No one needs “assault weapons” and large capacity “assault magazines!” This is becoming a familiar trope these days, usually uttered with righteous indignation and as self-evident proof of a higher, moral truth that forestalls any and all debate. Ironic that those that utter it usually simultaneously call for an honest and serious debate. It is often accompanied by statements like:
(1) “No one needs an assault weapon and a large capacity magazine to hunt!”
(2) “No one needs an assault weapon and an large capacity magazine for self protection!”
(3) “The Constitution doesn’t give anyone a right to assault weapons and assault magazines!”
Kevin Williamson at RNO, in a relatively brief article worth reading, notes:
There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.
Quite so. However, Mr. Williamson does not take the next logical step, which is to address those who argue:
if the founders only could have foreseen (insert whatever you hate here) ‘assault weapons’ and ‘assault magazines,’ etc., they surely never would have written the Second Amendment!
While this introduction is not the primary theme of this article, please, gentle readers, allow me this slight trot down a dark sub-themed alley. I’ll be back on topic soon enough.
The founders were among the most learned, well read, sophisticated and intelligent of their age, or of any age for that matter. But above all, they possessed knowledge far too many of our contemporary political titans lack: a clear understanding of human nature, cause and effect, and the law of unintended consequences. They knew times would change and the Constitution might have to change as well, and so they wrote an amendment process. However, wise as they were, they made that process difficult so the Constitution would not be amended for “light and transient causes” (as the Declaration of Independence noted). But above all, they knew the frailty and failings of human beings and understood that a people unable to affect their own destiny, unable to overthrown a tyrannical government to establish a just government justly deriving its powers solely from the consent of the governed were not free men, but slaves. History has eloquently and bloodily bourn them out.
They were content to allow free men to possess and use the most powerful and effective military arms of their time. Even cannon were commonly privately owned. Make no mistake: they knew the march of technology would produce even more effective and powerful weapons. They had seen exactly that in their own lifetimes and would see it again. Yet, they wrote the Second Amendment not to support hunters or recreational shooters, but first and foremost, to enable free men to remain free against the depredations of a formerly democratic government turned despotic. Of course, they understood the right to keep and bear arms to also encompass the inalienable right to self-defense, which was then not a matter of controversy. If one does not possess that right, a right governments may not grant or rescind, what other right truly matters? Even if one need never employ their arms in revolt, their need to preserve their life and the lives of those they love, using the most effective arms commonly available, surely is at the very soul of the Second Amendment, and of liberty itself.
It is the stuff of fiction to imagine George Washington’s delight if a crate of AR-15’s, “large-capacity” magazines and plentiful ammunition had materialized at Valley Forge. The delight of a rural woman defending her home and children against a group of criminals with the same weapon would be no less great, no less affirmed by the Constitution, and no less in line with the thinking and intentions of the Founders whose first concern was never-changing principle, not hardware.
On to the point.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), proud possessor of one of the very few concealed carry permits denied her fellow Californians, has threatened to reintroduce a new “assault weapon” bill as soon as the Senate reconvenes in 2013. She has promised to make this new bill everything the old bill was not. Remember, Progressive policies cannot possibly fail. Being conceived and written by superior beings, if they appear to have failed it can only be because insufficient time was allotted to their inevitable success, they were insufficiently Progressive, or they were not enforced with sufficient ferocity. Sen. Feinstein, according to her website, is on track to “fix” those past failings which produced not a single benefit in crime reduction or enhanced public safety over the decade of its life.
In fact, during the legislative battle over the original Clinton Gun Ban, Senator Feinstein made a gaffe—unintentionally told the truth—in a 60 Minutes interview:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in—I would have done it.
Surely such a reasonable and statesman—oops! Stateswoman—oops! Statesperson-like legislator would never demand anything unreasonable regarding a fundamental constitutional right? It would be worthwhile to take this link for just a bit more background.
Following is what she tentatively plans for us, the commoners whose lives are not of sufficient value to deserve protection with the weapons most commonly in use and most effective for that task. The devil—as they say—is in the details, so I’ll intersperse my commentary—in bold italics—on our descent into Progressive Hades:
Summary of 2013 legislation…
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
What can be expected is a list of the rifles Feinstein and fellow gun-banners consider particularly evil. It’s not known if Feinstein will simply ban every model made by manufacturer X in this list, but with the various other caveats, she won’t have to.
Much depends on definitions. What the well-informed gun owner might consider “military characteristics” will surely not resemble Feinstein’s definition. The broadest interpretation of the “certain other semiautomatic rifles…” section could easily constitute a ban on scores of semiautomatic, magazine fed rifles, handguns or shotguns, not specifically on Feinstein’s enumerated list, depending on the definition of “one or more military characteristics.”
Traditionally, such “characteristics” have been flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, folding or collapsible stocks, possibly even accessory rails. But with new horizons to conquer, a squared trigger guard, an ambidextrous magazine release or any other innocuous feature scary to anti-gunners could easily qualify.
It’s hard to know whether Feinstein is merely utterly clueless about firearm nomenclature, or has some nefarious scheme in mind with the ban on rifles and handguns “with a fixed magazine” capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing, unless one wants to consider the classic “broomhandle” Mauser C96 of 1896 (yes, semiautomatic firearm technology is even older than that).
As the photo illustrates, it had no removable magazine and was top-fed by means of stripper clips, but was soon replaced by more advanced, magazine fed designs such as the Luger and various Walther pistols. While some are still in firing condition, it is not in circulation as other than a collector’s item.
As I recall, a few AR-15 pattern manufacturers built a small number of specialty rifles without the ability to accept removable magazines for the ridiculously restrictive California market. The only other contemporary weapons that might be affected are rifles fed from tubular, under the barrel magazines, such as lever action, pump action or some semiautomatic rifles. However, only relatively few .22LR rifles have magazines of more than 10 round capacity, though most can exceed 10 rounds if fed .22 short ammunition. Who knows what Feinstein intends here, but it won’t likely be good for gun owners.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Gun banners always considered this one of the primary failings of the Clinton gun ban. The “2-characteristic test” prohibited rifles having more than two of a specified list of “evil” characteristics. So an AR-15 with a standard pistol grip and a detachable magazine was a non-evil gun, but the same AR-15 with pistol grip, a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug was evil and banned. This resulted in manufacturers producing—for ten years–rifles different from standard ARs only in missing flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Idiotic.
A “1-characteristic” test likely would essentially ban all AR-15 and other similarly patterned rifles. Add the nonsense about “thumbhole stocks” (under the original ban a way to incorporate a pistol grip of sorts into the stock itself and so gain one more characteristic), and “bullet buttons”—God only knows what those might be—and Feinstein obviously seeks to ban virtually every firearm ever made. Only a limited number of high- dollar wood and blued steel hunting-type firearms might be legal.
UPDATE: Faithful correspondant Tammy explains what a “bullet button” is in the comments. As one might expect, it’s an obscure California issue.
Bayonet lugs are not, in fact, generally “easy to remove,” though flash suppressors are. It’s not clear what Feinstein is trying to accomplish here, other than a linguistic sleight of hand. She may be trying to fool people into thinking she has given up something to be reasonable, but she is not. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs are artifacts of manufacturing. Companies that manufacture AR-15 pattern rifles for the military use the same machinery to produce their civilian-legal rifles, and so include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, which are of no use to criminals (in the military context, a flash suppressor merely makes it harder for an enemy to find and aim at the flash signature of a rifle). In fact, I’m unaware of a bayonet lug or flash suppressor ever figuring in a crime.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Most standard semiautomatic pistols and rifles have, as standard, magazines with greater than 10 round capacity, the exceptions being smaller models designed particularly for concealed carry. As any currently commercially available magazine fed firearm (some few obscure military weapons excepted) can accept a magazine of any capacity, this is an obvious opening to ban every semiautomatic firearm. As I noted above, it’s hard to tell if the “fixed magazine” silliness is merely a lack of firearms acumen, or a sort of veiled attempt to ban everything without clearly saying so.
As I—and others—have written, such bans accomplish nothing at all, for magazine changes can easily be made in mere seconds. Ten+ round bans are obviously feet in the door, for if 10 rounds is good, wouldn’t allowing only six be better for public safety? And if six is better wouldn’t…you get the idea.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
As I noted, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with “legitimate hunters” (what’s an illegitimate hunter under this law?), and any law Feinstein writes surely will not protect gun owners. She’s going to exempt 900 weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes? And that’s her business how, exactly? The Constitution gives Congress that power where, exactly? How hard would it be to enumerate 900 sporting weapons? Not hard at all. Take the ubiquitous, bolt-action Remington 700, for example. One need only list every model variation offered for sale by Remington of that single action type to run up a huge list, but it’s still essentially one rifle. What’s that you say? Congress would never be so duplicitous? Have I ever told you I’m a Nigerian prince, and if you give me your bank account number, I’ll deposit millions in it…?
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearm Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
OK, what’s “antique?” Every firearm is “manually operated” in one way or another, and what are “permanently disabled weapons?” Does that mean guns with the firing pin removed, the receiver cut in half and left that way? Who knows?
This is where Feinstein also tries to push Progressive orthodoxy. The old ban might seem to the unenlightened not to have worked, but that’s only because we let gun owners grandfather their previously owned guns and magazines without registering them!
NFA firearms are true automatic weapons, as well as short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors and integrally suppressed weapons. She’s demanding that the owners of any grandfathered weapon essentially go through the same process as those hoping to own a fully automatic weapon or a suppressed weapon. The only difference seems to be that no $200 non-transferrable tax is required, though I’m sure some substantial fees will be added by the BATF.
Americans have always, and successfully, resisted gun registration, but this is registration on steroids. It’s a substantial step beyond and above any registration scheme I’ve yet seen.
Astute readers will also note that Feinstein apparently isn’t proposing to close the “gun show loophole” in this law. She doesn’t need to. The registration process will do it for her. It doesn’t matter where or when you bought your gun, you have to register it. The Federal government gets what it wants one way or the other. Sneaky.
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
And here, gentle readers, is the real prize. Just as with Obamacare, the real destruction and loss of liberty is in bureaucratic rule making and administration of the law. The law will surely give the BATF sweeping powers to write rules, procedures and administrative penalties above and beyond the multiple federal felonies it establishes. As is common with Federal gun laws, the ATF director, the AG, or his designate, etc. will be given sweeping power to determine definitions and to decide which guns are allowed the people and which are not based on any criteria, no criteria, or the flip of a coin.
Registering any NFA weapon is a very time-consuming affair, commonly taking not weeks, but months. In addition, there are stringent storage requirements, and NFA weapons can’t be transported over state lines without prior written BATF permission. If all of this is required under Feinstein’s proposal—and that does appear to be the case, otherwise why mention NFA?—gun ownership will suddenly become an expensive, bureaucratic nightmare, and from the date such a law goes into question, Progressives will have their anti-gun wish list, some of it by under the radar means.
Remember too, gentle readers, the BATF and the entire Obama Administration is still under the cloud of Fast and Furious. Mr. Obama’s nominee for the new BATF director is a notorious and abusive anti-gunner. The implementation of this law—tens, even hundreds of millions of firearms (and don’t for a second doubt you’ll be registering any 11+ round magazine)–would be a boon for expanding the federal government, only under one of the least competent, most lawless and inefficient bureaucracies in the entire Federal Government.
Need I elaborate on the obvious? This law, by itself, would brutally depress the American firearm industry and all associated industries at a time when we least need it, not that the economy is a concern to Mr. Obama or congressional Progressives.
One can fervently hope that such draconian and blatantly unconstitutional legislation cannot possibly pass the Senate, though I’m sure some Republicans—once again earning the epithet “The Stupid Party”–are foolish enough to go wobbly in favor of such “reasonable” legislation. And one can hope the same for the House which is, if reality holds, even less likely to pass it, but under the leadership of John Boehner, who knows.
It should also be remembered that criminals—because they are criminals—do not obey such laws. The criminals of my intimate acquaintance during the decade-long run of the original Clinton gun ban thought it enormously funny, and so it was.
But did you know that the courts have ruled that felon/criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register their guns? Sadly, I’m not joking. You see, the Fifth Amendment prohibits forced self-incrimination—one cannot be forced to incriminate themself—and forcing a felon to register a gun he is not allowed by law to have amounts to compulsory self-incrimination. Therefore only the law abiding are actually bound by gun registration laws. Felons can’t be prosecuted for this particular felony! You don’t suppose Senator Feinstein and her liberty-stealing compatriots know about this, do you? Certainly not! Have I told you I’m a Nigerian prince…?
John Hinderaker of Powerline notes:
… some clarification is required before we can understand the full scope of Feinstein’s proposal. It is hard to say, at this point, whether it is merely grandstanding by Feinstein that will soon be forgotten, or whether it represents the first shot in an all-out war against gun owners (i.e., red America) by the Democratic Party.
Grandstanding? Of course. An all out war by the Democratic Party? Absolutely, but a war of a kind. On November 04, 1979, the Iranian Hostage Crisis began. Iran actually declared war on America and has been fighting that war and killing Americans by any means possible since. It took until 09-11-2001 for America to wake up and realize there was an intractable enemy of liberty waiting, watching and fighting whenever and wherever it could to destroy freedom. Within our own nation, there is an intractable enemy of freedom, waiting, watching and fighting whenever and wherever it can to destroy liberty. This is not the first shot in an all-out war, but just another battle in a war that may never end. As Thomas Jefferson said:
Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty.
May we be eternally vigilant.
By sheer coincidence, no. The flintlock musket and the socket bayonet had displaced matchlocks and pikes before they were born, and the lighter field artillery that Napoleon was to use to such great effect had not yet arrived, let alone fulminating powder. In their day, the Ferguson rifle came the closest to being a game changing technology with its rapid (for the time) breech loading system, but it was never used in sufficient numbers to achieve that, and other rifles simply didn’t have the rate of fire to make a difference in any but the narrowest of niches (and also predated the founders of the U.S.A. anyway). Now if you had written “more cost effective”, that would have been more arguable, as continuous improvements in manufacture were indeed making weapons more readily accessible; even the flintlock came in for this reason, as it was actually less effective than the more intricate and expensive wheel-lock that preceded it.
How do you know she isn’t ashamed of it as a necessary evil?
The only thing that comes to mind is that one method of machining the rifling in a barrel uses something called a button. But this only occurs during manufacture, not use.
Not those with top loading magazines that have to finish below a carrying handle that incorporates the sight, e.g. an Owen submachine gun with that variant sight rather than the usual sight mounted lower and offset to the left (I think you could make a decent semi-automatic rifle with that layout if you used a delayed blowback mechanism).
Dear P.M.Lawrence:
Thanks for your comments! I suspect we’re pretty much on the same page in terms of firearms technology and manufacturing methods. Button rifling wasn’t it. You might check Tammy’s comment; she’s no doubt on target. As to magazines, I’ve slightly altered the original. By the way, I doubt many people can visualize the Owen SMG variants you’ve mentioned. I’ve actually handled–but not fired–several.
Thanks again!
I didn’t mean to imply that anyone had ever configured an Owen gun that way; I don’t know if anyone ever has or not. I just meant that it would be practical to do it, and then there would be a limit on the height of the magazine’s top; it might be worth it since the current arrangement has to be used right-handed.
Anyone who wants can google images, but it may be worth giving a word picture of the standard Owen gun. It looked roughly like an ordinary rifle with an additional pistol grip (though it was actually a low-powered, small calibre submachine gun firing from an open bolt), but with a straight magazine coming in from above and the sight mounted on the left to clear the magazine. The ejector was integral with the magazine, not the gun, and cartridge cases ejected downwards. All the works were as well sealed and simple as possible, and those that couldn’t be were arranged to discard rather than collect debris. The design choices were meant to optimise use in tropical field conditions (short ranges and a lot of muck liable to cause jams), at low cost. The Owen gun was actually supplied broken down to a field stripped condition, in a cardboard box with an instruction pamphlet, needing final assembly by the soldier who got it. You can see that its design approach could be adapted to that of a Heckler & Koch G3, or even better a FAMAS (though it would take even more work to be really good, say a low friction coating as well as grooves in the chamber so it could use standard cartridges rather than strengthened ones). Maybe Pedersen’s hesitation lock but made out of grooved phosphor bronze, too…
“But did you know that the courts have ruled that felon/criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register their guns? Sadly, I’m not joking. You see, the Fifth Amendment prohibits forced self-incrimination—one cannot be forced to incriminate themself—and forcing a felon to register a gun he is not allowed by law to have amounts to compulsory self-incrimination. Therefore only the law abiding are actually bound by gun registration laws. Felons can’t be prosecuted for this particular felony!”
Does this mean that if a hithertoo law-abiding citizen registered as a bona fide criminal, they would be exempt from having to register their firearms and would be exempt from prosecution for failing to register these firearms?
Dear John McLaclan:
In this case, I’m afraid one must be a bona fide convicted felon. There is no way one can “register” as a felon. So while could could be prosecuted for possession of a firearm, they could not be prosecuted for failing to register it.
Life is full of these little ironies.
Some interesting comments before SCOTUS in Heller that I think are germane. First though, you have to read the DC Court of Appeals decision and a little item on page 53 regarding technological progras vis a vis our rights: (I post this a lot)
From the US Court of Appeals, DC decision upheld by SCOTUS in Heller:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Pg 53
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).
SCOTUS orals discussion
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
I love watching the application of Good Old English common Law here. Until the memory of man knoweth not to the. Contrary. The right to bear arms goes back to the very beginning of the 13 colonies. I have only a rudimentary understanding of the legal system but I find this interesting And literally a matter of life and death for us right now. God save the second Amendment.
Mike, a “bullet button” is a replacement AR-15 magazine release which requires the tip of a .223 cartridge (or other tool) to depress. It’s a contrivance to comply with California’s assault weapon ban, which defines “removable magazine” as one that can be detached from the weapon without tools. An attempt to outlaw them here failed last year, so apparently Dianne Feinstein is attempting to do for the nation what our state legislators couldn’t manage. And never mind the fact that to the best of my knowledge a bullet button-equipped AR has never been used in any crime…,
I just wonder if we’ll see the next school spree killer using bombs, and if DiFi and company will then start calling for bans on high capacity gas cans. “For the children,” you know…
Dear Tammy:
So that’s what those are called! I was aware of that obscure accessory, but didn’t make the connection. Thanks for the assist!
Tammy, the use of explosives to kill school children has already happened. This was the Bath Township, Michigan, murders in 1927 in which the killer used 3 bombs to kill 45 and wound 58. A massacre happened in Cologne, Germany, in 1964 in which the killer fashioned a flamethrower to kill and maim.
The simple truth from history is that evil, twisted people will find ways to kill, and until all possible materials and devices are removed entirely from society, then they will continue to happen. More recently was the Oklahoma bombing, using, for God’s sake, fertilizer commonly used on farms.
There will be those, such as the hypocrite Feinstein (who weeps, no doubt, at the necessary evil permitted her but not to my wife, whose life will not apparently be worth the ‘necessary evil’), who will try to use these murders for their own, foolish ends.
I’m aware of the case you mentioned and wholeheartedly agree that trying to legislate evil out of existence is, at best, an exercise in futility. That reality doesn’t seem to stop those who want to legislate the Second Amendment out of existence.
Explosives were used at Beslan too.
Also, there had been other cases where teenagers were intending a massacre. The latest 2 were nipped in the bud. In the Kansas case (I think that is where it was), the person attempted to recruit others and he was prevented from carrying out his scheme. He intended using explosives. In the other case involving a girl, it was her father who turned her in after she was asking questions about weapons within the house.
As you can see from the second example, the father’s vigilance paid off. In the first example, it was the police who had been vigilant…. just like they have been vigilant in a number of other cases where the plots were discovered, and eventually the people were arrested.
Here in Australia, the plot against the Holdsworthy army base had at its core explosives from home made ingredients, not guns.
Explosives do far more damage than the harm done by guns in the long run. You only have to learn about the injuries of those who survived the London bombings to understand the harm that is done by bombs and explosives…. especially when they use nails to increase the impact of their bombs.
Mike:
At the risk of offending you as I have offended The Conservative Tree House, I would suggest that it is a strategic blunder to focus our attention on guns, firearms technology and legal analysis. It would be far more effective if gun owners were to repined by focusing attention on homicides of young children and infants.
As I posted earlier on another thread, the FBI-SHR database reveals that from 1980 through 2011, Twenty-Five-Thousand young children between the ages of 1 and 11 were murderred. Only four thousand of these young homicide victims were killed with guns. The vast majority of murderred children died from being beaten, bludgeoned, strangled, drowned, poisoned, burned and electrocuted. An additional ten thousand infants were also murdered. Almost none of them were killed with guns. It can be estimated that on average only a handful of children are murderred with rifles of any type, much less “assault rifles.”
Obviously; guns aren’t a causative factor in the murder of young children.
The FBI-SHR data offers interesting insight on who murders young children. clearance rates for homicides of infants and young children are extraordinarily high. We know with certainty that the vast majority of infants and children who are murderred are killed by family or “acquaintances.”. The number one murderer of infants and children are mothers followed by putative fathers then male “acquaintances” (meaning mother’s new boyfriend) then female “acquaintances” (meaning father’s new girlfriend).
Guns don’t murder infants and young children. Dysfunctional families murder infants and young children.
Rather than pontificate about guns, perhaps our law makers should be addressing the decay of the traditional family. Any competent criminologists will tell you that the safest environment for an infant or young child is with their biological mother who is married to their biological father who has a high degree of paternal certainty. Themost dangerous environment for an infant and child is to live with an unmarried mother who is living with an adult male not biologically related tom the child or may or may not be living with the putative father of her child who is severely uncertain about the paternity.
To emphasize this point, we can use the FBI-SHR database to document the fact that the most obvious risk factor that determines if an infant or young child will be murdered is being Black. Historicly; Black people have murdered their children at a rate five times greater than the rest of the population. Interstingly; the rate of child homicides by the black community has decreased dramaticly in recent years so that Blacks are only three times as likely to murder their children as whites. This decrease coincides with welfare reform which reduced the perverse financial incentives that had encouraged teenaged women, particularly teenaged black women, to have children out of wedlock.
The FBI-SHR database can also be used to document that young, Black, Males who are to often the survivors of emotional, physical and sexual abuse grow up to be angry young men who commit a grossly disproportionate share of the nations homicides, particularly gun homicides.
The FBI-SHR data base can also be used to initiate a conversation about the abysmally low clearance and arrest rates that are prevalent n this country. Aside from the dramatic decrease in clearance rates in the early 60s that preceded the sudden surge in homicides in the mid 60s and 70s (when the percentage of homicides committed with guns was actually decreasing!) a dramatic racial disparity in clearance rates has evolved. Nationally; police allow 1/3 of all homicides to remain unsolved. (compare this tom the 90%-98% clearance rates that were prevalent during the era of Seragent Joe Friday and Dragnet). In contrast, police allow nearly 2/3s of homicides of teenaged and young adult, Black Males to remain unsolved. One would presume that the self anointed leaders of the Black community would object to this racial disparity. No doubt they remain quiet because the realize that if all of the unidentified killers of Black males were arrested then the percentage of homicides committed by Blacks would increase to about 70%.
Since President Barack Obama has chosen to make a political issue of guns and homicide, why not force him to explain why if Obama had a bastard son, he would look like a composite of the demographic group that inmost likely to commit homicide.
Well, that ismyrant for today. Let me know if you think it is rayyycissstsss or offensive. I can send you links to databases upon request, but I suspect that you are quite aware of the information sources.
Dear knuckle:
First, let me apologize for taking so long to respond. I’ve been traveling—and recovering from traveling–over the last few days. No offense taken at all, quite the opposite. You raise valuable points indeed, however, I was focusing on certain aspects of these related issues of late, and therefore did not get specifically in to the cultural issues–as you have well done. Thanks!
Civil debate, which must ever encompass differing opinions, will always be encourage and welcomed at SMM.
Thanks!
(In the topic of demographics, I am going to throw out that you are a late 30′s to mid forties white male, KDwino, use that as the base of reference for the following)
Hypothetical:
If your grandparents related stories to you about your inability to enter certain stores due to the color of your skin, how would that shape your character?
There is a LOT of time left before the issue of race and racism filters itself out, and along with that, its accompanying societal pitfalls.
“in most likely to commit homicide.”…. if he were poor.
Your reasoning, though based on facts and common sense, unfortunately leads in a direction incompatible with the anti-civil rights lobby. To address the real issues you raise would threaten to upset the cart of rotten apples so long in the making, so fundamental to the Democratic power that I hold dear.
You receive an “F” for this class.
It becomes “old” explaining to anti-gun people the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, pundits, government officials on either side of the issue and educational institutions have done a poor job of explaining the Founders reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. The result is an uninformed America which believes it is for hunting or even protection from criminals. If such people believe that the 2nd Amendment does not apply in a day of modern weapons then I would say that since the Founders only knew about print journalism, the 1st Amendment’s freedom of the press does not apply to television journalism. The courts have ruled it does, therefor the basis of the 2nd Amendment to have citizens armed, meaning weapons comparable to those of troops, is valid. That includes semi-automatic AR-15 type rifles. One could make a case for having automatic firearms on that basis.
I just stumled upon this and for the life of me can’t remember what led ime to it. But anyway this fills a void in my learning of what led to our revolution. British gun control! More directly than the Stamp Act?
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
That linked account is materially incomplete. The British weren’t simply trying to seize materiel in order to disarm people, they were in fact responding to the war preparations that were rapidly increasing the stocks at the time, well above peace time needs; they were responding to hostile measures. So the run up to war wasn’t set off by British attempts at seizure, British attempts at seizure were set off by the run up to war.
It is indeed possible to lower high blood pressure
by only taking herbal medicines and vitamins and eating certain
foods that can lower high blood pressure.
When a patient comes to me with symptoms of this
disorder, I do not respond with mind-dulling medications or invasive
techniques. It is also possible that if CLASS recipients are eventually
enrolled in AHCCCS (Arizona’s Medicaid program), AHCCCS will benefit financially by receiving a share of the cash payment made by the CLASS program. If you have a personal injury legal matter, a dog bite or if you’ve lost a loved one in a wrongful death accident, call the Law Offices of R. And just think how great you’ll look and feel when you are consistently doing 100 ab exercises
a day.