yet many people, when asked to name their rights, will list only freedom of speech and belief and perhaps one or two others. There is no question these are important rights, but the full scope of human rights is very broad. They mean choice and opportunity. They mean the freedom to obtain a job, adopt a career, select a partner of one’s choice and raise children. They include the right to travel widely and the right to work gainfully without harassment, abuse and threat of arbitrary dismissal. They even embrace the right to leisure.

      In ages past, there were no human rights. Then the idea emerged that people should have certain freedoms. And that idea, in the wake of World War II, resulted finally in the document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirty rights to which all people are entitled."

      Source: United for Human Rights
      http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights.html

      For your convenience the link to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"... http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.html

      For the full text... http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/preamble.html

      I see where you are coming from D. Luthor/dmarks as well as fully understand "The Wicked One's" perspective and where she is heading.

      From the strict constitutional interpretation based on realities of 1787 when the document was written your point I find valid. However, given the realities of the modern world, and the notion that the Founders were aware not only of their own fallibility but that the world would change in ways there could not conceive they made sure future generations had the AMENDMENT process. Since banning firearms would require an AMENDMENT to the Constitution that you, I, and Shaw all support hasn't even been suggested I find your attempt to smear those who simply have a different opinion reprehensible. And it is why I left the republican party and likely will never return. Any more than I will ever join the party of my grandparents for the same reason.

      Delete
  22. There has simply been no attempt to "smear" by me, any more than Shaw's pitching a b*tch and making false accusations was. Less so, in fact. I have a different opinion from Shaw, and based on that she declared war in the "blogs" and decided to open up a matter she considered closed, that is unrelated to this, just for spite. I will not follow in kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The situation is open to anyone and everyone's interpretation D.Luthor/dmarks. I thank you for your decision to let it drop.

      Delete
  23. Not quite letting it drop yet. If Shaw says something outrageous, I might respond. But I will not take this "all over the internet." like she threatened to do herself. There is way too much of that already. No escalation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Listen, D. Luthor/dmarks, when you smear someone, expect anger. You've done this more than once to me and have had to apologize for your mistakes. You wrote on this blog that I "trivialized" human rights as enumerated in our constitution.

    Here's the definition of human rights: human rights
    pl.n.
    The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

    It is YOU who did the trivializing when you stated owning a gun is a basic human right. It is not. It is a right enumerated in the United States Constitution only. Other civilized nations do not consider owning an AR-15 a "human right." And I did not trivialize it. I trivialized YOUR definition of a human right.

    And I had every reason to do so, since your definition of a human right as owning a gun is foolish.

    And not supporting the ownership of the types of guns that killed the children in Newtown is not being anti-Constitution any more than not supporting speech that allows people to yell FIRE! in a crowed theater or people who say "shoot the nigger!" as the racist conservative in Maine did just recently in reference to President Obama.

    Every one of our rights has restrictions and supporting those restrictions does not make me anti-human rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in 100 percent with Shaw. A United States Constitutional right is not necessarily a "human right". Owing a gun being a human right is pure foolishness from Dennis. I don't know why Shaw would apologize for pointing out foolishness.

      Delete
  25. I give up, I just goddamn give up.

    D. Luther/dmarks, remember the crap fest at Ole Derv's place. Well, lets not let it happen here, okay buddy?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I apologize, RN. My last comment will be the end of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw, there was no need to apologize. One of the problems with comment moderation is one does not get to see all comments when they are sitting waiting for approval.

      At any rate the comment just above was not directed towards you.

      Delete
  27. RN: I was thinking the "let's not have a crap-fest here" idea before I read the last couple of comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let it drop D.Luthor. I have grown weary of reading personal attacks and maligning of another commentors character, be it intentional or unintentional.

      I see no character attack being made by Shaw and I find nothing to support allegations that she is anti Constitution or Human Rights. If I did I would say so.

      Lets have open season on ideas, and opinions, all good, but let's keep it tied to facts. If there is a question as to the meaning of something said try to ask for clarification first rather than proceeding on a false assumption.

      Delete
  28. We have some distance of time now, and Shaw's specific "character attacks" in regards to this were multiple, way out of line, and complete fabrications. My differences with her on this were in regards to her views, not her character.

    Regardless of Shaw, I stand by my view of the importance of Second Amendment rights as human rights.

    This article discusses it, with points I generally agree with:

    Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right

    I also stand by my view that calls from Gov. Cuomo and others to steal our guns are the real "scare tactic" involved. We do need to do something about gun violence. However, the fact that the raft of gun restrictions proposed in the wake of Newtown would not have stopped that incident underlines the fact that the politicians pushing for them are happily and callously using such incidents to push their agenda. An agenda they they had before the incident.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.