Hmm, the Obama stimulus plan?
Via the AP: Fears of a Dem crackdown lead to boom in gun sales
“They’re scared to death of losing their rights,” said David Hancock, manager of Bob Moates, where sales have nearly doubled in the past week and are up 15 percent for the year. On Election Day, salespeople were called in on their day off because of the crowd.
[...]
While Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, attributes some of the sales boom to the tanking economy, he thinks the Democratic sweep is the top reason why guns are suddenly a hot commodity.
“I don’t think he’ll be able to stand up to that anti-Second Amendment wing of the Democratic party that’s just been spoiling for chance to ban America’s guns,” LaPierre said of Obama.
Many people get irrational about their guns, and I am not certain what the origins of the thought processes are. I am unaware of any period in US history wherein the government tried to take guns away from people. Even if I am forgetting some specific incident in the past, there certainly has been no attempt in my lifetime to confiscate firearms. Yes, there have been some restrictions on certain types of guns, and yes there have been some policies put into place to make it a smidge more difficult to acquire a gun. Still, can anyone actually tell me when the right to keep and bear arms has been threatened? Yes, I know that there have been some specific cities with bans (but not confiscations), but the Supreme Court recently overturned those laws. Indeed, based on the ruling in Heller, one could argue that gun ownership rights have never been stronger in the US, as the Court recongized for the first time ever that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected individual right.1
I understand the legitimate desire for someone to wish to have a firearm to protect their home. I understand that many people enjoy hunting and target shooting. What I don’t get are people who think that keeping guns will protect them from the day when the military takes over, since if an M1-Abrams tanks rolls into their driveway because the revolution has finally come, I don’t think that that cache of weapons in the basement will make much difference. Still, people do persist in the fantasy.
Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started. For example, I had a student ask in class if it was true that if Obama was elected that he would take all the guns away. Apparently this had been of some concern in the student’s family and as evidence the student provided two columns from the NRA’s magazine (which, I guess answers my question as to the origins of the meme). Then the other day, after the election, Middle Son asked me the same question, which has apparently been a focus of discussion at the elementary school level around here. And, of course, that’s not the kind of thing that would emerge naturally in such an environment, so clearly their parents had been the concerned parties.
That people have interest in gun policy is fine. However, that they are so confused on the basic functioning of our government is depressing.
Sphere: Related Content- For some background, see Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership [↩]
November 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Sounds like another example of irrational fear. The military taking over in some kind of revolution? Obama to take away human rights? Come on.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
To some extent it makes sense. You can’t tell me that it is not a plank of the democratic platform that gun ownership should be heavily regulated; and you admitted that it is plausible for certain types of weapons to be banned.
If you’re me, and you don’t know what types might be banned or what kind of regulations might be put in place that aren’t there right now, you might think about buying before a change takes place. I agree that it is wholly implausible for an outright ban on gun ownership, as this would indeed require consitutional ammendment; there is no way the supermajority needed for that could be attained.
But, if you’re me, you think about things like all the talk after the Virginia Tech shootings. I remember that the shooter turned out to have mental health problems, and had been off of his medications. There was some fuss at the time about prohibiting sales to people with a history of mental illness.
Also, it is almost certain that the assault rifle ban will come back, possibly without a sunset provision; I took advantage of the opportunity to acquire an AR15 configured like my beloved M4, the weapon I carried for most of my military career. I think it likely that my ability to buy such a weapon will disappear during the next year or two and wanted to be grandfathered.
Some folks might ask why I need such a weapon. The truth is, I don’t; but I enjoy shooting it on the range. It’s something I’m very good at. Enjoying something is enough reason to own it, else nobody would own a motorcycle or a jet ski (both of which can kill you just was easily as a gun). I enjoy my AR, and that’s my reason for owning it.
I likewise think it implausible that we could resist the revolution with an armed citizenry. You’re right; if the M1 rolls down the street, you might as well be using a Pea-shooter. I think the issue is that people want to be able to own guns for other reasons.
You’re also right in that the government has never seized our weapons. But it has, at times, made it harder to acquire them, and it has banned certain types of weapons. Not knowing what Obama will do, if you have in mind to buy a gun, it’s advisable to do it before February because you might not be able to get what you want, and/or it might be a huge hassle.
If some form of the VA Tech proposal is adopted, and there is a medical records check before buying a gun, I’ll probably not have another opportunity to buy; so for folks like me, there is a legitimate concern, I think.
That concern is probably going to be taken to far in some circles - but there is a grain of credibility to it.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
No gun confiscation in America? Apparently you weren’t paying attention to California, and then New Orleans following Katrina.
“What I don’t get are people who think that keeping guns will protect them from the day when the military takes over, since if an M1-Abrams tanks rolls into their driveway because the revolution has finally come, I don’t think that that cache of weapons in the basement will make much difference. Still, people do persist in the fantasy.”
Tell that to the dead Russians in Afganistan.
“Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started.”
Perhaps they got that idea from his voting record and his website? Straight from the horses mouth: “They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. ”
The “assault” weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime. It preys on the publics ignorance of what an assault weapon really is. The assault weapons ban merly bans firearms that look mean and scary. It also bans standard capacity magazines. If I’m justified in using one bullet to defend myself, then why can’t I use as many as it takes to stop a threat?
And somehow, I don’t see Obama taking away his secret service agents and police officers “assault” rifles, despite the fact that he believes they only belong on foreign battlefields.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Im more worried about the fact that he is going to take his oath of office on a koran and replace the White House Christmas tree with a festivus pole.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
In addition to what the Captain and MG stated above, back when he was a state senator Obama said he wanted to ban handguns, and wanted to ban gun shops within 5 miles of any school or park (which pretty much eliminates any populated area in the United States).
And just to emphasize and build on what MG said, and at the risk of being a bit rude, if you don’t think guns have been confiscated from law-abiding citizens in the United States, then you don’t know enough about this subject to be discussing it.
You really need to study up more about the history of guns in America, Doc, because what you believe to be true, ain’t.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Boyd,
Please, by all means, enlighten me as to the time when there was mass confiscation of firearms. I have no doubt that there have been cases in which individuals have had their guns taken away. I suspect that there have been cases in which that seizure was unjust.
But I will state that you don’t know as much as you think that you do if you think that there is any chance of basic gun right being taken away. There certainly is no magical power by which a man can accomplish that feat by just being elected president. Let’s be honest, shall we?
MG,
You don’t suppose all that clandestine help from the CIA was of aid. And please, are you really going to tell me that if the US military decided to take over that we could defeat them if only we had a few more rifles? I know far better than that.
And did America lose it guns rights during the time the assault rifle ban was in place? No, no they didn’t.
At a minimum, one can debate the assault weapons ban without pretending like it is a mass seizure of guns or the revocation of the Second Amendment. It is ludicrous to treat it as such.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
And just for kicks, here’s what the Dem Platform says in guns:
Yes, quite radical.
Understand: I am not here to defend the Democratic Party on guns. I am just weary of silly overreactions to policy based on fantasies about how the federal government works.
And if we want to play the game about words right out of Obama’s mouth, he said
That’s from the linked article.
It is fair, btw, to go out and buy a gun that you think might be banned under a new assualt weapons ban. That makes sense. And if one wants to debate the merits of such a law, fine. But let’s not pretend that an Obama administration is going to be able to confiscate guns or rip the Second Amendment out of the Constitution or overturn Heller by the sheer force of his personality.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I wonder of Dr. Taylor is a professor of Microwave Cookery. At least if that were the case I could cut him some slack on the ignorance of the subject of which he writes.
‘Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started.’
I can answer that one for you Mr. Taylor, it was Obama.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
“Still, can anyone actually tell me when the right to keep and bear arms has been threatened?”
Yes, and I’m not even a professor. Since you don’t seem to understand what the words “keep” and “bear” mean I’ll have to define them. Keep- The act of not not keeping. Bear- 1)A large mammal with claws. Also there used to be a Mega-bear (saw it on the discovery channel). 2) Carrying a firearm. So that means keeping your guns and carrying them. Lets apply this to non-guns so that even you can understand. Lets say we’re talking about titties instead. The right to keep and bear titties would mean that not only can you keep your titties (no matter how big, small, oblong, or how many rounds they hold) and bearing them would mean you could take your titties with you wherever you go. You wouldn’t have to disassemble your titties or lock your titties away in a case or “child proof” your tittes.
Back to your question. Here is a short list just from the top of my head.
-DC Gun ban
-Katrina Confiscations
-California restrictions (mag capacity, cosmetic features, waiting periods, BANNED WEAPONS GUN TURN IN)
http://www.calgunlaws.com/
-NYC gun ban
-NY State restrictions
-Taxachusetts “firearm identification card”
-ANY LAW CONGRESS PASSED RESTRICTING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
-ad nauseum
Which brings us to another point Mr. Taylor.
“I understand the legitimate desire for someone to wish to have a firearm to protect their home. I understand that many people enjoy hunting and target shooting.”
Here is what you fail to understand: the second amendment. Don’t worry I’ll explain it to you.
Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
*Well regulated means “well-trained”. Check out a dictionary of the time period if you need further evidence.
Did you see anything in there about a “legitimate sporting purpose” or any of the other statist buzzwords you used to describe it? The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you have any other questions please consult the constitution.
From your comments to your article:
“And just for kicks, here’s what the Dem Platform says in guns:
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we
can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children
safe.
Yes, quite radical.”
We agree on this one Mr. Taylor, it is quite radical- dangerous too.
“Gun show loophole” is a phrase fools use to describe the private property transfer between two people. There is currently no federal law prohibiting the transfer of firearms between individuals (unless the firearm is covered under NFA). So how can something that is legal be a loophole? Its not, just another statist buzzword.
“Common-sense laws” is another statist buzzword used to take the sting of radicalness from their proposed laws. How could anyone possibly disagree with something that’s common sense?!?! Saying that is kind of like the Jedi mind trick- it only works on the weak-minded.
“reinstating the assault weapons ban” I’ve already explained why this is radical with the “titty” analogy.
“so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals” Well if it’s to protect us from terrorists then sign me up! I’m afraid of the bogey man and will sign away all my rights as long as The State can keep me safe. These laws have nothing to do with stopping criminals or or terrorists and EVERYTHING to do with restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Everything “bad” you can do with a gun is already outlawed.
“That people have interest in gun policy is fine. However, that they are so confused on the basic functioning of our government is depressing.”
No sir, it’s disgusting. It’s disgusting that everyday you go in front of a room full of students and make your arrogant proclamations. You’re an embarrassment.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
The government is not going to make you turn in a weapon you bought when it was legal to do so; that would be enforcement ex post facto, and is unconstitutional under article 1, section 9, ON TOP of being a violation of the 2nd ammendment. What you might want to think about is whether or not a specific type of gun you want to own might become illegal to buy in the future; I bought an assault rifle now because they’ve been banned before and I think it likely they’ll be banned again, and like I said, I like to shoot it. Reminds me of the old days. And should a ban come into effect, I will almost certainly be grandfathered. The big question a lot of gun people are asking (at least the rational ones) is what types of guns will be determined to be “reasonable” for self defense, and what will not pass that test. Do we draw the line at revolvers or semi-autmatic handguns? Automatic rifles? Would a semi-automatic shotgun count as an auto rifle?
I would submit that right now, we can’t know what laws will come up, but it’s been a historical pattern for the democratic party to take issue with assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and autmoatics. They push for greater scrutiny into personal records on gun sales. Again, the concern here is not an outright ban, but where will the line be drawn? Will they go so far as to check medical records?
Regardless, you’re not going to be forced to turn in a gun that you bought before the law was passed. So if you have any doubt, and you think you might want one, it makes sense to buy now.
MG -
First of all, you need to understand that there are some huge problems comparing some sort of hypothetical military revolution in the united states, wherein the US military was deployed domestically to uproot the Constitution or something, to what happened to Russia in Afghanistan. It is an almost comically absurd position to take that this would be possible (or desirable) for Obama to do in the first place, and even more absurd to think that if he did, it would turn out like Russia and Afghanistan. I don’t know where to start with how weird that comparison is so I’ll start with the obvious:
1) The deployment of the US military to destroy the constitution would fly in the face of what every soldier in our military has sworn an oath to do, which is, and I quote from my commission as an Army Captain, “. . . to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If you think for one minute that the military in this country would obey an order that flew directly in the face of the constitution, you’re not thinking straight. We have an all-volunteer force, including all-volunteer commanders. We have no particular allegiance to this president or that; we serve presidents because they are empowered by the constitution as our commander in chief. But there is a strict disconnect between military commanders and politicians in this country; and if you think that 200+ years of that tradition can be uprooted overnight, you have underestimated greatly the dedication of our military, and the tradition of service to the constitution that they embrace. Obama doesn’t have any of our soldiers families’ at gunpoint, the way some tyrants overseas do. He couldn’t just muscle us around. Our military is deliberately set up that way.
2) If Obama made some kind of unconstitutional demand of the military, the judiciary would probably intervene and check his power anyway.
3) The Afghan fighters used AMERICAN weapons to blow up RUSSIAN tanks. The gulf of technology between American and Russian military hardware is so profound it can’t be put into words. It’s the difference between gunpowder and swords or catapults and cannons; I have faced Russian hardware all over the world and I’m here to tell you, it’s junk; and I’m also here to tell you that American soldiers - people like what I was, once - have access to weaponry that you probably would think to be science fiction, and the best training in the world to go along with it. This is why the Russians had a hard time in Afghanistan, and we ripped through the place like a freight train through tin foil. I know, I was there, and you can’t tell me it happened any differently. If (and it would never ever happen) the military was used against the people of this country, no guerrilla campaign or loose militia would be able to stop it. It would be like trying to stop a hurricane or a tornado by spitting at it.
Let me give you some perspective. During the opening shots of Afghanistan, we were flying B2 stealth bombers out of Kansas, straight to Afghanistan to fly a combat sortie, and back to Kansas, without anyone knowing, either in this country, the countries whose airspace they passed through, or Afghanistan. At times we had B-52 bombers orbiting at 50,000 feet, carrying dozens of 500-pound JDAMS. The bomber just stayed on station and cuircled and waited for me to call the shot. From the ground I had the ability to have that bomber poop out a 500-pound bunker-buster, accurate to within 3 meters, whenever I wanted it, wherever I wanted it. I just called, and the bomb hit its target. The enemy never saw the plane. From their perspective, things were just blowing up spontaneously.
Those bombers routinely take off from bases in the US. They do it all the time, practically round the clock. Have you ever seen one fly overhead? The reason is that they fly so high that you can’t even see them, much less shoot them down.
I’ve seen M1A2 tanks take out as many as three separate moving targets, at different ranges, while the shooting tank itself is moving at 30mph over uneven terrain, in less than 10 seconds.
I’ve seen Tomahawk cruise missiles deliver 1000-pound warheads within a meter of their intended target after flying hundreds of miles.
And - I’ve seen supersonic F-16’s drop self-guided bombs (JDAMS), and hit their targets, without ever dropping below the speed of sound or below 30,000 feet. You never see them. You never hear them. From the ground, it appears that your fortress just spontaneously explodes.
And don’t even get me going on our special forces soldiers. Suffice it to say, take your worst nightmare, and you can neatly package it in the form of a Delta Operator, Navy Seal, or Army SF.
You mean to seriously tell me that you think a loose band of militia with a bunch of pea shooters could contend with a military that can pull off feats like this?
Reality, my friend, reality. . .
November 9th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I wonder of Dr. Taylor is a professor of Microwave Cookery. At least if that were the case I could cut him some slack on the ignorance of the subject of which he writes.
‘Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started.’
I can answer that one for you Mr. Taylor, it was Obama.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
“Still, can anyone actually tell me when the right to keep and bear arms has been threatened?”
Yes, and I’m not even a professor. Since you don’t seem to understand what the words “keep” and “bear” mean I’ll have to define them. Keep- The act of not not keeping. Bear- 1)A large mammal with claws. Also there used to be a Mega-bear (saw it on the discovery channel). 2) Carrying a firearm. So that means keeping your guns and carrying them. Lets apply this to non-guns so that even you can understand. Lets say we’re talking about titties instead. The right to keep and bear titties would mean that not only can you keep your titties (no matter how big, small, oblong, or how many rounds they hold) and bearing them would mean you could take your titties with you wherever you go. You wouldn’t have to disassemble your titties or lock your titties away in a case or “child proof” your tittes.
Back to your question. Here is a short list just from the top of my head.
-DC Gun ban
-Katrina Confiscations
-California restrictions (mag capacity, cosmetic features, waiting periods, BANNED WEAPONS GUN TURN IN)
http://www.calgunlaws.com/
-NYC gun ban
-NY State restrictions
-Taxachusetts “firearm identification card”
-ANY LAW CONGRESS PASSED RESTRICTING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
-ad nauseum
Which brings us to another point Mr. Taylor.
“I understand the legitimate desire for someone to wish to have a firearm to protect their home. I understand that many people enjoy hunting and target shooting.”
Here is what you fail to understand: the second amendment. Don’t worry I’ll explain it to you.
Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
*Well regulated means “well-trained”. Check out a dictionary of the time period if you need further evidence.
Did you see anything in there about a “legitimate sporting purpose” or any of the other statist buzzwords you used to describe it? The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you have any other questions please consult the constitution.
From your comments to your article:
“And just for kicks, here’s what the Dem Platform says in guns:
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we
can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children
safe.
Yes, quite radical.”
We agree on this one Mr. Taylor, it is quite radical- dangerous too.
“Gun show loophole” is a phrase fools use to describe the private property transfer between two people. There is currently no federal law prohibiting the transfer of firearms between individuals (unless the firearm is covered under NFA). So how can something that is legal be a loophole? Its not, just another statist buzzword.
“Common-sense laws” is another statist buzzword used to take the sting of radicalness from their proposed laws. How could anyone possibly disagree with something that’s common sense?!?! Saying that is kind of like the Jedi mind trick- it only works on the weak-minded.
“reinstating the assault weapons ban” I’ve already explained why this is radical with the “titty” analogy.
“so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals” Well if it’s to protect us from terrorists then sign me up! I’m afraid of the bogey man and will sign away all my rights as long as The State can keep me safe. These laws have nothing to do with stopping criminals or or terrorists and EVERYTHING to do with restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Everything “bad” you can do with a gun is already outlawed.
“That people have interest in gun policy is fine. However, that they are so confused on the basic functioning of our government is depressing.”
No sir, it’s disgusting. It’s disgusting that everyday you go in front of a room full of students and make your arrogant proclamations. You’re an embarrassment.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am
“It is an almost comically absurd position to take that this would be possible (or desirable) for Obama to do in the first place, and even more absurd to think that if he did, it would turn out like Russia and Afghanistan.”
It would be, thats why I did not make that assertion.
I am well aware of the oath every member of the military takes. Are you not aware of what happened in New Orleans? Was the National Guard not involved? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
November 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
[...] various circles over the mistaken notion that ‘Obama’s going to shut down gun shops and confiscate our [...]
November 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I will just say this to my histrionic friends: if the Obama administration starts confiscating guns and takes away the 2nd Amendment, come on back to the blog and I will declare to the world how wrong I was.
There may be some resurrection of the assault weapons ban, but even that strikes me as doubtful, as there is the whole financial crisis and two wars and such to deal with. Assault weapons are not at the top of the agenda.
Squalus: I hate to tell you this, but it has never been the law of the land that one could carry guns whenever and where ever one goes. That would be considered a rather radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
I can, however, confirm, that there is a constitutional righ to take one’s own titties where ever one might like.
And I will look up the exact details of the Katrina situation, but that was a true disaster area, so it is hardly a good example. Beyond that, last time I checked, there are still plenty of guns in New Orleans, so the 2nd amendment lives, even post-Katrina.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Indeed.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I’m aware of what happened in New Orleans. There was a brief period during which martial law had been declared in the wake of the disaster. I’ve seen the YouTube video; what they don’t show on the YouTube video (the purpose of which is to induce panic about the government) is the national guard returning those confiscated weapons later on.
You see, I’ve talked to the commander of the national guard battalion responsible; we went through the Infantry Captains Career Course together way back when, and were friends at the time; so I understand the whole story, which is conveniently left out of these viral scare videos.
From a strictly constitutional perspective, the reason the confiscation was legal was that martial law had been declared. Under the constitution (Article 1, Section 9 and Article 1, Section
the suspension of habeas corpus and certain other rights is legitmate in periods of rebellion, invasion, and other such circumstances. So it was a constitutionally legitimate order, so long as it was remedied after power was transferred back to the civilian leadership.
Every weapon that was confiscated was returned after the guard was withdrawn, with the exception of 14 weapons that turned out to have been reported stolen; those were turned over to local law enforcement to handle, and whether charges were made after that he did not know. He and other caommanders had asked for the authority to perform the confiscation because there was a rash of shootings after Katrina, and most of them had nothing to do with looting. A lot of gun owners were trigger-happy and were not complying with existing laws about discharging, brandishing, and carrying weapons. This resulted in dozens of people getting shot for no good reason; and once the guard was in place, the looting stopped anyway. The temporary collection of firearms was performed to stop violence as order was restored; the reality on the ground was that the guard commanders saw a lot of people being shot at unnecessarily and had to do something to stop the bleeding, because apparently people in New Orleans were unaware that a person simply being in your neighborhood is not grounds enough to assume they are a looter and shoot them. Just to throw out some numbers, there were over 100 shootings in the 5 days before the confiscation took place. Of all those shooters, only 9 were vindicated by the courts as legitimate cases of self-defense. In many of the other cases charges were reduced or dropped because of the mitigating circumstances of the storm, but the fact remains that a lot of those “responsible, law-abiding gun owners” were way too trigger happy for their own good.
In any case, when order was restored, the guns were returned, unless they were stolen or used in the commission of a crime, in which case they were turned over to local law enforcement to handle appropriately. Again, no one has posted to YouTube the video of the guard returning the weapon to the owner; that wouldn’t induce fear, so they leave that part out.
The other thing you need to keep in mind is that in order for this to happen on a national level, you’d have to declare martial law on the entire United States. Short of a disaster that involved every state of the union, I’m not sure what you would use as a reason to do this, and I’m not sure where you would get enough troops to perform the action. New Orleans was once city. If you’re talking about the entire country, you have a much bigger logistical and tactical problem; and numerous court cases over the years have imposed strict limits on when and for what reasons martial law can be declared. There is also the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 to get around.
Also, you said in response to Dr. Taylor’s statement that private gun ownership would not be able to stop the US military from sqaushing your rights (if it came to that), you said, “Tell that to the dead Russians in Afghanistan.” In response to me, you claimed that you did not think a rebellion in the US would turn out the way that Afghanistan went for the Russians, and yet you made the statement.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Squalus -
Wound a little tight, are we?
Listen, man, you’ve little to fear. I can tell you from experience confiscating weapons in other countries that even if the planets all came into alignment, the nature of our government changed fundamentally across all three branches and all three levels, and we woke up in a world that had Barack Obama running America as Supreme Overlord, the logistical and tactical problem of scouring the entire United States of America for guns would be so overwhelming that there would be no practical way to do it.
We’ve been confiscating guns in Iraq since we invaded. Iraq is a fraction of the size of the United States; and we’ve barely scratched the surface. Caches still turn up in Iraq, and we think there are STILL far more guns than people in the country, in spite of our collection and disposal efforts.
It could not be done. Period.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Fine words Dr Steven Taylor!
Here is a prediction to any takers.
4 or 8 years from now I will still be able to buy a long gun, get my instant background check, and if I pass that check walk out the door with a new gun.
I expect that in a gun show I will also have to get an instant background check as supported by BOTH presidential candidates and, walk out the door with a long gun or after a three day waiting period a handgun.
My gun cases still will be filled and I will be able to use my favorite one of my Browning Citori’s 20 gauges for pheasants like I have for the past 45 years, my Savage 204 ruger on prairie dogs, or my Browning semiautamatic 270 WSM rifle for elk. Non-toxic shot will still be illegal to us on waterfowl and more and more hunters will use copper and other clad bullets that leave ever less lead residue in game.
There is no where near enough support in congress to carry virtually any of the gun control fear extremes predicted by the far right and President Obama has to get any new legislation passed by congress. The somewhat conservative Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Amendment I get to keep my guns AND society can enact some common sense controls.
If all the millions spend by the gun controla fear crowd
had gone into gun safety and preserving federal lands out west from Republician energy czars we’d all be better off.
I also predict that politcal movements that push irrational fear will, in the future, become ever more powerless in the national marketpace of ideas. Unless of course they want to keep losing election after election. The harder you push for fear, the more sturident you sound, the more elections you lose.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
So very true.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I, too, have heard the “Obama will take people’s guns” malarkey from multiple sources here in the South. It would almost be comical if so many people didn’t actually believe it.
Under scrutiny, the whole argument falls into the category of failed, irrational scare tactics used to distract from the real issues facing the United States.
Ratoe’s quip about the Qur’an and the festivus pole pinpointed the problem.
To those who believe this nonsense about secret religious affiliations, birth certificate conspiracies, the inevitable dismantling of the U.S. military, imminent death for all 2nd Amendment rights, democrats are heathens, and the silliness about the antichrist: Please find some more reliable sources of information. These ideas are not plausible.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
SKB -
You’re right, in that the extreme positions are not plausible. But you will concede that during the Clinton administration, assault rifles were banned, yes?
So it is at least plausible to believe that certain types of guns can and will be banned under an Obama administration that enjoys a majority in both bodies of the legislature.
I know it’s not a stated priority. But telling me there will be no new gun control laws under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government is hard for me to believe. I’m not stupid enough to think all guns will be banned; but there is no doubt in my mind that some will.
“Common sense” regulation means something different for everyone, and the courts have left some wiggle-room by allowing for “common-sense” legislation.
The question I have is, as I’ve stated, where will the new lines be drawn, and what will the new rules be? I’m pretty sure that the assault rifle ban will come back; but am also nervous about requiring a medical records check, and the possibility that people with mental health problems will be denied the right to buy a gun, because “common sense” tells us that they will use it in a VA-Tech style massacre.
I’m just saying - if you think you want to own a gun, it would be prudent to buy it now, because you might not be able to get the gun you really want under the new administration; and there is always the possibility that you won’t be able to get it at all, if certain segments of society have their way and are able to push the medical records check through as another hoop to jump through.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
The concern isn’t from what Congress has done historically, but from what has happened in other countries.
Lawfully buying guns today also implicitly acknowledges that any future ban affecting those firearms will grandfather in legally-owned firearms. That is, if I buy an AR-15 today, with a full legal record of the transaction, I’m clearly betting that any future ban of AR-15s won’t require me to turn in my weapon.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
To be clear: I can understand the notion that one might go out and buy weapons that one thinks might be re-banned (or banned for the first time).
However, that is not the only behavior described in the story quoted above. Further, there really is this notion out there that President Obama = “all our guns being taken away”–it is that part that really vexes me, as it makes no sense.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I get it, Dr. Taylor. You’re right, there is a lunatic fringe on this subject; when I went to make my purchases for the reasons I have already cited, I found the gunstore to be unusually busy. I spoke to some other customers, and the owner of the store, and I overheard some conversation. From what I saw and heard, I’d wager that about half were there out of some fear that guns would be banned altogether, the other half were like me - they were in the market for things that they figured would be illegal, or at least much harder to get; they didn’t know exactly where the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government would draw the lines, or what would constitute “common sense” regulations to them, so they were going ahead and buying now so as to be grandfathered. They didn’t know where the lines would be drawn, but were of the feeling that there would be new lines drawn somewhere.
Max, as far as grandfathering goes - again, if congress passed a new law banning my AR-15, that law could only apply to new sales. If they tried to make ownership of such a weapon illegal and include some sort of turn-in provision, it would be an ex post facto law to anyone who bought such a weapon legally before the ban, and that part of the law would almost certainly be struck down immediately by the courts. As long as my purchase was legal at the time, they can’t do anything about it in the future.
Ex Post Facto is covered in the body of the constitution. I cited the exact location somewhere in this thread. It basically means that the government can’t make a law today and charge you with breaking it yesterday. In other words, if I spit on the street today and ten cops watch me do it, and tomorrow a law is passed making it a crime to spit on the street, I can’t be charged with spitting on the street because it wasn’t a crime when I did it. If I do it again after the law is passed, I can be charged; but if it wasn’t illegal when I did it, I’m safe.
This is why when weapons are banned, current owners are grandfathered; Congress - or any other body of our government, for that matter - can’t retroactively change our rights, or retroactively make something illegal. That kind of action is explicitly prohibited in the body of the Constitution. We can interpret the 2nd ammendment to allow “common sense regulation” but we can’t get around the ex post facto provision of the Constitution; no matter how severe gun control becomes in the future, it can never be applied to past sales or transactions that were legal at the time.
Unless we ammend the constitution to strike the ex post facto clauses - which I think will not happen - I get to keep my AR15, along with its 30-round magazines, as long as I want to. I just might not be able to buy another one if they are banned.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Yes, I do agree that some people will make reasonable inferences about the possibility of modified future gun control and will act accordingly.
However, my point was similar to that of Dr. Taylor in that it is the extreme exhaggeration of these views that is cause for frustration.
It is not logical for so many people to actually believe an Obama administration would ever be able to “take all our guns away,” even if it wanted to do so. In addition, there is no evidence that President-elect Obama would be in favor of immediate, all-encompassing gun bans even if he could get them implemented, which he couldn’t.
Yet, these are some of the specific fears that I have repeatedly encountered (among other, less credible fears about infinite food stamps and the aforementioned religious/nationality stuff). I wanted to express how perplexed and dismayed I am that these ideas have been so widely adopted despite all the logical evidence to the contrary.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Well, ultimately those views are probably not going to hurt anything. So people go out and buy guns for irrational reasons. Haven’t people in this country been doing that for about 200 years?
Hey, look at the bright side - it’s one sector of the economy that is doing well right now
There has always been a lunatic fringe when it comes to guns, and there always will be one. I think these people are mostly harmless; they are just terribly misinformed.
Apart from gun shopping, I’ve also been in the antique stores lately. I’m looking for a very nice bureau, which I can put my alcohol, fine pipe tobacco, and firearms in. I figure I will need the first two in abundance for sure to get through the next four years.
As for the third, probably not - but it would be sort of fun to have my very own bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.