search
top

Sometimes They Are Honest, At Least

In at least one Brady supporter’s mind, what would be required for gun carrying and ownership gun? I point this out because it’s very rare for gun control advocates to elucidate detailed views of what policies they actually propose, once you get past whatever “common sense gun safety measures” that happen to be the cause du jure they feel like they might have a chance to ram through Congress. Instead of policy discussions, you get a lot of NRA evil, blah blah blah, for the children, blah blah blah, we have to do something, blah blah blah. So I tend to appreciate it when I see some honesty.

I have advocated for regular testing, including physical ability to be steady with a gun, eye testing the way we do for driving that would require someone to be wearing their glasses if they use their firearm – or even just carry it. Regular renewals, not a for life permitting (or non-permitting in the case of AZ). Peformance testing annually. Drug testing, including for alcohol abuse because of the links between violence and aggression, poor impulse control and judgment impairment. Some sort of psychology screening to keep the obvious, known dangerously mentally ill from acquiring firearms – like Ian Stawicki, Jared Loughner, James Holmes. A requirement of insurance for gun ownership and for carrying, so that there is guaranteed compensation for anyone shot in error or by accident or even by an evil intentional shooting. Repeal of all shoot first laws, and a reinforcement that if you shoot someone, and you are wrong, you are held fully legally accountable for doing so, not given an exemption from criminal or civil court proceedings.

Until that didn’t work, and then there were so few gun owners left, they didn’t have any power to stand up to outright prohibition. Which still wouldn’t work, just like prohibiting things people want has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, but hey, it makes people feel good.

We treat no other constitutional right this way, so my only offer on compromise here is to say “No f**king way!” and fight them every step of the way down that slippery slope, and continue to try to push the gun control movement back up, and then hopefully down the other side to somewhere around Carrie Nation Gulch. It’s a constitutional right. It has to be treated like one. Because of how we treat other constitutional rights, that still leaves a lot of room for measures I probably won’t like, just like I don’t agree with all the 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment jurisprudence. But most people, and the courts, still treat these Amendments as serious limits on governmental power, which by their existence proscribe certain policy choices (though that’s getting iffy for the 4th, but I digress). If you don’t like the implications of that, you can work to change the Constitution. But you have to start from there. There is no negotiating on that. You can’t just pretend that is not the case, and you can’t just reinterpret it, absent any historical evidence and against the understanding of the vast majority of Americans, to suggest it has no meaning.

50 Responses to “Sometimes They Are Honest, At Least”

  1. Braden Lynch says:

    Gun laws do not work. They never have, and they never will.

    Let’s say they got all of the proposed rules, regulations, and laws fully implemented. Next thing, we have one crazy killing people or a bunch of drug dealers getting guns along with their drugs to fight turf battles and then we will get a new round of “common sense” gun laws. Indeed, it is a slippery slope. Death by a thousand cuts.

    My God-given constitutional rights are not up for deliberation and I say they can go auto-fornicate themselves.

  2. asdf says:

    If even one of those measures are ever put into effect, it would make gun ownership so legally risky that just about nobody would even bother. There could be thousands of Brian Aitkens out there rotting in prison for victimless “crimes”. We already have to maneuver through too many legal minefields as it is.

  3. JayF says:

    I found these 2 items interesting when considered together:

    “We should ban anyone on the terrorist watch list from buying … firearms”

    “We should have … registration”

    So what happens when someone is placed on the terror suspect watch list and registration records show that he ALREADY owns guns? Surely something must be done about that? I envision something like this:

    Hello? Who’s out there?

    We’re Federal Agents. Our records show that you own a gun.

    Yes, I have a hunting rifle so my son and I can go…

    Sorry, sir, we’re here for the gun.

    You want to take away my gun? Why?

    Sir, you’ve been added to the list.

    List? What list?

    The terror suspect watch list. We’re from Homeland Security.

    But I’m an American citizen!

    We know, sir. It doesn’t matter.

    But I haven’t done anything!

    We know, sir. It doesn’t matter.

    How did I get on your list?

    Sorry, sir, that information is classified.

    I don’t believe that I could be on such a list. Show it to me!

    Sorry, sir, the content and names on the list are also classified.
    We need to have that gun now, sir.

    This is an outrage! My Senator will hear of this!
    He’s an important Democrat, and a champion of civil liberties.

    Sir, who do you think sponsored the legislation that empowers us to do this?

  4. Ian Argent says:

    They believe laws prevent crime, and that you can predict who will become evil.

  5. Paul says:

    Every time a liberal suggest so-called “reasonable measures” to curb the Second Amendment, I always answer with, “Hey! What a great idea! But you’re not going far enough! Lets apply those same “common sense measures” to WHOLE Bill of Rights! But we’ll do them in order. Starting with the First Amendment. Then, if it still seems to make sense to you, we’ll talk about applying them to the rest.”

    See how this sounds:

    “I have advocated for regular testing, including physical ability to be steady with a keyboard, eye testing the way we do for driving that would require someone to be wearing their glasses if they use their camera – or even just carry it. Regular renewals, not a for life permitting (or non-permitting in the case of AZ). Peformance testing annually. Drug testing, including for alcohol abuse because of the links between words, violence and aggression, poor impulse control and judgment impairment. Some sort of psychology screening to keep the obvious, known dangerously mentally ill from acquiring free speech – like Ian Stawicki, Jared Loughner, James Holmes. A requirement of insurance for printing press ownership and for operating it, so that there is guaranteed compensation for anyone offended in error or by accident or even by an evil intentional broadcasting. Repeal of all free speech laws, and a reinforcement that if you lie about someone, and you are wrong, you are held fully legally accountable for doing so, not given an exemption from criminal or civil court proceedings.”

    How about that? Can I get an amen?

    Yeah. I didn’t think so.

  6. Oranje Mike says:

    Hey, you…guy trying to murder my family! Give me a second to put on my glasses because legally I cannot use my gun unless I’m wearing my specs! C’mon, level the playing field, bro!

  7. BobG says:

    Hell, half the police I’ve met couldn’t meet all the bullshit that idiot is proposing.

    • Brad says:

      That was my first reaction too.

      For that anti-gun clown to propose such a laundry list of ridiculous and half-baked restrictions on ordinary Americans, in light of the recent NYPD shootings of 9 bystanders is so damn funny.

      Can you imagine the backlash if those restrictions were imposed on the NYPD? Hah!

  8. mikeb302000 says:

    The slippery slope is a weak argument. It’s what you fall back on when you can’t successfully argue against the proposal at hand.

    Everything he says makes perfect sense. Many gun owners agree. But all you have to say about it is the alarmist scare-tactic that if that happens we’ll be too few to avoid total gun bans.

    That’s weak.

    • AndyN says:

      Everything he says makes perfect sense. Many gun owners agree.
      Many? Really? I doubt that you could find over single digit percentage of gun owners who’d agree with everything on that list. If you have data to the contrary I’d love to see it.

      And it’s amusing that you claim Sebastian has nothing other than scare tactics and a slippery slope argument on his side when he makes the obvious and undeniable point that much of what’s being asked for in that other blog is unconstitutional. To some of us, the fact that the US is supposed to be a nation of laws is more than just an inconvenience that can be brushed aside when it doesn’t fit our agenda.

      • mikeb302000 says:

        Yeah, falling back on the 2A is the other non-argument.

        And one of your favorite tricks is asking for “data to the contrary” where you know none exists. No one knows how the 100 million gun owners break down for sure. Here’s my guess.

        5% gun-rights fanatics to one degree or another
        25% agree with the gun control argument
        70% are apathetic.

        • AndyN says:

          Yeah, falling back on the 2A is the other non-argument.

          It’s the law. Like I said before, some of us consider that more than just an inconvenience to be brushed aside if it interferes with our agenda. If you don’t like it, get it changed. If not being able to write new laws that violate the founding document upon which all of our laws are based bothers you, perhaps you should find someplace to live that isn’t a constitutional republic. I hear Cuba has lovely beaches, year-round balmy weather, and world-class public education and healthcare.

          Here’s my guess.

          Awesome. You accuse people with whom you disagree of presenting non-arguments, then when challenged to support your categorical statement that “many” gun owners agree with your extremist position the best you can come up with is “my guess.” That’s just all sorts of win right there.

          • Mikeb302000 says:

            Well, why don’t you try to use your head for a minute and tell us how those percentages should break down.

            • AndyN says:

              Why? Because the way public opinion may break down on the issue is irrelevant to me. Because since I’m not the one agitating for change, I don’t have to make up statistics to convince people they’re extremists if they don’t support change. Because while I accept that the level of violence in our society is bad, I understand that anything you petty despots and the leftist fellow travelers you support in government would try to do to gun control laws would likely make it worse. Because if you arrive at your position through logic and reason, it doesn’t matter how many people fail to arrive at the same position for it to still be logical and reasonable.

              That last one is key, and the converse explains your lack of an argument. If you had a valid explanation for why people should support a de facto ban on most private gun ownership, you’d present it. You don’t, so you come to us with the hope that since you claim many gun owners support draconian gun laws we should agree with them. Tell me – when a bill passed the Indiana House and almost passed the Indiana Senate defining pi as 3.2, should all Indiana residents have jumped on board because “many” people agreed? That makes as much sense as disarming the public because guns scare “many” of you.

        • RuffRidr says:

          Here’s my guess.

          Whoopity f’in doo. You have absolutely zero data to back up your guess. It can’t even be anecdotal evidence from you talking to gun owners, as you don’t even live in this country. If you want to be taken even half seriously, bring something a little more substantial to the table.

        • Rob Crawford says:

          Yeah, falling back on the 2A is the other non-argument.

          BS. The 2nd doesn’t grant me the right to keep and bear arms — it forbids the government to interfere in that right. I’m morally entitled (some would say REQUIRED) to defend my life and the lives of those I’m responsible for, and any attempt by you or anyone else to interfere with that right is pure, unadulterated evil.

    • PT says:

      I assume that you are in favor of insurance subsidies for the poor then? What measures will be put in place to ensure that insurance for carry permits is not used as a way to discourage carry permits? We can see through these measures and how they will be abused.

      Remember how the income tax was only 5% on the top 1% of all income in the US. What is it now?

    • Kristophr says:

      I have no interest in listening to fugitive felons who want to disarm their victims.

      Return to the US, and face your day in court, MikeB-number.

    • SDN says:

      Well, Mike, then repealing the Second Amendment should be a slam dunk. Why don’t you propose it?

      Because you’re so full of shit we should make you live inside a colostomy bag, that’s why.

    • mike says:

      Mr. Bonomo, allow me to introduce you to your own words:

      MikeB302000: “All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.

      http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/07/quote-of-the-day-mikeb302000.html

      • Mikeb302000 says:

        This famous quote was taken out of context. It’s been described as the triple-if statement.

        IF we proposed something, and IF you accepted that, then IF we proposed something else, etc.etc. This complicated hypothetical scenario is not an indication of my true intentions, those are described here. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2011/08/my-official-goal.html

        • mike says:

          Seems pretty clear to me. You may regret saying it, but it’s not out of context. Or perhaps you’d like to fill in the rest of the context where saying “Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.” doesn’t mean exactly that.

          • mikeb302000 says:

            It’s what MIGHT happen given a triple hypothetical. That’s not the same as what I want to happen. I’ve already told you that, and it would involve disarming only about half of you.

    • SPQR says:

      So you went from knowing that “many gun owners” agree with the ridiculous proposals to guessing.

      That’s what is constant with you people, mike, you make up crap.

    • Brad says:

      Hey sparky, how about getting the NYPD to agree to those restrictions first? Good luck with that.

      http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/man-claiming-to-be-nypd-officer-says-nypd-officers-poorly-trained/

    • Tam says:

      “Many gun owners agree.”

      *Snort!*

      As they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].

      Since we’re guesstimating and pooh-poohing demands for data, here’s my guesstimate of the other side:

      5% gun-control fanatics to one degree or another
      25% sock puppets of the above
      70% are apathetic trolls who just like to argue on the internet about whatever.

    • Jeff Grey says:

      TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Braden Lynch says:

      I may have mentioned that gun laws don’t work. You said that his proposals would. Nope.

      Criminals will still get guns illegally and by pass all of those proposals. The proposals are designed to stigmitize gun ownership or make it prohibitively expensive or so cumbersome as to make it impractical. Of course, more will be added as the purported results are not achieved so there is your slippery slope.

      Please state that your end goal is the complete and total civilian disarmament since that is what it smells like. Wait, another poster found a quote from you to that effect. Since only my enemy wants me disarmed and all governmental genocides require a prior disarmament of the citizens, I think we know what that makes you. Go practice your goose step march some where else, like at the U.N.

      Never Again! (if you had a moral compass and any historic knowledge of the phrase “Never Again!” you would slink away in shame.)

  9. emdfl says:

    Hey Mike, how’s ’bout this:
    Slippery Slope = (the formerly)Great Britain? See how easy that was?
    Or closer to home – New York city, Shitcago, California.

  10. Zermoid says:

    Anytime someone starts up with a “we need more gun control” rant I ask them a simple question that shuts down their every argument.

    “Are illegal drugs banned in the US?”

    Most realize the foolishness of their arguments and the ineffectiveness of gun laws right there and shut up and walk away.

  11. dustydog says:

    I’d like to see the Department of Justice pursue civil rights lawsuits against municipalities that, with depraved indifference and malice aforethought, conspire with criminals to rape, rob, and injure American citizens.

    I’d like Truth in Advertising Laws – force every city to print the number of violent murders prominently in any advertising. Force every university and college to prominently note the rates of rape and murder on campus in their slick brochures.

    I’d like to see the NRA sue prominent democrats and anti-gun groups for slander and libel.

  12. Phelps says:

    Do you think they would be willing to put all of those restrictions on the first amendment as well?

    I’m kind of afraid that they would.

    • asdf says:

      There are already MANY restrictions placed on the exercise of first amendment rights, most of which can be blamed on the very same people who favor gun control.

      Think of the countless ways our speech is “chilled” by implied threats of government coercion in the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

      Do you really think Youtube would have such a strict comments policy were it not for implied threats from government antitrust regulators to bring down the hammer on them if they don’t clean up the “rampant racism” in video comments?

      Do you honestly believe that all of those people who have lost their jobs for saying politically incorrect things in the workplace have lost their jobs because employers just don’t like that stuff, or is it more likely that employers are afraid that the EEOC and other government agencies will bring them pain?

      • Brad says:

        Exactly right. Those people have a fundamental problem with fundamental rights.

        Let’s not forget they were the primary force behind the McCain-Feingold restrictions on core 1st Amendment political speech rights.

        “During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.[14]”

        They were also the force supporting the “Hitman” lawsuit which cracked down on other freedom of speech issues. Does anyone else remember the ‘controversy’ over so-called “mayhem manuals”?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

        http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-25/news/ve-1282_1_david-sconce

        The people who want to ban guns also want to ban books. It’s as simple as that.

  13. Paul says:

    So they want requirements like you have to fly an airplane or drive a car (and more!!) yet in self defense you don’t have to see far as self defense is by definition a very close range affair.

    No like bullet taxes they just want to destroy most peoples ability to own a gun or use it in defense of themselves.

    But at least this Hitler is honest in that he a Hitler!

  14. Imagine the uproar if drug and alcohol testing were required in order to exercise one’s First Amendment rights. Do you believe that the other side would see that as a reasonable compromise?

    • persiflage says:

      Semi-annual psychological, drug and alcohol testing should be mandatory for all members of congress and their staff that are in any way responsible for writing laws. The wide reach of their stupidity, the immense legal and economic power they wield, and the adverse effects of their pet laws on people’s natural rights is ample justification. It’s for the children…and the Republic.

  15. Brad says:

    The anti-gunner may have had the honesty to openly admit the policies desired for imposition on fellow Americans.

    Now if only that person would also have the wisdom and decency to admit such a policy scheme would require amending the U.S. Constitution too.

  16. Tam says:

    …if you shoot someone, and you are wrong, you are held fully legally accountable for doing so…

    In what jurisdiction is this not already the case?

    This person has no more business opining on gun laws than I do on the zoning ordinances of Poughkeepsie.

  17. BobG says:

    The nice thing about reading Mikey’s posts is that they make everyone else sound like a genius in comparison.

    • mike says:

      So are you trying to comment on my opinions, or your character?

      • SPQR says:

        He has accurately described your character, Mike. Your opinions lack any substance, any connection to reality and any internal consistency as pointed out above.

        • mike says:

          Ad hominems aren’t usually the sign of a winning hand. You may disagree with me, and you might even have a better viewpoint, but if this is the best you can come up with, then the point is not drilled home.

  18. JayF says:

    So mikeb’s no civilian guns only occurs IF gunowners give in and IF gun control works? While I don’t think that either will happpen, remember that mikeb wants BOTH to happen.

    Also, there is plenty of evidence that when gun control DOESN’T work, gun control activists still want the same additional gun control that they would if it had worked.

    The lesson of course is for gunowners to NEVER give in.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Rare bit of honesty - [...] From a gun control advocate, those with debilitating conditions can’t own guns. [...]
  2. For That Person Who Said We Needed Vision Tests | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] shooting and shooters into the main stream media. And just a note to “Dog Gone” who suggested we all…
  3. Life in 3D » Blog Archive » Why We Have Guns - [...] remember, when the anti’s say crap like we should be physically tested every year and vision tested what  they…
  4. Why We Have Guns | Rimfire Designs - [...] remember, when the anti’s say crap like we should be physically tested every year and vision tested what they…
top