Guns

[Danoff]

Ouch, you shot yourself in the analogy. Excruciating,



It sounds a bit slow from here if I'm honest

You're still missing the fact that a modern leisure market is not representative of the absolute raison d'etre, even so you immediately produce figures that imply the bulk of purchases are with the intention of removing life or liberty (hard to defend oneself with by doing neither).

The pop-doctrine acolytes enjoyed it tremendously though, I don't doubt

I thought you'd possibly try that route. Thing is though (and I thought I explained this clearly), that's not why those guns were purchased. Self-defense is the purpose, not shooting an attacker. I didn't buy my gun so that I could restrict someone else's liberty. I don't even know that I'll need to use it, or who I'd need to use it against, or in what capacity. So clearly that is not the purpose for buying the gun - the purpose is to defend my rights, the only thing I actually know I want to do with the gun.

You really need to just accept that you were wrong. The reason those guns are produced is to preserve rights, almost nobody buys a gun to limit liberty or freedom.

 

[TenEightyOne]

the purpose is to defend my rights, the only thing I actually know I want to do with the gun

That goes outside the original purpose, the raison d'etre of guns because you're talking about your purchase of your actual gun. That purchase is a result of the existence of guns.

I'm interested in something; how does owning a gun help you to defend your rights?

 

[Zenith]

That goes outside the original purpose, the raison d'etre of guns because you're talking about your purchase of your actual gun. That purchase is a result of the existence of guns.

*sigh* Market demand don't real. Once again, it's not that we don't understand your point, it's that your point is wrong. I won't be responding to any continuation of this point. This was refuted in several ways by several people who all have more expertise in the matter than you do. Restating it only highlights your ignorance.

I'm interested in something; how does owning a gun help you to defend your rights?

Because you can use it to shoot people if they try to take away your rights. It's called self defense.

 

[Scaff]

That goes outside the original purpose, the raison d'etre of guns ........

Your seriously trying to use a 1,000 year old purpose to define every gun that has ever been?
If you can't see the inherent ridiculousness of such a position its no wonder you are struggling to understand why no one is taking it seriously. Attempting to justify a contemporary position on a millennia old purpose (which has been clearly shown to apply to only a small percentage now) is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[BobK]

Your seriously trying to use a 1,000 year old purpose to define every gun that has ever been?
If you can't see the inherent ridiculousness of such a position its no wonder you are struggling to understand why no one is taking it seriously. Attempting to justify a contemporary position on a millennia old purpose (which has been clearly shown to apply to only a small percentage now) is ludicrous in the extreme.

Not only that, he's got that "original purpose" wrong as well. Guns were originally developed for siege warfare. For knocking down the walls of fortifications. With a rate of fire measured in days rather than minutes, they were useless as any kind of general antipersonnel weapon.

 

[Scaff]

Not only that, he's got that "original purpose" wrong as well. Guns were originally developed for siege warfare. For knocking down the walls of fortifications. With a rate of fire measured in days rather than minutes, they were useless as any kind of general antipersonnel weapon.

Not for the Chinese, the first 'gun' was actually closer to a shotgun in that it was a bamboo and paper (later metal) tube filled with black-powder and bits of metal. Mounted on the end of a spear and used as an anti-personnel device (that I'm fairly sure would have been more use as a psychological device that for its efficacy as a weapon).

The firelance (as it was known) is generally acknowledged as the first firearm and the direct precursor to both artillery (first) and then small arms (shortly afterwards), as such technically the first firearm was a 'small' arm and anti-personnel.

None of which changes the utter ridiculousness of attempting to use a millennia old purpose to define all modern weaponry, particularly given the range of weaponry and firearms that now exist. Its akin to trying to use the earliest non-human powered carts to define the purpose of all forms of modern non-human powered transport. It simply doesn't work unless you are willing to retard the purpose to the lowest possible denominator, and in doing so remove all meaning from it in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Danoff]

That goes outside the original purpose, the raison d'etre of guns because you're talking about your purchase of your actual gun. That purchase is a result of the existence of guns.

Oooooh, you mean you don't want to know why guns exist, you want to know why they were invented. See, there's a big difference because lots of things exist that weren't invented (trees for example) and lots of thing were invented that don't currently exist. So why were guns invented? Yea I don't know, you'd have to ask the inventor. Pretty sure that's not relevant to anything remotely applicable to the conversation though.

If absolutely had to take a wild guess at why they were invented, I'd say it was for money. Probably not to remove liberty or freedom, but to make a profit. Now don't tell me you want to know why someone paid the inventor because we'll truly have come full circle at that point.

Again, let's admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your seriously trying to use a 1,000 year old purpose to define every gun that has ever been?
If you can't see the inherent ridiculousness of such a position its no wonder you are struggling to understand why no one is taking it seriously. Attempting to justify a contemporary position on a millennia old purpose (which has been clearly shown to apply to only a small percentage now) is ludicrous in the extreme.

Indeed it would be, and that isn't what I've been trying to do.

There are two problems with the arguers, one is that they only seem able to use the definition of "liberty" that is bound in social context. The second is that they insist on talking about guns they've been allowed to buy in a modern setting. I'm not interested in their guns, rather in Guns. Perhaps capitalising earlier would have lead to capitalising earlier?

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty, whatever uses were evolved once people were able to afford to own them privately (or were allowed to, the free arms debate goes right back to the Dynasties as you say) are a result of the existence of guns. Danoff in particular takes a very strong view within a very isolated set of definitions that he clearly holds very dearly (you can see his comments on rights and human-driven logic for an idea of the bandwith that his hypotheses restrict themselves to).

 

[Scaff]

Indeed it would be, and that isn't what I've been trying to do.

Yes it is, you do it again in just a few sentences.

There are two problems with the arguers, one is that they only seem able to use the definition of "liberty" that is bound in social context. The second is that they insist on talking about guns they've been allowed to buy in a modern setting. I'm not interested in their guns, rather in Guns. Perhaps capitalising earlier would have lead to capitalising earlier?

I'm not discussing liberty or its definition and as such that has nothing to do with the point I have raised.

That you are talking about Guns as a whole is not a point I've missed (nor by the replies has anyone else), but you seem insistent on referring to all the guns that have ever existed based on a millennia old 'purpose', that is as ridiculous as using the 'purpose' of a cart to discuss all modern forms of transport. Its an attempt to use a gross generalisation to make a point, and it simply doesn't stack up at all, as has been shown many times.

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty,......

Citation required.

You see as you have not used the term 'were created to' you point fails at the first gun that is created to do neither of these things. Basic falsifiability.

'Superglue' was invented to temporarily seal wounds on the battlefield, that certainly doesn't mean that every tube created today exists for that specific purpose or that is use should be judged on that alone. To do so would be utterly narrowminded and invalid in a discussion on the vast majority of discussion on the use of superglue

...... whatever uses were evolved once people were able to afford to own them privately (or were allowed to, the free arms debate goes right back to the Dynasties as you say) are a result of the existence of guns. Danoff in particular takes a very strong view within a very isolated set of definitions that he clearly holds very dearly (you can see his comments on rights and human-driven logic for an idea of the bandwidth that his hypotheses restrict themselves to).

On the contrary the only person working to a narrow bandwidth here is you, a millennia old one at that.

That Guns may have been invented to remove life (liberty is utterly subjective - who's liberty?) is a point that would bear some degree of warrant, to then try and argue that means that all guns are created to do the same is a massive logical fallacy and undone the second a gun is created to do neither of those things. That guns have been created specifically for the purposes of target shooting (and therefore exists specifically for this purpose) causes your point to fail on the grounds of falsifiability.[/quote]

 

[TenEightyOne]

(liberty is utterly subjective - who's liberty?)

I'm not sure what you mean; you use "who" showing you see liberty as dependent on persona, so why ask whose libert? Ensure you're not using a social definition of liberty and that you're using "scope to do and act as one pleases".

Do you feel that liberty can differ from person to person (outside Danoff's socio-legal definition)?

 

[Scaff]

I've clearly

I'm not sure what you mean; you use "who" showing you see liberty as dependent on persona, so why ask whose libert? Ensure you're not using a social definition of liberty and that you're using "scope to do and act as one pleases".

Do you feel that liberty can differ from person to person (outside Danoff's socio-legal definition)?

I clearly
stated that I'm not addressing liberty in my discussion, yet you ignore every other part of my post.

I wonder why that is?

 

[TenEightyOne]

you ignore every other part of my post.

I wonder why that is?

With all due respect; that's your presumption and not a fact. It's true that I didn't reply to all of it. I initially answered the question that you asked about liberty (an odd way not to discuss it unless you're simply overlaying your own definition of it for the purpose of further discussion).

I'm not discussing liberty or its definition and as such that has nothing to do with the point I have raised

Again with respect, the definition of liberty holds 50% of the interest in my argument, you did define liberty, and you did ask a clarifying question. I'm happy to move on from that as I think its obvious to most people that liberty is "the scope to go or act as one pleases". That's extra-social, not consititutional (small c).

Conceptually guns exist as a force-multiplier for life's host organism, in this case Human. We're unusual that we're our only version that doesn't use symbiosis as a multiplier in our negotations, (that's another topic but arguably the differential between Human and vanilla-Primate). Their origin is firmly rooted in that.

My gun wasn't made because of that, but it could only be made because guns already exist (and they weren't already in existence for that reason). Wind back to before guns existed and work forward from there. You can either decide that guns started with the first barreled siege engine or the first handheld barreled projectile launchers and you will find in either case that the raison d'etre of Guns (capital G) is to remove life or liberty.

That you are talking about Guns as a whole is not a point I've missed (nor by the replies has anyone else), but you seem insistent on referring to all the guns that have ever existed based on a millennia old 'purpose',

I see that you've noted the point yet you still insist that the concept of Guns and their naissance is somehow tied to the production of every single firearm thereupon...

that is as ridiculous as using the 'purpose' of a cart to discuss all modern forms of transport. Its an attempt to use a gross generalisation to make a point, and it simply doesn't stack up at all, as has been shown many times.

... an insistence that you propagate with another self-disservice. "Purpose" is a good word acutally, as is "generalisation". How would we do that one? Cart (we should say Ground Vehicle) exists only to increase efficiency of work done across A and B? That's close to working, and has no direct link to to an F1 car, a cherry-picker or a lorry other than informing the raison d'etre that spawned their object class.

...the utter ridiculousness of attempting to use a millennia old purpose to define all modern weaponry, particularly given the range of weaponry and firearms that now exist...

I quite agree, I haven't tried to do that. Split concept from propagation.

 

[BobK]

Not for the Chinese, the first 'gun' was actually closer to a shotgun in that it was a bamboo and paper (later metal) tube filled with black-powder and bits of metal. Mounted on the end of a spear and used as an anti-personnel device (that I'm fairly sure would have been more use as a psychological device that for its efficacy as a weapon).

The firelance (as it was known) is generally acknowledged as the first firearm and the direct precursor to both artillery (first) and then small arms (shortly afterwards), as such technically the first firearm was a 'small' arm and anti-personnel.

Yes, I'd forgotten the fire lance. It's my impression that it was more a grenade/mine device than a projectile thrower; similar to the 19th century spar torpedoes.

If "guns only exist to remove life or liberty" then printers exist only to print Bibles. Steam engines exist only to pump water out of coal mines. And yes, cyanoacrylate glue (commonly referred to as superglue) exists only for temporary first aid. Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Dotini]

The gun, like the sword, is a primarily a weapon. It can be used to threaten and intimidate, to defend or attack. It can be used for hunting and sporting activities. But it is first and last a weapon.

We here in the US hold gun ownership to be a useful, necessary and even a sacred (constitutional) right of individuals. They are our final recourse in the defense of our lives and property, and in our resistance to tyranny and defense of liberty. It will be a cold day in hell when they are outlawed by a fearful, out-of-control authoritarian government.

 

[Zenith]

I answered the question "How does making a gun enable you to defend your rights?" But never got a reply.

It's almost as if my answer was yet another example that refutes this "only exist to take away rights" sort of deal.

Oh well. If you ignore my points I don't notice.

 

[Exorcet]

I think its obvious to most people that liberty is "the scope to go or act as one pleases".

How you act brings consequences. Going back to the picture from earlier (Allied soldier watching German soldier), if German solider wants to kill people he can but he ends up as in the photo because Allied soldiers will resist his actions. The reason why liberty goes back to rights in this debate is because it has to to be worth discussing. Ignore rights (ie ignore who is right and wrong) and there is no liberty, just actions and consequences. Even in the photo the German solider would have liberty (if we're ignoring rights), nothing is stopping him from running off and being shot.

Conceptually guns exist as a force-multiplier... Their origin is firmly rooted in that.

Yes, guns are force multipliers. What's the point?

My gun wasn't made because of that, but it could only be made because guns already exist (and they weren't already in existence for that reason).

Your gun is still a force multiplier by definition (unless it's fake). The fact that guns existed at some point isn't enough to give you a gun. They had to exist when you wanted to get one. The original invention of the gun has no special relevance. It could be forgotten completely, or happened in many other ways, yet you could still have a gun. You were able to buy a gun because people know how to make them and are actively making them. That the first gun maker (possibly) wanted to murder someone is of no importance. It would have relevance to the history of guns, but no relevance to guns today.

Wind back to before guns existed and work forward from there. You can either decide that guns started with the first barreled siege engine or the first handheld barreled projectile launchers and you will find in either case that the raison d'etre of Guns (capital G) is to remove life or liberty.

Maybe, at least from all the information given so far. Breaking down walls doesn't inherently remove life or liberty, nor does the threat of force in response to an attack.

 

[FoolKiller]

More news on the gun debate issue in America.

First, a San Diego gun store owner refuses to comply with ATF demands to turn over customer names, at the risk of being shut down.
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/#axzz2w4gnZpid

OCEANSIDE, Calif. – The owner of an Oceanside store that sells various gun parts to build a rifle from scratch refused to turn over his customer list to federal agents.


Dimitrios Karras, owner of Ares Armor, said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents were investigating their business, not for what they sell, but for the people who purchase their products.

Karras said the ATF threatened to shutter their business if they didn’t hand over the names of 5,000 customers who have purchased an 80 percent lower receiver (the base) for building an AR-15.

It is legal to build a rifle from scratch without serial numbers only if the base is manufactured to ATF specifications. The base is not considered a firearm if it’s sold separately.

A manufacturer made an 80 percent receiver in plastic with a different material and colors which show exactly where the customer can drill making it easier and cheaper to build. The ATF said it is illegal.

The ATF sent stores, including Ares Armor, letters demanding they turn over the products and names of customers who purchased them.

“They said either give us these 5000 names or we are coming in and taking pretty much anything – which is a huge privacy concern and something we are not willing to do,” said Karras.

Karras’s attorney informed the ATF to pick up the receivers Wednesday morning at their Oceanside location, but the inventory was not the issue. The store owner said he will not comply with turning over their private client list.

“They were going to search all of our facilities and confiscate our computer and pretty much shut our business down,” said Karras. “The government invades our privacy on a daily basis and everyone thinks its ok. This is one of those situations where hopefully the governmental institutions will come in say this is protected and no you’re not taking it from them.”

In anticipation of a raid, they filed a temporary restraining order against the ATF, stopping them from confiscating their property, Karras said. The ATF has a certain amount of time to respond. If the two parties do not reach a compromise, they will be in court for a preliminary hearing March 20.

I like when individuals stand up for the rights of others at risk to their own livelihood. Heroes.


And a Washington Times op-ed on how police often prefer to have an armed citizenry, as it deters crime.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...in-blue-line-asks-for-help-from-gun-o/?page=1

When President Obama makes a pitch for more gun-control laws, he likes to have a phalanx of blue-uniformed police officers behind him.

These press conferences are supposed to convince us that law enforcement believes more restrictions on Second Amendment rights makes society safer. But Mr. Obama’s visual is a deception, because only a few liberal, big-city police chiefs continue to put politics over public safety.

I was on a panel Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss how law enforcement leaders are embracing a well-armed civilian populace to help them fight crime.

I told the audience that I decided to get my first gun two years ago after being a victim of a home invasion in Washington, D.C.

It took me four months to go through the 17 steps required at that time to legally register one handgun.

Now, I cannot take my gun out of my home for self-defense because the nation’s capital is the only place in the country that does not allow American citizens to exercise their right to bear arms.

When I finished my story, Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who was also on the panel, said: “I trust law-abiding citizens with firearms. I fear criminals. Self-defense is the first law of nature.”

He explained that he views the people of Milwaukee County with concealed-carry permits as able to “assist” him in keeping the community safe.

Sheriff Clarke is one of many law enforcement officers who has publicly embraced gun ownership and carry permits for people to defend themselves.

Clarke explained, “What we need to do in this country is we need to get to the original intent of the Second Amendment and stop all this ‘might issue,’ ‘may issue,’ ‘shall issue’ because that complicates this whole thing.”

The Democrat, who was first elected in 2002, told a cheering crowd: “The armed citizen made this country free. The armed citizen will keep this country free.”

Law enforcement is now seeing how good people carrying guns in public places can help slow or stop active shooters.

Ronald Noble, Interpol’s secretary-general, made a surprisingly honest statement last October about the horrific multiday terrorist attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya.

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Colorado, if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Mr. Noble, an appointee in President Clinton’s administration, told ABC News.

It’s important to differentiate between police chiefs who are appointed from sheriffs who are elected. Chiefs are generally beholden to the liberal big-city mayors who hired them, while sheriffs tend to abide by the will of the people who elected them.

So it was a tectonic shift in the gun rights movement when Detroit Police Chief James Craig said in January that legal gun owners can deter violent crime and that people with concealed-carry permits contributed to crime going down in his city last year.

Chief Craig spent almost 30 years in the Los Angeles Police Department, where he was indoctrinated with the belief that taking guns away from good people was the answer to crime.

His beliefs shifted, though, after becoming chief of police in Portland, Me., where the number of carry permit holders was high and crime was extremely low.

Chief Craig has come under heavy criticism nationally from gun-control groups and liberal media, but he has repeatedly been proved right. In one week in late February, three people with carry permits used their firearms to defend themselves from criminals in Detroit.

One of these incidents got national attention because a surveillance video caught three armed teenage thugs fleeing a house after a mother shot at them with an AR-style rifle. Afterward, Chief Craig said she did the “right thing.”

Another distinction to note in law enforcement is that the bosses have a very different perspective on gun control than the guys on the street. That’s simply because the force is working with limited resources and can use the help of the good guys.

“Rank-and-file law enforcement has always supported the Second Amendment,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, who was the moderator of the CPAC panel.

“There was a PoliceOne survey done recently, and nine out of 10 current and retired police officers support concealed-carry laws. You’re not going to hear that out of some of the chiefs, but that’s the truth.”

Mr. Obama started this debate over gun control after the Newtown, Conn., school-shootings tragedy, but it has really backfired on him. The polls show that fewer Americans support more restrictions on gun rights now than did at the end of his first term.

This shift occurred because the public has taken the time to look at the evidence of what stops bad guys and the statistics on violent crime, and heard from leading law enforcement officers in the country.

The president and his allies fighting for more gun-control laws should lay down their arms. They lost.

 

[Scaff]

With all due respect; that's your presumption and not a fact. It's true that I didn't reply to all of it. I initially answered the question that you asked about liberty (an odd way not to discuss it unless you're simply overlaying your own definition of it for the purpose of further discussion).

Its not a presumption at all, its an accurate observation. You ignored the vast majority of my post to focus on one area I state I wasn't commenting on. Nothing presumptive about that, and unless you can show a post from you between the two that addresses the rest then its a clear statement of fact.

Again with respect, the definition of liberty holds 50% of the interest in my argument, you did define liberty, and you did ask a clarifying question. I'm happy to move on from that as I think its obvious to most people that liberty is "the scope to go or act as one pleases". That's extra-social, not consititutional (small c).

I didn't define liberty at all (please quote my definition if you disagree). I stated that a discussion on liberty would be subjective (that's not a definition of liberty at all) and used a minor qualifier to illustrate the point.

As such no definition of liberty at all came from myself.

Conceptually guns exist as a force-multiplier for life's host organism, in this case Human. We're unusual that we're our only version that doesn't use symbiosis as a multiplier in our negotations, (that's another topic but arguably the differential between Human and vanilla-Primate). Their origin is firmly rooted in that.

Origin doesn't define all future use, it defines origin, you have consistently stated that.....

"Guns only exist to remove life or liberty"

....with no qualifiers that would apply to all guns ever, as has been pointed out that is simply not the case.

My gun wasn't made because of that, but it could only be made because guns already exist (and they weren't already in existence for that reason). Wind back to before guns existed and work forward from there. You can either decide that guns started with the first barreled siege engine or the first handheld barreled projectile launchers and you will find in either case that the raison d'etre of Guns (capital G) is to remove life or liberty.

Any once again origin doesn't define all future use, and an attempt to use it to define the future use of all guns is inane.

I see that you've noted the point yet you still insist that the concept of Guns and their naissance is somehow tied to the production of every single firearm thereupon...

No that would be you.....

"Guns only exist to remove life or liberty"

... an insistence that you propagate with another self-disservice. "Purpose" is a good word acutally, as is "generalisation". How would we do that one? Cart (we should say Ground Vehicle) exists only to increase efficiency of work done across A and B? That's close to working, and has no direct link to to an F1 car, a cherry-picker or a lorry other than informing the raison d'etre that spawned their object class.

And still you miss the point.

I quite agree, I haven't tried to do that. Split concept from propagation.

Yes you have....

"Guns only exist to remove life or liberty"

A point you used to justify you status on all Guns, including ones that clearly exist to do neither.....

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty, which is covered in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is offset by the duty of ratified states to ensure domestic tranquility and a common defense.

Why shouldn't they take your guns? Or know where to get them? America is a civilized society, no?

...as such you are using a millennia old purpose in an attempt to control items that may not exist to meet that purpose.

Interestingly enough you have also not even proven your claim in the first place (hence my request from a citation - which you have also ignored), as such you are using an unproven claim to attempt to control items that may not even meet the claimed purpose.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Its not a presumption at all, its an accurate observation. You ignored the vast majority of my post to focus on one area I state I wasn't commenting on. Nothing presumptive about that, and unless you can show a post from you between the two that addresses the rest then its a clear statement of fact.

No, ignore means to disregard intentionally. I disregarded no part of your post, it might be pedantry but you definitely said "ignore", you can't possibly know if I ignored any part any more than I might know how your skirting is coloured. You asked a specific question which I answered. I then went on to address the other point of your post.

 

[Kent]

People who think you can ensure life and liberty through "laws" alone make perfect victims.

Next thing you know boxing gloves will need to be registered and taken away at the first sign you want to secure your home through old fashioned fist fighting. :unamused:

 

[Scaff]

No, ignore means to disregard intentionally. I disregarded no part of your post, it might be pedantry but you definitely said "ignore", you can't possibly know if I ignored any part any more than I might know how your skirting is coloured. You asked a specific question which I answered. I then went on to address the other point of your post.

You quoted a single specific part of my post and commented on it, to do so you had to remove every other part of it.

As such its a perfectly reasonable to state that it would seem that you had ignored the sections you removed.

You certainly didn't address them, just as you are right now doing once again.

 

[LeMansAid]

That goes outside the original purpose, the raison d'etre of guns because you're talking about your purchase of your actual gun. That purchase is a result of the existence of guns.

Although, original purpose and raison d'etre are quite different. The latter is closer to what I think you're aiming to put across, but still doesn't nail it. It's a little muddied in that it could include motivation (which brings about the "protecting liberty" response). Adding the specificity of physical manifestation might get it there, or close.

If "guns only exist to remove life or liberty" then printers exist only to print Bibles.

I think I know what TEO is trying to put across. I'm almost positive that it has nothing do to with how your analogy would apply.

It will be a cold day in hell when they are outlawed by a fearful, out-of-control authoritarian government.

"Fearful". That's something that Bowling For Columbine really did cover well I thought. Only, in respect to the other side of the coin.

 

[Agent_47]

Why would somebody think that disarming people who haven't broken the law, is going to make for a safer society?

 

[FoolKiller]

I hate to interrupt a debate, but some news from my home state.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...se-of-reps-considering-gun-grab-nullification

The Kentucky state House of Representatives is considering a bill that would nullify any federal attempt to take guns from citizens of the Bluegrass State.

By voting for this measure, Kentucky state legislators could stand up and perform their constitutional obligation to check federal usurpation.

The bill, introduced by State Representative Diane St. Onge (R), is a force rejection of recent federal regulations that disregard the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

HB 429 sets up the shield of state sovereignty and takes direct aim at the disarmament scheme. Among other provisions, the bill would:

invalidate and nullify all federal laws and regulations restricting ownership or possession of firearms; direct the General Assembly to take all appropriate action to safeguard Kentuckian's rights to possess firearms in accordance with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of the Constitution of Kentucky.

As of this writing, the measure enjoys the support of 13 co-sponsors.

Although certainly a praiseworthy attempt to shore up the right own weapons, a blog post published by the Tenth Amendment Center points out some of the proposal’s deficiencies:

The bill does not create any mechanism to stop enforcement of federal gun laws, but would set the stage for further action. The next step would be to pass a Second Amendment Preservation Act barring state cooperation with enforcement of any federal firearms laws. Since a vast majority of federal enforcement actions require the leadership, help and/or assistance of state or local governments, agents and resources — widespread refusal to enforce or participate in enforcement will severely cripple federal efforts.

An effort consistent with this wise constitutional counsel would be in line with the tack recommended by James Madison in The Federalist, No. 45, where he encouraged state lawmakers, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, to refuse “to co-operate with the officers of the Union.”

The Kentucky bill, though not perfect, does cite the Tenth Amendment as authority for its rejection of the federal gun grab, pointing to the potential exercise of the principle of nullification.

Nullification, as explained by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, is the most powerful weapon against the federal assault on state sovereignty and individual liberty. By applying the principles set out in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, states can simultaneously rebuild the walls of sovereignty once protected by the Constitution, in particular the Tenth Amendment, and drive the forces of federal consolidation back to the banks of the Potomac.

The text of the bill recognizes this fact, declaring:

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky finds and declares that it is the duty of the General Assembly and its members to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky.

Later, along the same lines, the bill reads:

It shall be the duty of the Kentucky General Assembly to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation in violation of the sections of and amendments to the Constitution of the United States specified in Section 1 of this Act.

Although the Kentucky bill (and others like it) rely specifically on the 10th Amendment and the companion constitutional principle of nullification, the narrower concept of anti-commandeering supports their position, as well.

Anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”

While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty,” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case ofNew York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States(1997).

Bills thwarting the president’s efforts to consolidate control over all guns and ammunition in the hands of federal agencies are being debated all over the country. Citizens of these states are encouraged to contact their state representatives, congratulate them if they are currently involved in the fight to restore federalism and remind them of their oath to do so if they are still sitting on the sidelines.

 

[Beeker1972]

Why would somebody think that disarming people who haven't broken the law, is going to make for a safer society?

Control Control Control ....

 

[Danoff]

There are two problems with the arguers, one is that they only seem able to use the definition of "liberty" that is bound in social context. The second is that they insist on talking about guns they've been allowed to buy in a modern setting. I'm not interested in their guns, rather in Guns. Perhaps capitalising earlier would have lead to capitalising earlier?

I responded to that (as have others):

Oooooh, you mean you don't want to know why guns exist, you want to know why they were invented. See, there's a big difference because lots of things exist that weren't invented (trees for example) and lots of thing were invented that don't currently exist. So why were guns invented? Yea I don't know, you'd have to ask the inventor. Pretty sure that's not relevant to anything remotely applicable to the conversation though.

If absolutely had to take a wild guess at why they were invented, I'd say it was for money. Probably not to remove liberty or freedom, but to make a profit. Now don't tell me you want to know why someone paid the inventor because we'll truly have come full circle at that point.

Again, let's admit you were wrong and move on.

Let's summarize:

- Current guns exist (were manufactured) because of demand
- Demand exists because of the desires of consumers
- The desires of consumers (in the US) largely focus on the preservation of rights, but they, as a group, do not agree.
- Current guns are able to exist (be manufactured) because guns were invented
- Guns were not invented in a single step, but rather evolved over time with lots of small improvements
- The inventors (and there are a lot) that came up with all of the small improvements probably do not agree (as a group) on why those improvements were invented.
- Some inventors may have wanted to kill people, others may have wanted to sell guns, others may have wanted to preserve rights. We may never know.
- Why guns were invented has no bearing on why guns today exist. Many inventions have ceased to exist as people no longer have a purpose for them.
- You should apologize for wasting our time with this.

 

[Tornado]

As another aside:

This is apparently annoying some gun activists right now.

We just got a bunch of these in to work today. Held it, cycled it, dry fired it. I cannot describe how much safer I feel now that I know the frightening flash suppressor, terrifying pistol grip and downright satanic telescoping stock were all removed. It might as well be a squirt gun now.

 

[FoolKiller]

More news on the gun debate issue in America.

First, a San Diego gun store owner refuses to comply with ATF demands to turn over customer names, at the risk of being shut down.
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/#axzz2w4gnZpid



I like when individuals stand up for the rights of others at risk to their own livelihood. Heroes.

Update: The ATF disregarded the restraining order and raided the shop. It seems the ATF is above the law. I hope every member of this team gets thrown in jail for violating a restraining order.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/17/feds-raid-gun-parts-stores-despite-court-order/#axzz2wYCMW8qs

SAN DIEGO – With a search warrant in hand, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confiscated computers, customer lists and the questionable polymer 80 percent lower receivers from four Ares Armor store locations throughout San Diego County over the weekend.

“There were women and children inside our retail establishment when the (ATF) agents came in with guns drawn,” said Ares Armor Executive Officer Dimitrios Karras. “They came into our manufacturing facility with their guns up like they were invading Iraq.”

The raid happened three days after Ares owner was granted a temporary restraining by a judge to stop ATF agents from searching their stores.

The ATF confirmed they were investigating the stores for federal firearm violations.

The case stems from the sale of what is called an 80% lower receiver, which gun enthusiast use to build their own rifles and guns.

Building a rifle with specific versions of the 80 percent receivers is legal. The polymer lower receiver appears to be manufactured differently with two parts, making them a firearm and illegal sell, according to the ATF.

“We did ask the court to clarify if these things were firearms or not,” said Karras. “We did ask for protection as this gets resolved within the court system.”

Karras said they had their polymer lower receivers locked in a closet ready to turn over to the ATF since Wednesday. He was more concerned about the federal agents taking lists of his customers’ information.

“If anybody is a criminal organization that should be investigated, I think they should look in the mirror. We gave them a black eye publicly,” Karras said. “They tried to do an underhanded deal with us. They said, ‘Hey hush, hush. Keep it secret and nobody’s going to know that we took the customer list from you. Nobody’s going to know we took this from you.’”

The investigation has some customers nervous about their right to bear arms.

“I’m on that list, and I’m waiting for the knock on the door to tell me they are here to remove my second amendment rights,” one customer told Fox 5.

There's a video at the link.

 

[a6m5]

“I’m on that list, and I’m waiting for the knock on the door to tell me they are here to remove my second amendment rights,” one customer told Fox 5.

I'd be nervous in this guys shoes, too, but looks like this is where the ATF was coming from:

*snip*To be clear, the following describes activities of people who are NOT Ares Armor. Specifically, the following details the business practices of LCG AR Part and Custom Accessories in California. But it gives some insight into what the ATF thinks was going down in Ares Armor’s back room.

On March 19, 2013, an undercover law enforcement officer (“UC#1”) visited LCG AR Parts and Custom Accessories (“LCG”) [ED: NOT Ares Armor], located at 8524 Florin Road, Sacramento (Attachment A-1). LCG is a small gun parts store located within a larger commercial plaster retail store. At LCG, UC#1 was met by MICHAEL TURNER. UC#1 asked TURNER about firearms. TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 could purchase an AR-15 blank at LCG and “mill it out” in the back of the shop the same day – essentially creating a firearm from scratch.

[...]

On April 3, 2013, UC#1 met TURNER at LCG. UC#1 removed an AR-15-style pistol off the display wall of LCG and explained that he wanted to model the pistol after the one on display. TURNER handed UC#1 an AR-15 blank that was made of aluminum. UC#1 asked how long it takes to make the AR-15 blank into a firearm. TURNER informed UC#1 that such a firearm could be made in about two hours. TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 would drill five holes and then “Jimmy” would “clean it up.” TURNER is pictured below in a screenshot from the video recorded by UC#1.

TURNER identified “Jimmy” (individual later identified as EMILIANO CORTEZ) and indicated UC#1 should follow EMILIANO CORTEZ. EMILIANO CORTEZ and TURNER guided UC#1 out of the firearm shop (located within the plastering business) towards the back of the business. Upon arriving at the rear of the business, TURNER told UC#1 that EMILIANO CORTEZ was going to set the AR-15 blank into a “jig.”

TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 would have to drill five holes in the AR-15 blank, and then EMILIANO CORTEZ would mill the remainder to complete the receiver. UC#1 was directed to use a drill press and instructed how to operate the drill press – in essence, UC#1 was operating the drill press as a surrogate for EMILIANO CORTEZ – EMILIANO CORTEZ directed each and every move made by UC#1. EMILIANO CORTEZ would motion to the UC#1 when to stop and reposition the AR-15 blank. Subsequently, TURNER took UC#1 back to the front of LCG and informed UC#1 that EMILIANO CORTEZ would finish the receiver within the next hour and a half.

[...]

According to the Department of Homeland Security, EMILIANO CORTEZ is a Mexican national who has previously been deported and is illegally present within the United States. Further, EMILIANO CORTEZ is a convicted felon. In 2010, in Nevada County, California, EMILIANO CORTEZ was convicted of possession of an assault weapon and sentenced to sixteen months in prison.

[...]

Several minutes later, CI#1 departed from LCG in possession of an AR-15 pistol, two boxes of ammunition, and a large-capacity magazine. At no point was CI#1 required to fill out a background check form or complete any paperwork that is required by ATF prior to the purchase of a firearm.

I’m gonna be honest — this doesn’t sound good for those involved.

So from the documents, it looks like these guys (LCG AR Parts and Custom Accessories, or “LCG”) employed an illegal Mexican immigrant who’s also a felon to assist customers in manufacturing firearms on the business’s premises. The employee in question allegedly would set the blank up in the drill press, instruct the customer in drilling out the holes, then then take it from there.

Around the time of the investigation, the ATF issued a response to Ares Armor’s request for clarification about the same practice — “assisting” others in milling out their 80% lower receivers. And according to the ATF, a federal firearms license is required for “a business premises at which, for a fee, it makes available a computer numeric control (CNC) machine, tools, equipment, and instructions to persons who bring in castings or raw materials for the purpose of creating firearms.” In short, what was happening in the back of LCG’s shop was, according to the ATF, illegal.

After the clarification was issued, LGS seems to have had an “OH ****” moment and tried to clean up its act. Tried.*snip*

thetruthaboutguns.com story

I'm not defending the ATF's decision to violate a court order, especially since they only suspected Ares of wrongdoing, but just wanted to share a story which may explain why they were so caught up with these types of gun shops.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not defending the ATF's decision to violate a court order, especially since they only suspected Ares of wrongdoing, but just wanted to share a story which may explain why they were so caught up with these types of gun shops.

The story has been updated to say that Ares was raided in related to how their part was manufactured.

That makes since when you think about how the ATF wanted the list of everyone who bought the part. That is a wide sweeping net if you are looking just for guys who had their guns built at the shop for them. With a decent lawyer it wouldn't stand up in court because the warrant would have been for evidence of a different crime. If the warrant is for guns built in the shop then they violated the rights of every customer who just bought a part and any search of their property would be illegal.

And to be honest, I have zero doubt that the ATF would be willing to ignore court-ordered rules. Government has a way of having the rules not apply to them. I see it everyday at work, and we don't do anything related to catching criminals.