The war of words continues between Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg over access to gun records.
Bloomberg has blamed the so-called Tiahrt amendment, which restricts access to federal gun-record trace data, for preventing local police departments from going after bad-apple firearms dealers — and he’s gone so far as to run TV ads in Wichita accusing Tiahrt of endangering public safety.
Tiahrt maintains that the restrictions are needed to protect undercover investigations.
Although they’ve made some efforts in recent months to negotiate, the two sides seem as far apart as ever, judging from an article in the New York Sun in which Tiahrt fired back at Bloomberg’s campaign: “I think it’s a self-serving effort to put a political agenda above the safety of our law enforcement officers.”
Bloomberg’s office countered that Tiahrt is the one with an agenda: shielding firearms dealers at the behest of the National Rifle Association: “If Todd Tiahrt is worried about protecting gun dealers who are violating the law, then we have to part ways,” said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s criminal justice coordinator.
Neither side seems willing to back down. But isn’t there a way to share the data with local police without endangering undercover cops? After all, before the Tiahrt amendment passed in 2003, the records were routinely shared, with no evidence that any officer was placed in danger.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
114 Comments
Bloomberg is a leftist.Bloomberg wants to sue gun manufacturers for money. His agenda has little or nothing to do with the prosecution of criminals.The Tiahrt Amendment mainly blocks transfers of information if it cant be certified that the information is required for a CRIMINAL, not CIVIL investigation.Bloomberg can’t be trusted.
How does federal/state sharing of information endanger undercover cops? Do they think the cops are going to out an undercover officer?
Michael Bloomberg has a political agenda to disarm the people – not only in NYC but in the country as a whole. BTW he is a REPUBLICAN so when the Republicans start telling the fool cons that the Democrats “wanna take your guns”, you will know what the real case is.
Come on Kev!
Bloomberg is a liberal. He’s a far left liberal that changed from a democrat to a republican to run for mayor in NYC.
“. . . you will know what the real case is.”
The leftist want to take your guns. That’s the real case is. They are too smart to campaign on what their real agenda is though. Gore would be president if he could have won his home state. But he lost because of the gun issue.
Hank
Bloombergs Position on guns isn’t much different than Rudy’s. Romney’s Gun record is weak and he lied about being a lifelong hunters. And BTW liberals don’t have a monopoly on anti gun legislation from Reagan, Bush Sr, Nixon etc. Even Dubya said he would have reauthorized the assault weapons ban if it passed congress. I guess that Makes Reagan and Nixon and the Bushes leftists.
Hank…why would anyone change from a democrat to a republican to run in NYC?
THe fact is that the attitude towards guns is very different in the cities than in less urban areas. The other fact is that the NRA makes gigantic campaign contributions to those who do its bidding.
Since Bloomberg is in fact a Republican, nullifying the potential for partisanship, I’d believe him on this matter.
Hey Republicans–Someone please explain to me how guns square with the “culture of life”.
What’s Brownback’s position on guns? (I know he’s against the death penalty, in a rare counter-party stance).
delsol,
Because the difference between Rudy and Dinkens made it hard for a democrat to win in NYC. Dinkens was a typical democrat fool that made a mess of NYC. Rudy cleaned it up.
Bloomberg ran as Rudy light. Couldn’t have won as a democrat.
Any other questions class?
Hank
Hank,THe implication that Bloomberg “couldn;’t have won as a democrat” is ludicrous. I’m not sure why he switched except for, as you say, to look more like Giuliani, but NYC remains a heavily democratic city, which I’m sure you’re aware of.Further, Bloomberg was endorsed by Giuliani.Your view of him as “far left” seems a bit off. The difference is that in Kansas, even Democrats are more like Republicans; in New York, Republicans must be moderate, like Giuliani was and Bloomberg is.
So…Giuliani is far left, too, because he supports gun control and is pro-choice, just like Bloomberg?
Local police do have access to gun trace data for criminal investigations within their jurisdiction, and they can get it from law enforcement agencies outside their jurisdictions.
It should also be noted that the ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law enforcement organization, support the so-called Tiahrt Amendment. This is a fact opponents often fail to mention.
Hey chuckie, I know this is futile, since repukes like you dont ANSWER questions, you only ask them or spout the party line. But hope springs eternal, so…
Do you post here under another name?
Or do you just SOUND like all the other wingnuts here?
I have two words for your boy todd.
Yellow Dog.
It appears that Econ101 has assessed the situation accurately.
Bloomberg objection is to straw purchases. A straw purchase in which one person legally fills out a form and buys a gun for someone else.
Bloomberg illegally sent NY private investigators into Virginia and other states to make purchases under false pretenses.
Justice Department officials have said that the private investigators conducting the stings may have been breaking the law themselves, and that none of the gun dealers caught in the stings would face federal prosecution.
What Bloomberg specifically objects to in the bill is:”Section 9, entitled “Trace Disclosure.” It makes permanent a ban on using so-called “crime gun trace data” collected by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for any purpose other than criminal prosecutions and ATF administrative proceedings.”
By Bloomberg’s own statement, he indicates he wants to use it for lawsuits not law enforcement:
Bloomberg: “By forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings,” Bloomberg complained, “H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil suits against rogue gun dealers.”
The language of the bill states that ATF trace data “shall not be admissible as evidence, and testimony or other evidence relying on the information shall not be admissible, in any civil action in a State or Federal court, or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.”
The attempt by Bloomberg is to put legitimate gun dealers out of business through law suits even though the gun business would have been cleared of any wrong doing.
As usual, it’s all about the almighty dollar to Bloomberg and has nothing to do with Public Safety.
Mr. Knapp:
Would you please inform us of Congressman Tiahrt’s upcoming public appearances?
Thank you,
His Constituents
I was going to bring that up Zero End.
Thank you.
An hour later . . . still no response from Mr. Knapp.
Yup. Looks like FrmGrrl was right.
He doesn’t ANSWER questions from the lowly peons who pay his salary.
As has been pointed out . . .
Bloomburg’s still lying. The amendment does NOT bar sharing data with local law enforcement for criminal investigation purposes. It bars sharing data with Bloomburg’s group, who wants to sue gun manufacturers and dealers.
He knows most Americans haven’t heard of the Tiahart amendment in the first place, and don’t understand just what is being fought over. He also figures he can use the NRA boogyman to tar Tiahart and the law. Thus he figures he can pull the proverbial wool over our eyes.
If the amendment does what Bloomburg says it does, it should be easy to go to Congress to get it changed. No member of Congress want to be anti law enforcement, especially LOCAL law enforcement. Congress won’t do so, because they understand just what the amendment does, and does not do. LAW ENFORCEMENT does NOT seek the change, you’ll notice. So instead, Bloomburg seeks to stir up the public, including the public in Tiahart’s home turf, to attempt to generate public support for his position; support based on a false premise.
Putting a lie in TV doesn’t make it the truth; just a packaged lie.
Nice post ZeroEnd, so Bloomberg is so much anti-gun that he is using his influence to witch hunt gun manufactures to what ends?People should wise up, Bloomberg being a billionaire that status alone should tell you that he is not innocent.
Thank you Mr. Tiahrt for standing up for our second amemdment rights. Keep up the good job. Your friend, Doug and Diana Smith
I wonder if we could ban together kick Tiahrt out of Goddard?
No, he has too many guns.
I’m proud of Congressman Tiahrt and his standing with law enforcement on his amendment.Keep up the fight!
Doug and Diane, how much do you estimate your second amendment rights have cost you in health-care premuims over the years?
How much have your second amendement rights cost large and small businesses in terms of lost property and secondary expenses (like having to install metal detectors to walk through, or on-premises uniformed guards)?
How much have your second amendment rights affected the number of children killed by their firerams in this country, which is a number far higher than that of other countries? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00002255.htm
I hop we can find a place where your second-amendment rights can play well with others.
Five hours later, no response from Mr. Knapp.
Looks like Congressman Tiahrt’s public appearances are like GW Bush’s–”invitation only.”
Tiahrt and Knapp only want to collect our tax dollars. They don’t want to have to actually MINGLE with us proletariats.
Might be a good idea to update the resumes come November ‘08.
delsol:
The 2nd amendment has cost NONE of those things. PERSONS may well have cost those things.
The firearm is no more responsible than the car is when one drives over the speed limit.
By your rationale, there would be no crime committed with a firearm; a defense of “the gun made me do it” apparantly would apply. Of course, we would not accept that. We generally recognize that when PERSONS do bad things, we prosecute PERSONS. When reckless driving causes accidents which cost lives and property (far more than gun crimes or accidents), do we ban cars?
Fortunately for all of us (even you, though I doubt you recognize it) most of can draw the distinction between persons and inanimate objects. Try not to anthropomorphize the firearm, then you can think clearly.
We don’t ban cars and other inanimate objects because their purposes are not to injure or kill.
One day I will smarten and up and realize the specious logic of thinking that fewer children would die from gun deaths if there were fewer guns.
Guns=culture of death.
delsol -
You’re new to this so, so I’ll write to you just this once. Assume, for the sake of argument, that banning guns is a good idea.
Just how do you propose to go about it? Even if we accept your premise, your goal is absolutely undoable. It’s not even approachably attainable; in fact, recent gun bans have resulted in MORE guns being sold. Clinton’s assault weapons ban sold more “assault weapons” (a meaningless term if there ever was one – it means, in effect, “scary looking”) than any sales pitch from manufacturers ever could. Serious talk of similar bans will drive even more sales.
How do we go about collecting all those 250 million or so firearms in private hands? Do you think Americans will line up to surrender what are in many cases family heirlooms, passed from father to son? You have heard of the 4th amendment, I suppose. Or perhaps that bit of constitution is as easily disposed with as the 2nd.
BTW – do you propose banning firearms from governments too? After all, historically, governments are the greatest killers, even of their own citizens. Or will you let the privileged classes continue to possess what you propose to take from the peons? Guns are perhaps OK for limousine liberals and officials who decry the possession of firearms even as they travel with security details armed with – you guessed it – firearms. Any hypocrisy there? Nah . . . .
Even assuming all guns disappeared tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before new ones were built? Gonna ban machine tools too? Gonna ban the knowledge of how to build a firearm? How far will you go to make sure that no one builds a nasty old gun?
Once that’s done, how ’bout banning knives? I’m not being specious – Scotland, a firearms ban in effect, is suffering a violent crime wave, using knives, and is doing knife “buy backs.” Britain’s gun ban has resulted in an explosion of – wait for it – home invasions, much of it perpetrated with firearms. You see, criminals will not obey gun laws, any more than they obey other laws. They are, after all, (now say it with me . . . it’ll help) CRIMINALS!!!.
Your proposed policy has, in short, been proven time and time again to be a failure. Insanity is often described as doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.
Are you there yet?
Delsol,
Fewer children would die from drowning if we outlaw swimming pools and summer trips to the lake and beach.
Swimming = Culture of death.
Why does the Eagle keep bringing up this issue? For those who don’t already understand the issue (yet continue to express opinions anyway) the amendment can be easily read by even some of the commenters here:
http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/pdf/TIAHRT_amendment.pdf
Also, the opinion of the Fraternal Order of Police can be found here:
http://www.grandlodgefop.org/servlet/display/news_article?id=441&XSL=xsl_pages%2fpublic_news_individual.xsl&nocache=11941152
And why is a mayor from New York telling the people of Kansas what to do?
Nathan, swimming and swimming pools have purposes other than injury or death.
What other purposes do guns have?
Except swimming pools are not protected by the Constitution.
Guns are great tools for:
Self defense.Hunting.Target shooting, including Olympic target shooting.Collecting/Investing.
Del, if you are in your home and an intruder breaks-in, how will you defend yourself?
Max’s link makes it clear as a bell. Read it for yourself, all; compare Bloomburg’s position the actual statute. Look at what I and others have been saying. Tell me who’s been telling the truth.
So – Why does the Eagle keep bringing it up?
Because, contrary to the stated position of the Eagle and it’s editorial board, the Eagle DOES have an agenda here. And Phil Brownlee’s protests to the contrary, the agenda is apparant.
And apparantly that agenda won’t let little things like facts get in the way.
Better question: Why, when the facts are so apparant, doesn’t the Eagle (and much of the rest of the media) do real journalism, holding those in positions of power accountable, and point out that Bloomburg’s position is a lie?
Doesn’t that expose the agenda better than anything else?
should read “compare Bloomburg’s position to THE actual statute”
How many times should I read it on edit??? And I still mess it up?
Self defense.–injuring and killing that could be done other ways
Hunting–disgusting disregard for living things (injuring and killing)
Target shooting, including Olympic target shooting.–sport; ok, that one’s good. Can use rubber bullets or paint pellets; automatic weapons now unnecessary
Collecting/Investing.–right. Could still happen. Imagine how much all the values would go up if guns were banned
Del, if you are in your home and an intruder breaks-in, how will you defend yourself? –If there are no guns, easily.
Except swimming pools are not protected by the Constitution. –we can fix that
Self defense.–injuring and killing that could be done other ways
Hunting–disgusting disregard for living things (injuring and killing)
Target shooting, including Olympic target shooting.–sport; ok, that one’s good. Can use rubber bullets or paint pellets; automatic weapons now unnecessary
Collecting/Investing.–right. Could still happen. Imagine how much all the values would go up if guns were banned
Del, if you are in your home and an intruder breaks-in, how will you defend yourself? –If there are no guns, easily.
When presented with the facts and truth, the Libs counter by making up stuff or throw in a bushism here and there. It’s there way, sad – but true.
Dear ksfarmgrrl:
I assume if I constantly watched the blog, you would accuse me of spending too much time monitoring the blog!
I have used my real name every time I have posted. However, I generally only post when I need a good dose of constructive criticism, which I know you will be happy to oblige!
Have a nice weekend.
Your friend Chuckie.
delsol
“If there are no guns . . .”
You still proceed from a false premise, and refuse to deal with the real world. Just how do you propose to do that?
I could as easily imagine a world without penguins, or grass, or concrete, or anything else you can name. Wishing will not make it so. And you can no more successfully eliminate firearms than you can breathing.
So – come on back, and let’s live in the real world.
“So…Giuliani is far left, too, because he supports gun control and is pro-choice, just like Bloomberg? ”
Rudy is actually further to the left than most of us who are liberals. We support the right to abortion but Rudy goes further and says we should have full public funding of abortions.
I hate to agree with Republicans on anything. It deeply hurts me to do so. But on this issue, I agree. We have to stop this assault on our rights to self protection and to be armed.
“I could as easily imagine a world without penguins, or grass, or concrete, or anything else you can name. Wishing will not make it so. And you can no more successfully eliminate firearms than you can breathing.”
hmmm…especially if you never try.I guess that since we will never completely eliminate crime, we should stop making laws.
(note the qualifying adverb there.)
“Rudy is actually further to the left than most of us who are liberals.”
If that’s the case you either don’t Giuliani’s record or are really a moderate, not a liberal.
Giulani’s got some fascist tendencies, and I don’t mean that as hyperbole.
Say Del, to live in your fantasy land for a moment, that we eliminate guns. And you are in your home and 3 intruders invade your home armed with knives and baseball bats. How will you defend yourself?
I’d love to hear how you would eliminate the guns too, but just one small step at a time.
Max,”..if you are in your home and an intruder breaks-in, how will you defend yourself?”
An armed intruder always has the advantage over the homeowner. The homeowner is hopefully going to try to identify the intruder, to make sure it’s not a member of the household before he starts blasting away. The intruder knows he has no friends there.You defend yourself the same way you would in any other disaster; you have a working plan to get everyone safely out of the house, call the authorities required, and you keep your insurance premiums paid!
Well, the thing is, Max, those kind of attacks are extremely rare. Most home-invasion attacks are by one person, and unless it’s a serial killer (again, very rare), they want to get there when I’m NOT home.
But the fact is that, in the hypothetical, I have no answer for your scenario. I would have to put it in the same category as getting struck by lightning, dying of spontaneous combustion, death by guillotine, catching leprosy, you know–I’d have to live with the risk.
But I’d sleep a lot more safely at night knowing they didn’t have guns to instantly kill me with from great distances, and that my daughter would a lot less chance of getting killed by a fellow student at school.
That’s a lot more likely than your scenario.
Del, I’ll go a little slower for you (and forget about explaining how you get rid of the guns for now).
Your defense is to run. Hope you are fast enough. And no, home invasions are not rare – if they were, why would you be worried about criminals with guns invading your homes?
Whether this attack occurs while you stroll for a walk down the street, in a store, in a park, elsewhere, or in your home, your answer is to run.
If one or more attackers is physically much faster and superior to you (armed with a gun or not)can you defend yourself? Some people can, others can’t. Under your grand plan, you would ensure that all of those who are unable to physically defend themselves have their life held in balance by the mercy of the attackers.
What about poor grandma in a wheelchair, is she just supposed to die?
As for MY plan, it will take several seconds for an intruder to break down my locked doors or windows, which I will hear. The alarm system will go off. The family will retreat to the preplanned ’safe’ room. The handgun and/or shotgun will be grabbed. 911 will be called. Any intruder(s)breakin into the safe room will be met with gunshots until they stop their attack. Several minutes later, the cops will arrive.
Is the plan guaranteed? No, but at least I have a fighting chance using the best tools for self-defense that are available to the average citizen. You would deny me this right of self defense?
OH, and about that hunting thing, you must be a vegetarian, if you oppose hunting because of the killing of animals. Where do you think those sanitary plastic rapped packages in the store come from?
Is it better for those animals to be slaughtered in a meat packing plant or in the field where they live?
Hunting is a great American tradition, and if you think hunters waste the meat from the animals they kill, you no nothing about hunting.
In fact, running has been shown to be the best strategy for survival, if it is a viable option. Survival rates are greater than 97%. The best way to escape is to remove your cash, show it to the perp then throw it one way as you run in the opposite direction, yelling FIRE! Usually, money was what they were after anyway, and that’s what they go for. When shots are fired, they rarely hit, and when they do, they are not lethal in the vast majority of cases (you only need to go to a pistol range to see the average person’s shooting accuracy at 10 ft. or more…not very good, although marksman can be deadly).
So, it all depends on the situation and your goals. If your goal is to survive – everything else be damned – then running is the best bet. If you feel violated and feel a need to prove yourself then a gun might be for you.
The crux is something GMC alluded to immediately. Can we fix it so that no Americans outside law enforcement (and who cannot by assumption pass guns to private citizens for any reason) have possession of any guns?
If the answer is yes, then we can proceed with delsol’s argument.
If the answer is no, then delsol’s argument is moot.
***Note that the argument to follow doesn’t depend in any way on any qualification of public safety.***
The answer is unquestionably no, however: there is no way we can ever go back to a time when no Americans possessed guns — or COULD possess guns (my police/military assumption is a false one as well).
For example. My own brother, a gun freak to top all gun freaks, has invested untold dollars to buy guns for exactly one purpose: to bury or otherwise hide them in case “the guvmint” decides to pursue option #! anyway. I am pretty positive he’s not alone; he’s not a “leader type” (but he’s a great guy nonetheless) He’s also only one Kansan…but believe me his “arsenal” is one sufficient to make him a very wealthy man IF the US tried ever to confiscate firearms from all non-law enforcement, non-military (ie, private) citizens.
Given an answer of “no,” then to me there is no way to avoid allowing Americans to possess firearms (assuming the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist now). We must allow Americans to own guns because we have no way — NO WAY — to enforce the occlusion. After all: some Americans already own firearms that can never be confiscated.
In this light, the 2nd amendment is icing on the cake. To me it’s important icing, because it’s in the US constitution and, perhaps more importantly, because it’s part and parcel of our national heritage.
For better or worse, Americans will always find a way to possess super-efficient rock throwers (firearms), not least because our constitution guarantees this ownership.
As a nation, we should proceed from this point, in my opinion. It’s simply not possible to begin anywhere else. It’s a very bad idea to lend an iota of credibility to the idea that disarming Americans is possible. It is – emphatically – impossible.
This is the *only* American reality, in my opinion.
Now to public safety: firearm possession is a given, and public safety should always account for it.
I agree, running is the best option, IF possible. In many situations, it’s not possible. (Have no idea where the 97% stat came from, maybe Runner’s World?)
There are several situations, such as your own home for example, or in a 7/11 store, or somewhere else, where the attacker is between you and the door. Or even in the open, in a park, if my 3 kids are with me, am I gonna count on all 3 running away? Nope.
There are many situations where runnning is not an option. Then you need to either surrendor or defend yourself.
I choose to defend myself and my family. Don’t take that right from me.
Oh, and can anyone explain (maybe GMC did in another thread, but I missed it) what the goal of Bloomberg and his pals is by defeating the Tiahrt Amendment?
Sorry GMC, missed your posts above. Great points on the 1)How to go about banning guns, and 2)What Bloomberg’s real goal is.
I suggest others read those posts too, if they missed them.
Max,
I’m not trying to take away your right to own a gun. I’m stating that running is the best option when it’s available to you (I think I said that in the post). My problem with this whole debate is that you don’t get the feeling that those who want to carry actually want to survive…more that they want the opportunity to shoot.
Agree with you BFAH. Running is the #1 option, and that is taught in concealed carry training.
I’ve known many gun owners from hunting, from the target ranges, and almost all that I have met are very responsible gun owners who take responsibilty for the safe use and storage of their firearms. I feel as safe if not safer at the target range then I do anywhere else. These are very responsible and trustworthy people, for the most part.
I know many who carry concealed as I do, and none that I know want to ever have to shoot anyone. The only reason I carry is for personal and family self-defense.
I think what you read from some gun owners and even non-gun owners is the frustration of crime and the apparent lack of enforcement of existing laws. This sometimes expresses itself as a desire to take the law into their own hands.
However, most recognize that law enforcement is best left to the pros – the cops need to be left to do their jobs, and the courts need to sentence the criminals to appropriate terms in jail, and the parole system needs to keep them behind bars for the term of their sentence.
Max,
No argument from me…. ;-)
Max–All of your callous attempts to insult my intelligence aside, you apparently completely missed the point of my last post. I could make snide comments about your reading comprehension, but since I didn’t enjoy you doing that to me, I won’t stoop to it.
“I would run” was not my answer to your question.
Here’s what I said, again: “In the hypothetical, I have no answer for your (three guys with bats home invasion) scenario. I would have to put it in the same category as getting struck by lightning, dying of spontaneous combustion, death by guillotine, catching leprosy, you know–I’d have to live with the risk.”
I would be willing to take that risk, just like all the other risks of living listed above, knowing that I would actually be safer with fewer guns around. (Note that I did not say “no” guns. Fewer.)
Yes, I’m a vegetarian. Even if I weren’t, I have that hunting channel preview on my cable right now–I didn;t ask for it– and it’s clearly about the kill, not about the meat. It turns my stomach to see these beautiful animals taken down for the “thrill” of killing something.
I agree with you about those animals in the wild having had better lives–but why do people get a charge out of killing things? I don’t get it. It sounds like psychosis to me.
Helpless and defenseless is not for me. Can’t beleive you wouldn’t defend your own kids, your spouse, parents, family and friends though.
A country with weak and defenseless citizens only leads, ultimately, to tyranny as their will always be evil people attacking the defenseless. This is one reason for the 2nd Amendment too.
No point in arguing over meat. Some like it, others don’t. I won’t force my will on others either way, as long as you don’t force your will on me.
It’s difficult for some to understand that guns cannot be eliminated, and difficult to understand then that taking guns from selected individuals only actually increases crime rates and chances for harm to come to you. That fact cannot be explained to the unbelievers in just a few posts.
delsol
On the Island of Okinawa, they did not let the peasants have swords or long knives.
That is why KEMPO, the martial art, was invented — along with several self-defense uses for various, often wooden, farm tools.
–”Can’t beleive you wouldn’t defend your own kids, your spouse, parents, family and friends though.”
I never said I would not defend my family and friends. You assume that I can’t because I do not and would not own a gun.
–”taking guns from selected individuals only actually increases crime rates and chances for harm to come to you”
Considering that every other leading industrialized country has stricter gun laws and fewer gun deaths than the U.S., it would seem the facts are against you:
“U.S. Leads Richest Nations in Gun Deaths”by Chelsea J. CarterAssociated Press
ATLANTA — The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths — murders, suicides and accidents — among the world’s 36 richest nations, a government study found.The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society’s acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.“If you have a country saturated with guns — available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed — it’s not unusual guns will be used more often,” said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. “This has to be treated as a public health emergency.”
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Econ, that’s interesting, i didn’t know of the Okinawans…
I agree that humans will always find ways to defend themselves and that self-defense is a communal and individual responsibility. Guns, though, do not just defend or wound, they kill; and as the article I posted illustrates, they increase the rate of accidental death as well as criminal death.
I think fewer guns equal fewer needless deaths. All the statistics you will ever find support this point.
Delsol, do you take the responsibility of protecting yourself or do you depend on the police to be your private bodyguards?
An example of the Straw Purchase violated by a well known anti-gun advocate Sarah Brady:
2002SPRINGFIELD, VA – Gun Owners of America today awarded Sarah Brady’s son, Scott, an honorary one-year GOA membership.
“Now that Scott Brady is the proud owner of a high-powered ’sniper’ rifle, he will most certainly need a fuller understanding of the Second Amendment than he ever received at home,” said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.
In her recent book, Sarah Brady admits to having engaged in a straw purchase when she bought a .30-06 on her son’s behalf, allowing him to avoid the required criminal background check.
“We congratulate Scott for keeping his name ‘off paper.’ Because the gun was bought under his mother’s name, he completely avoided the NICS registration system. This means authorities will never know he has the sniper rifle, a benefit which reduces the possibility that his gun could ever be confiscated by authorities.”
Sarah Brady of course, is the wife of White House Press Secretary Jim Brady, by a lunatic intent on assassinating President Reagan in 1981. Jim Brady was left severely disabled by the attackers gunshot.
Delsol,
I think your statistics fail to take into account the power guns give to the people.
Do you think that some of the genocide and mass murder which takes place in the world is aided by those who have no means to defend themselves?
The absense of guns as a means for protection have caused more death at the hands of dictatorships than the numbers of crimes and accidents with guns.
Nathan,Next time you take your legal shotgun up against a helicopter gunship, let me know who comes out the winner.
Having come from urban areas where no one I knew owned a gun, now living in “city” that’s really a very small cowtown, I knew I would be pushing a lot of buttons with this one. They don’t live like this in most parts of the world, folks (don’t worry, I’ve been trying to get out).
It amazes me that many posters seem to think that I am somehow less than a full citizen (’Do you take the responsibility of protecting yourself or do you depend on the police to be your private bodyguards?”). Those of you who own guns have no idea how uncomfortable their presence makes the rest of us:
“A new study involving 201 parents and an equal number of their children has found that 39 percent of kids knew the location of their parents’ firearms, while 22 percent said they had handled the weapons, despite their parents’ assertions to the contrary. Parents who had talked to their children about gun safety were just as likely to be misinformed about their children’s actions as those who said they never had discussed the matter.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900755.html
In addition, one person speaks of the power gun owners get. That’s great for them. But I don’t want my kids or family depending on that to feel safe (I don’t spank my kids either), or to think that we shoot people to fix them. We have lived in urban areas that are more “dicey” than anything you’ll find in Wichita. There are ways to keep yourself safe..we all practiced them. I’m sorry you all think Old West shoot-em-ups are a means of defense rather than treat violence as a last resort.
Fewer guns=fewer gun deaths. Come on, refute it!!
So is feeling safe is your issue…why not have fewer guns?
because you all are addicted to shooting things at target practice, and your fantasy is that ONE DAY you’ll get to shoot a criminal in action and be BIG-MAN VIGILANTE HERO.
There’s YOUR fantasy-world, you sick f***s.
Dear Chuckie
Thanks for answering my questions. If you will note, it was someone else complaining about the speed of your response, not me.
Oh, and BTW…
You are not my friend. Neither is the toddly one. I anxiously await both your departures from politics.
Strike that. I am actively working to hasten both your departures from politics.
But then, you obviously already knew that…
Oh, and I still have two words for your boy.
Yellow Dog.
That’s all it’s gonna take to beat him next time.
So much for having any intelligent conversation with DELSOL:
So is feeling safe is your issue…why not have fewer guns?
because you all are addicted to shooting things at target practice, and your fantasy is that ONE DAY you’ll get to shoot a criminal in action and be BIG-MAN VIGILANTE HERO.
There’s YOUR fantasy-world, you sick f***s.
Posted by: delsol | May 26, 2007 at 09:08 AM
Oh are you moving to Tiarht’s district ksfoamgull?
Back to the Topic on this thread: The Tiahrt Amendment.
The true agenda item for Bloomberg is not to investigate crime, it is to drill down on gun sales data to file civil (not criminal) suits against firearm manufacturers, and licensed firearms dealers, to put enough of the manufacturers and dealers out of business, to in effect ban new gun sales. As IF the guns and gun makers & sellers caused the crime!
The Tiahrt Amendment will prevent Bloomberg and his buddies from doing something along these lines:
1)Dig into the ATF database to pull data on guns sold to anyone living say in New York.
2)Categorize gun sale information by: Manufacturer, Gun Model, Dealer.
3)Use this info in court to assess civil penalties based on percentages of guns each manufacturer and dealer have sold to NY owners.
Say, for example:
Smith & Wesson 20% of sales to NY – then Smith & Wesson will be sued for crime damages in the amount of 20% of the total cost of crime in NY.
Dan’s Gun Shop 5% of sales to NY – then Dan’s Gun Shop will be sued for 5% of the total cost of crime in NY.
And so on.
4)Then, we’ll get a list of the most popular firearms, say for example:
Smith and Wesson 629, in 44 magnum (2% of total sales)Glock 21, in 45 ACP (3% of total sales)Springfield 1911, in 45 ACP (5% of total sales)Berretta 92F, in 9 mm (3% of total sales)
And Bloomberg will then seek to sue gun manufacturers and dealers by type of weapon ….then go after ammunition dealers…..
Until there are no manufacturers and dealers in business anymore. Think that is not Bloomberg’s goal? Read the Tiahrt amendment and it will be clear to you that this amendment fully supports gun tracing for specific criminal investigations. The only thing it prevents are the actions noted above, that Bloomberg will use to further his gun ban agenda.
To the Max at 1:47–I was out of line and am embarassed by my comments. I think after having my intelligence, courage, and status as a citizen questioned by all manner of different parties I finally got angry. Sorry for the insult, it wasn’t right.
Delsol
delsol
I understand your position. But the statistics mean nothing; stats say whatever those who peddle them want them to say (liars, damn liars, and statisticians). I can trot out similar stats and studies which contradict what you cite. The CDC has an agenda (as do we all, to a certain extent).
The bottom line is, banning guns is1) constitutionally prohibited2) as a practial matter, impossible3) historically the first step toward tyrannical government4) a violation of a natural right, life, a right that is meaningles absent the tools to protect life.
Wishing guns did not exist is pointless; guns are a part of this culture, are part of our constitutional heritage, and are not going away. The more some push for banning, the more millions of Americans will buy the guns while they can (personally, if Hillary is elected in 2008, I’ll be buying an AR15 before her inaugeration, before some idiot politician tells me I can’t).
Armed persons are citizens; disarmed persons are subjects. There is a difference, whether you recognize it or not. And you benefit from the presence of an armed populace, whether you realize it or not. It is the 2nd amendment which is the ultimate guarantor of the rest of the bill of rights, a silent deterrent to government overreaching (and I fervently hope, one which will not have to be used).
You are uncomfortable around guns. OK. The constitution does not require all of us to conform our behavior so that others may be “comfortable;” indeed, the constitution most protects that which makes many of us uncomfortable. As it should.
The fact of the matter is that you are around armed persons daily, and don’t know it. They generally fall into one of several categories:1) law enforcement of various variety. For some reason, some posters here imbue LEOs with magical gun-safety and handling abilities unreachable by mere mortals; in fact, they are just people. They are of course not a threat.2) licenced carriers of firearms. Often they shoot more than the cops do, and have been shown again and again not to be a threat. CC has passed in state after state, and the sky-is-falling chicken littles have been wrong every single time, though you would not know it reading the Eagle. (and if it is concealed, and you are not aware of the weapon, just how does it make you uncomfortable?)3) citizens who carry without authorization. Yes, it is illegal, and I do not condone doing so, but most mean others no harm. They simply have not, for whatever reason, jumped through the hoops for legal carry.4) the thug, who means to do harm. He’s a potential threat; yet for some reason, some here seem to fear the legal CC holder more than the thug.
And of course, there are the vast majority of firearms which are not carried at all, but are stored in homes/offices etc.
There is legitimate discussion to be had regarding the what, where, and how of firearms possession by Americans. But barring same is simply not an option. Period. End of story. A non-starter. Get over it, it will not happen.
On a side note; you wrote that you are a vegetarian. I don’t criticize you for that choice, of course, I’m curious, however, as to just WHY you chose to become one. What is the rationale you adopt for such a choice?
And finally, to get back to the point of this thread, the Bloomburg group is simply lieing about what the law is. That serves their agenda, but they are disingenuous about that agenda as well. That has been pointed out repeatedly.
Be safe, delsol. And relax; we really are not out to get you.
Probably.
;-)
Well written Counselor.
I’ll always remember a sign on a teacher’s wall in school:
Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.
del
something you wrote earlier just struck me:
“Having come from urban areas where no one I knew owned a gun, . . .”
How do you know? Given that a significant percentage of American households own a weapon (I’ve heard figures anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2; certainly it depends on the area, in Kansas I suspect it’s more than half. I’d also suggest there are a significant number of uncounted households), I think it is naive in the extreme to assume that no one you knew owned a gun.
Don’t bet on it. Many of those who advocate banning guns own them as well. Some would characterize that as hypocrisy; I would simply note that in a society where firearms are abundant and easily obtainable, owning one is simply prudent.
You may well have known less about your friends and neighbors than you think.
“I would simply note that in a society where firearms are abundant and easily obtainable, owning one is simply prudent.”
Why? Please explain…sounds like circular logic to me–because there are lots of guns I had better get one because someone might shoot me, and I had better be against gun control not because fewer guns would make me safer, but because everyone is going to have one anyway (like in Japan, Canada, or Great Britain?) and I should get mine.
I know we could never get rid of all the guns. I wouldn’t even ask to take away existing ones. But you cannot prove to me that ceasing all production and sales of guns tomorrow would not make this a safer country. If you have any reputable, scientific, non-NRA funded study that shows how more gun ownership makes us safer DESPITE all the figures that show we have the highest rate of violent crime in the world–despite even that states that have highest ownership have the highest homicide rates!!!!– please, point me to it!
My statistics don’t mean anything? All the other countries I have visited that have such low violent crime rates–I shouldn’t pay attention to that? And the statistics that show that gun ownership per capita is indeed lower in urban areas, that doesn’t mean anything either?(from a pro-gun webpage)http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob45a.html
You all don’t have a logical case, because it is about tradition and fear: you live in fear that you will be attacked, about as likely as getting in a car accident, and that your only protection is carrying a gun. Cynical and sad.
When you all see those no-gun signs that are up now in all the stores, schools, and government buildings–what do you do? I’m curious.
Delsol,
The problem is that the gun is only a tool.
You look at crime today with guns as if the gun is responsible.
Was there crime before the gun?
Of course.
Without guns there are still knives and many other things which can be used as weapons.
Taking away a tool will not stop crime. Crime will simply use something else.
Look at big cities which ban guns. You see an increase in stabbings.
The problem is that throughout the history of man we have used everything from a sharp pointy stick to guns.
Taking away the gun only places us back into using a different weapon instead.
Criminals are going to be criminals with or without the gun.
Who knows? 100 years from now we will be arguing on banning lasers…
The simple fact is that you can’t gid rid of weapons. Every major military in the world is going to utilize the best weapon they can.
This will create a surplus and black market where people who want to do bad will still get guns.
I wonder if people in Rome debated on banning swords and daggers?
What a joke.
Nathan, why do we make any laws at all, then? People will ony break them. Why bother trying?
…… and there will always be the guy that has to have a bigger pointy stick, or a bigger dagger, or a bigger sword, or a bigger gun, or even a bigger laser.
Some guys just have to have bigger toys……
There are models out there for free societies with restrictive gun laws and low gun deaths. Note: restrictive, not “no guns at all:” Australia; Germany; Canada; Great Britain; Japan, France, Italy…
delsol
We do NOT have the “highest rate of violent crime in the world.” Check your stats again. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm
1) The British experiment in banning guns is a failure; be very careful in endorsing that as our model. Home invasion is up; Britain’s violent crime rate now is higher than ours, and firearm crime is substantially up.And don’t trust British crime statistics; they cook the books. Crime always looks better if you just ignore it, officially.
2) the Canadian model hasn’t produced the results promised. It has cost billions, with little real results.
3) Japanese society is quite different than ours; be very careful doing that kind of cross-cultural comparison. Apples v. oranges. Weapons control has a long history in Japan; the opposite of our historical tradition.
Del, if you do not advocate barring current ownership, then your proposal is in effect no proposal at all. All you do is make the current firearms more valuable. But there’s plenty around.
And you do have the 2nd amendment problem. The constitution is what it is.
As far as I can see, del, you’ve offered a lot of ‘wishing’ it were so, but no workable solutions to your perceived problem.
We’ll just have to disagree on this one. I’ll offer you an invite to the range right now, however. My treat. I’ve yet to take anyone shooting who hasn’t left with a smile on their face.
BTW – still curious as to your rationale for being a vegetarian.
GMC, I have missed some of your posts because they have been intelligent and reasoned–I reacted to other posts that made particularly weak points that I responded to quickly.
I have not argued for a practical proposal to this point because I’ve been trying to defend the need to have fewer guns at all–not a very popular idea in these parts. That really would take an entire thread. But what I would say to debating whether restricted gun accessibility is a good thing or not:
–it would mean fewer gun accidents, such as suicide and child injury
–it would mean criminals would have a harder time getting them
–it would mean that victims of criminal attck would have more chance of full recovery because the chance of gun attack is lessened.
Your point about Scotland is well-taken, though unique. Gun advocates have taken great pains to point out that a culture’s murder rate cannot be attributed to gun ownership, which is obvious when you think about it. So anti-gun advocates must argue the same point, that a rise in the crime rate does not necessarily have to do with a gun ban. Has the gun death rate–criminal and accidental–gone down over a period of several years?
One last point, again about whether restricting firearms is a valuable discussion, not proposing how it would be done:
If your home invaders arrive would you rather they have guns or knives? If you could increase the chance that they do not have guns, would you do it?
del:
“–it would mean criminals would have a harder time getting them”No, it wouldn’t
–it would mean that victims of criminal attck would have more chance of full recovery because the chance of gun attack is lessened.Not, it wouldn’t.
You still presume from a flawed presmise. Any restrictive gun laws we pass will have exactly ZERO impact on whether criminals have a firearm. Criminals, if they want guns, will get them, law or no law. Criminals don’t obey laws.
BTW – the firearms accidental death rate is at record lows, despite more and more guns being sold and the wisespread adoption of concealed carry. I’d also point out that Japan, a society that bans guns outright, has one of the highest suicide rates.
The connection between gun ownership and violence, if any, is much more complicated than many will admit.
You argue that believing that one is prudent to have a gun in a culture where guns are widespread and easily available is “circular logic.”No, it’s reality. One must deal with the world we have, not the world we want. NO gun law would prevent the criminal from obtaining guns. I do not advocate abolishing all gun laws, of course, but I have no illusions about what they can accomplish and what they cannot.
A better approach is not to restrict manufacture, purchase and possession any more than we have now. Frankly, the gun laws we have now are too restrictive on law-abiding citizens, given their utter failure in limiting criminal access to guns. A cynic might conclude (might) that gun control advocates understand that quite well and that in fact more restrictive laws are simply intended to be incrimental steps toward banning and confiscation. A cynic might say that . . . .
No, the better approach is to put in prison, long term, those who commit crimes with firearms. And mean it. But we don’t do that., we only SAY we do.
I’m still curious as to your rationale for being a vegetarian. Is it the ‘cruelty’ or ‘immorality’ of hunting? If so, let me ask you this: Do you think the lion has moral qualms when she takes down an antelope?
And the range trip offer is still open.
GMC, I don’t think that the issue is with folks like you that have a respect, as well as love, for the shooting sports. I personally don’t have a problem with that.
In my experience, hunters and fishermen are usually the most concerned about the quality of the environment as it relates to rural and wilderness areas.
The problem, in my view, is some folks are just not satisfied with “gun ownership” or “hunting rights.” Some want to take it beyond those limits and demand access to virtually any weapon without any restriction.
Perhaps if the NRA-type would tone down the rhetoric a bit and the Brady folks would do the same, then more reasonable compromises could be reached for the benefit of all.
WS -
The NRA IS the “reasonable” lobby. Many gun owners believe they compromise too much. Just about any “reasonable” gun law you could imagine is already on the books. Check out Gun Owners of America, for example.
Now I know you may point to the so-called American Hunters and Shooters Assn. But they’re simply a divide and conquor front for Brady and Co. They’re a fraud, and those in the gun rights community know it.
No, WS, we’ve compromised quite enough, thank you. Not one step more.
Come on’ GMC, what about just basic stuff like background tests at gun shows?
Even a non-compromiser has to consider that a reasonable request.
GMC a couple gun threads ago you stated that you believed that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to carry guns in public only to own them? Also as a lawyer where does the right to bear arms end can I stock pile chemical, bio, weapons Military hardware Tanks, artillery, mini-guns etc. A broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment says i could, that those are all “arms”
I’d assume there are other measures that could be taken that would infringe on no one’s rights. For example, I would assume (there’s no way I could know until the actual experiment were carried out) that if ATF kept a database of the source(s) of handguns used in the commission of crimes, there might be some correlation to specific firearms dealers/distributors whether they be licensed in the US or foreign distributors exporting into the US. If that were the case, then those dealers’ licenses/import privileges could be revoked and, perhaps, stricter standards put in place for the licensure of firearms dealers. In fact, ATF could operate in conjunction with the gun manufacturers/legit distributors to share information.
Theft of firearms still a problem? Sure…but one step at a time. Even some alleged cases of theft might be identified as organized conspiracies to obtain weapons.
If your home invaders arrive would you rather they have guns or knives? If you could increase the chance that they do not have guns, would you do it?Posted by: delsol | May 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM
One, yes. Two, of course.
Off topic (and perhaps wrongly anticipating your answer to GMC’s 1:23PM post): delsol, have you ever read JM Coetzee’s “Disgrace?” This won the Booker Prize in 1999.
If not, I highly recommend it. I’d be interested in your thoughts about the author’s themes of home invasion and the moral obligations among all mammals (what’s of interest here is that Coetzee uses a very violent home invasion to launch the meat of this subtle and extremely readable near- disquisition on mammalian rights).
Another of Coetzee’s literary characters (Elizabeth Costello), in a 1998 Tanner lecture at Princeton, once stated that all animals in captivity are consumed with one basic question: Where is home and how do I get there?
Coetzee’s novel subsequent to “Disgrace” was “Elizabeth Costello” and was based, I believe, on the 1998 Tanner lectures.
Lot of people don’t find Coetzee a literary guy, or at best an overrated one. I don’t know enough about lit to say. There’s no doubt he’s thought provoking, however. The novel “Disgrace” goes to the heart of the concerns many vegetarians — perhaps not you, however — have with eating flesh.
C’mon WS.
The “gun show loophole” is a myth. Dealers at gun shows DO background checks. What you’re really talking about is private party sales. I don’t know how you’d regulate that, given that there is no federal gun registration, nor any in Kansas. And you know where I stand on registration. That’s a strawman.
Tom:
The “militia” of 1789 was essentially a ready reserve of infantry who were familiar with firearms. But artillary pieces were not privately owned then. Likewise, I think today it would apply to infantry weapons. Personally, I think it should include full-auto weapons. They are not banned by federal law, though they are extremely rare, but are barred by state law in Kansas. Not nukes, jet fighters, etc. Besides, do yo really worry about the public having those things? Do your realize the infrastructure investment it takes to possess and use those kinds of weapons?
Read DC v. Parker. I think the majority has it about right there.
And no, I don’t have a full-auto weapon, nor do I have any great desire to own one, but I have shot them. BIG grin!!!
BFAH:
If I’m not mistaken, ATF could do that now. And I’d have a lot of problem with them doing so. I don’t entirely trust ATF, however, so go slow on this one.
BTW, del – If you ever get that total ban on firearms, I want to make sure you ban guns also from the most dangerous entity out there: Government.
And all, just as I re-read some of these posts, let me be clear:
THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING. It never was. If hunting didn’t exist I’d still *take the same position.
The Constitution’s central theme is limitation on government. And the 2nd amendment is part and parcel of that limitation; in fact, it puts the teeth into it, should it come to that. I sincerely hope we don’t have to go there, of course, and I am not arguing we are anywhere near doing so. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility.
It is the existance of that silent deterrent that makes actually having to “go there” far less likely.
Mammalian “rights,” funny that I wrote that. Coetzee would probably nod his head reading the word “rights” and think yeah, Pedant’s a meat eater.
I think Coetzee is more interested in mammalian obligations than in mammalian rights. The distinction is subtle but crucial. Rights are claims we make on the behavior of others; obligations ideally negate the need for the claim.
Read “Disgrace” if you haven’t already.
Do your realize the infrastructure investment it takes to possess and use those kinds of weapons?Posted by: GMC70 | May 27, 2007 at 02:27 PM
What kind of infrastructure is Blackwater USA developing? How much money has the US Government paid them for their mercenary services in Iraq over the past four years? I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m seriously wondering. I know this is somewhat of an off-the-thread tangent, but what role has the 2nd Amendment played in allowing private mercenary armies to be developed in the US?
You don’t trust ATF, GMC ? Why? Just curious.
correction on the 2:27 post:
“And I’d WOULD NOT have a lot of problem with them doing so.”
. . . must edit, must edit . . . (muttering)
: – )…no problem
BFAH:
I don’t trust government. Period. ANY government. Ever. The founder’s mistrust of government was well-taken then, and just as valid now.
And ATF’s history is not one of friendliness to law-abiding gun owners.
While I don’t ascribe to the “jack-booted thug” assessment some have labeled ATF with, there is a history of excesses there that cannot be denied.
GMC,
I don’t disagree…in fact the gun manufacturer could probably do this on their own if they were willing to make the investment. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will happen, and government is probably the last recourse.
There is really no reason to discuss the second Amendment here is this thread. It hasn’t changed and the objectors to its utilization know it hasn’t changed.
Bloomberg has had his true agenda put out in the open. Congressman Tiarht has done his job well and competently.
End of Story. Game Over.
I thought the National Firearms Act 1934 i think. effectively bans auto weapons using the whole tax stamp scheme that is used to ban drugs? And know that Nuke example is taken to extreme, Some one with means a Ted Turner, Trump, Gates could use their wealth to gain Military hardware, and fringe groups rountinely stockpile explosives
GMC dont you work for the goverment?
Tom:
There are no “mercenary armies” in the US, certainly none that are endorsed by law. And case after case has made clear that the “militia” envisioned by the 2nd amendment does NOT include privately organized militias. I have no sympathy for anyone who wants to create his own organized military force, outside of state oversight.
I think its a serious mischaracterization to call Blackwater a “private mercenary army.” It appears they are a security service and training facility. Businesses contract with private security services all the time. Go to any mall, and you’ll see the rent-a-cop. Same thing, bigger scale.
Tom
1) the law requires a tax payment ($200, I think) to own a full-auto weapon, as well as other steps. It also bans ownership of full auto weapons produced after 1986. But unless state law bars it, one can own a full-auto weapon (you’d better get your checkbook out!!). However, one absolutely may NOT modify a post-ban weapons to be full-auto.
I don’t know all the gory details (I can’t afford one anyway, so I’ve not researched just how I’d go about getting one), but it is not illegal to own a full-auto weapon, at least under federal law.
Kansas law bars said possesion of same, however, so the point is moot. (too bad, it is a lot of fun. I’d like to shoot a few historical weapons, say, a SG44, a MP40, a Browning .30 cal., a MG42, for example)
See here. http://www.oklahomafullauto.com/
And yes, I do work for the state. My acts are checked, however, by a zelous defense bar and an independent judiciary. As it should be.
Keep in mind, it’s not individuals who work in government that are necessarily the problem; people are pretty much the same everywhere. It is the institutional tendancy of the state in general.
I would love to own a HK UMP .45.
I have had the pleasure of shooting many automatic weapons in the Marine Corps.
“Do you think the lion has moral qualms when she takes down an antelope?”
Sheesh. What moral qualms does any animal have?
A principal difference between humans and animals is the capacity for self-reflection, which for some results in philosophical positions (some). I don’t base my philosophical or ethical positions on the animal world–lest I start urinating on things or taking down squirrels. :)
“The “gun show loophole” is a myth.”
You know that I am not “agin you” on this issue, GMC, so explain to me why there is a controversy about gun shows. From what I understand, the Columbine killers were able to obtain handguns through an older associate at a Denver gun show, without a check.
So where does the myth portion come in?
WS Clark,
The “gun show loophole” is nothing more than individual firearm transactions which the government doesn’t regulate whether it is at a gun show or in your home.
Gun Dealers are still required to run the background checks on people who purchase firearms from them at gun shows.
That is what GMC was saying I do believe.
There are no special rules at gun shows, WS, no “loophole” that applies there that doesn’t apply elsewhere. A FFL dealer selling at a gun show operates under exactly the same rules as he would in his shop. The “loophole,” if it is that, is simply that private individuals may buy, sell or trade to/from other individuals without the paperwork and background check required of dealers.
But they do so regularly. Look in the classified section of the Wichita paper (sporting goods) daily; there is almost always a gun for sale. There is your “gun show loophole.” But it’s got nothing to do with a gun show.
If the goal is to make private sellers go through the paper authorization just as a dealer would, fine. I don’t know how you’d enforce it, absent a registration system. And registration will not fly.
Thank you for clarifying that, GMC. I have to admit that I bought that line, but did not realize that it only applied to private owners.
As I have said before, I don’t have a problem with gun, just with folks that think more guns is the answer to the question.
Just as I have a problem with folks that want to ban all guns.
Thanks, again.
del:
You position, then, is that eating meat is immoral? Based on what is that position taken?
If that is so, 1) why is it not so for the lion? 2) does it matter in that moral equasion that the human body was clearly designed to eat meat? (not exclusively, of course, we are omnivores)
I’m not being critical, del. I simply want to understand how one gets there. Certainly there is nothing immoral in being a vegetarian. But there is nothing immoral in eating meat, either. And to take a position that morality requires one to abstain from meat implies that one who does not so abstain is less moral.
Perhaps I’m off base, and if you don’t want to discuss it, I’ll drop the subject.
I don’t believe in the death penalty … I feel that God is the one that gives us our first breath, and he should be the one to take our last breath….However ……Instead …… we should take their arms and legs … you know…. we can call them “weebles”…think of how cheap it would be to house killers and child molesters….we can hire nurses instead of guards, and place them on conveyor belts to move them around the facility !!
GMC, I knew I was putting myself out there when I brought up my feelings about gun control–I did that. But now you’re asking me to go into detail about my personal choices. Forgive me for feeling like I’m being drawn into another chance to be villified.
Let me just leave it at this, and this is all I will say about it: animal production for food has negative ramifications that extend to water and environmental quality as well as health and welfare of the animals. The world food supply is negatively affected by having to feed and house animals for production. Is one for or against dairy products, then, too? What about leather? It becomes very hard to completely walk the earth with as light a step as possible, and one begins to be aware of the choices that have led certain religions to their ascetic beliefs.
Vegetarianism has been practiced by a myriad of cultures and religions for centuries. Many religions, including Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and especially Jainism, teach that ideally life should always be valued and not willfully destroyed for unnecessary human gratification.
The attempt to define meat-eating as “only natural” is problematic for two reasons: 1. despite the fact that we are natural beings, we live much of our lives differentiating ourselves from our most base instincts–because we can. Most of our institutions reflect the necessity of creating a human world: marriage and family, government, schooling, health services, the list goes on.
2. Your choice to use lions as your example of how the animal world works and, by extension, the “naturalness” of meat-eating reflects your extreme western bias. To wit, you could have chosen giraffes, elephants, pandas, moose, deer, cows, sheep, rabbits, orangutans…all manner of herbivores. Vegetarianism is just as “natural”, and almost as historically practiced among humans.
Ultimately I would rather think of vegetarianism as a philosophy, because it fits within a larger belief of treading lightly on the earth (which I do think is a philosophical choice borne of consciousness and ethics). Yet, I don’t go anywhere near as far the Dali Lama, Mahatma Ghandhi, or St. Francis of Assissi, so I recognize that we all have to make choices and live within our belief systems, whihc we do all the time, while knowing that our individual choices may be low-impact but our larger cutural beliefs may not be. Being out of the majority can be discouraging: one is “weird” and “leftist.” (well, some of the charges may fit.)
…and that’s all about that, folks, pending future blog topics.
should have said “western meat-eating” bias.”
No criticism implied or intended, friend. Just curiousity. Be well, and be safe.