In Britain they banned guns so bad that the Olympic team had to apply for a waiver to compete. And they experienced an INCREASE in illegal gun ownership and gun crime.

Banning guns does not prevent crime or violence. Guns are just the Tivo of crime they allow you to skip the preliminries of being in close quarters and having to deal with the messiness of your homicidal insanity and get right to the super fun Tarantino-esque ultraviolence.

In the case of this writer I think either an axiom about stopped clocks or a dog’s butt seems appropriate.

The Second Amendment seems to envision an oppressive government disarming the people and hence making it impossible for them to fight against rebels and insurrectionists. It’s like a built-in defense: Hey, you can’t take my gun, because I might need it for counter-insurgency actions — not just hunting, not just vigilantism.

Well, there’s also the vision of an oppressive government disarming the people and hence making it impossible for them to oppose the oppressive government, i.e., limiting insurgency (not just counter-insurgency) actions.

I was discussing this with a non-rightwing libertarian friend this weekend (who agrees with the above point that the 2nd Amendment is necessary to permit the populace to overthrow the government if need be). He took the position that, even if you regard the 2nd Amendment as limiting the right to keep and bear arms to purposes of maintaining a militia, it is not necessarily a logical conclusion that arms-keepers and -bearers must be active members of a militia. In other words, you can justify gun keeping-and-bearing on the grounds that if a militia is ever necessary, you will be ready.

Upthread, someone said that “well regulated” requires government to be the regulator. I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think “regulated” here means “subject to regulations,” but rather “orderly,” particularly in the context of “well regulated.” The idea being that the founders wanted a populace that could form an effective fighting force as needed.

Here’s a thought on the language of “keep and bear” versus “own”: How about if the government offered weapons to the populace — anybody over 18 who wants one can have one, just sign up and you get a government-issued gun, registered to you and owned by the government (which would keep on file the results of ballistic testing so it could be identified and traced if used in a crime). Would that not be in keeping with the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment, allowing the people to keep and bear arms? I’m always thinking….

Actually, I think the proper approach to take to guns is to analogize to free speech under the First Amendment, regarding which the Supreme Court has found some “time, place and manner” restrictions to be constitutionally acceptable. For instance, the government can require you to get a permit to stage a protest march, but it can’t deny you such a permit based on the content or subject matter of your protest. So instead of bans, governments should be trying to impose reasonable TPM restrictions on keeping and bearing arms — and maybe gun proponents should be willing to accept such restrictions the way we all have to accept TPM restrictions on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Bah, enough blathering. Back to work.

I once met a dumbass who bought faux eyeglasses hoping they would make her look smart.

That’s not because there isn’t one, it’s because we hear little of anything that happens outside our borders. In fact, in Switzerland, a place I have been to oodles of times, the fact that there is a gun in almost every house does mean that there are lots more family-squabble-turns-to-shooting incidents than in other, less gun-friendly countries. Which is hardly surprising, when you think about it.

People don’t own guns so they can admire them. Most guns go off from time to time.

mikey

Jackbooted thugs in uniform [bursting down door]: Mikey, we arrest you…
Mikey [wearing jackboots & blending in]: Dammit, he must have seen us coming and escaped out the window!
J.t.i.u.: After him, everyone!

[Exit Mikey, stage left, taking advantage of the confusion to change into running shoes].

Head hurtz.

mikey

Sadly, No!

The place is a total throwback. They have everything from clothing (picture ducks on chamois) to furniture to farm implements. They still have charge accounts where you tell the clerk your name and they write it up by hand on a charge slip. I love that place.

Our friend Mr. Port is quite typical of what I (somewhat) affectionately refer to as a “Spud Boy.” He most likely gets his hard news from Paul Harvey and Howard Stern. He probably has a hat that says “Git-er-done.”

There’s a reason I moved away from there as soon as I was humanly able.

I would just add, that there are progressives in ND, hell the state was practically socialist at one point (if you like obscure political history check out ND’s Non-Partisan League-a bunch of radical rabble rousers that led to the State Mill and the ND State Bank, a rather interesting story.) North Dakota is also home to Gordon Kahl, member of Posse Comitatus killed in a gun battle.

I’m FOR: Waiting periods, background checks, mandatory training and certification, dealer oversight and enhanced punishment for gun crimes.

But I’m AGAINST: Magazine capacity limitations, banning one rifle because it’s scary looking while another of equal or greater capacity to inflict mass harm is allowed to be sold because it just looks less like a weapon of war, blanket handgun bans and mandatory gun locks.

I own guns. I like to own guns. And since I’ve seen what damage can be inflicted with guns, particularly on unarmed individuals, I am more than willing to accept outlaw status, but I WILL keep my firearms.

Most are just for fun, and I find my time at the range to be enjoyable and fulfilling. But the core of my “arsenal” is built around five very special weapons, selected and modified to serve particular purposes. And one of those purposes, should it come to pass, would be to stand against, harass and interdict and escape from jackbooted thugs in uniform.

Anybody’s uniform…

mikey

We might also notice the example of Switzerland. If I’m not mistaken (& I seldom am) their Army consists of every able-bodied male (pigs!) citizen between 18 & 45 (just like our militia of the Militia Act of 179?) & they all have gov’t. issued H&K assault rifles & uniforms in their closets, yet we hear very little about the Swiss murder rate. (Could be a Right Wing media conspiracy, of course.)