I'm not sure how to title this post about "assault weapons"...

For some reason, some "Democrats" have decided to revive the proposal about banning "assault weapons". Let's start with the obvious: it's the same old shit rehashed. That is "Cosmetic features" and a list of firearms which is one of the reasons the first was a failure. The manufacturers went out and reworked their firearms into "sporter versions" and some were grandfathered in.

I like that the HK94 was being sold prior to the ban. The HK94 was a carbine version of the H&K MP5 but it had a long barrel. That meant it wasn't short barreled rifle. Anyway, these were grandfathered in. I've heard that they command a high price since people buy them and are able to convert them to fully automatic! Of course, as far as I know there has been no NFA item which has been used in a crime.

But this is a good segue to the 26 USC 5845 definition of a Machine gun:

Machine guns, defined as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

 I copied this from another post where I talk about the M1 carbine being banned. Using this definition there is the M2 variant is designed to be capable of fully automatic fire, therefore, the M1 is a machinegun using that defintion.

I strongly suggest that people read the case law 26 USC 5845 in particular the law relating to “designed to shoot” and “readily restored to shoot”:

“There were two welds in the gun which obviously was, when manufactured, ‘designed to shoot.’ The barrel of the gun was welded closed at the breech and was also welded to the receiver on the outside under the handguard. Scroggie testified that there are two possible ways by which the firearm could be made to function as such. The most feasible method would be to cut the barrel off, drill a hole in the forward end of the receiver and then rethread the hole so that the same or another barrel could be inserted. To do so would take about an 8-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop. Another method which would be more difficult because of the possibility of bending or breaking the barrel would be to drill the weld out of the breech of the barrel. United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399(8th Cir.1973)

In the context of the NFA and its use as a modifier describing the manner of firearm restoration, “readily” has been read to encompass several elements of restoration: (1) time, i.e., how long it takes to restore the weapon; (2) ease, i.e., how difficult it is to restore the weapon; (3) expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required to restore the weapon; (4) necessary equipment, i.e., what tools are required to restore the weapon; (5) availability, i.e., where additional parts are required, how easily they can be obtained; (6) expense, i.e., how much it costs to restore the weapon; (7) scope, i.e., the extent to which the weapon has to be changed to allow it to shoot automatically; (8) feasability, i.e., whether the restoration would damage or destroy the weapon or cause it to malfunction. See S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 253, 254-55 (11th Cir. 1987) (ease and scope); United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1982) (expertise, ease, and scope); United States v. Smith, 477 F.2d 399, 400 (8th Cir.1973) (time and equipment); United States v. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1362 (M.D.Fla.1999) (time, ease, expertise, and equipment); United States v. Seven Misc. Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 573-75 (D.D.C.1980) (time, ease, expertise, equipment, availability, expense, and feasibility); United States v. Cook, No. 92-1467, 1993 WL 243823, at *3-4 (6th Cir. July 6, 1993) (availability)…
The decisions of several other courts make clear that the Defendant weapon, which would require, according to Alverson’s own expert, a maximum of six hours to convert to fire automatically, “can be readily restored” under the NFA. The Eighth Circuit held that a semiautomatic rifle that would take an eight-hour working day in a properly equipped machine shop to convert to shoot automatically qualified as a “machinegun” under the NFA.10 Smith, 477 F.2d at 400; cf. United States v. Shilling, 826 F.2d 1365, 1367 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that disassembled guns that could be made to shoot automatically were “readily restor[able]”); S.W. Daniel, Inc., 831 F.2d at 254-55 (upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun as “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts”); Alverson, 666 F.2d at 345 (concluding that an automatic weapon that was converted to fire semiautomatically prior to its sale to defendant could be “readily restored” where it could be modified to shoot automatically by filing down one of its parts); United States v. Lauchli, 371 F.2d 303, 312-13 (7th Cir.1966) (in a case prior to the addition of the “can be readily restored” language to the NFA, deciding that weapons requiring assembly to shoot automatically were machineguns under the NFA). U.S. v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416(2006)

There’s readily restorable for you!

 Anyway, there are enough manuals out there on how to turn semi-automatic weapons into full auto that it should be a no-brainer that these firearms fit the above description of readily restorable.

Let's throw in things like bump fire and other mods that turn these weapons into fully automatic fire without making an actual conversion.

So, there is a law on the books which has been on the books for some time which would have prevented the sale of these firearms, but nobody bothered with enforcing it.

Let's toss in that getting all the semi-automatic firearms off the street now would require one very large buyback, which would be at fair market value, as well as an amnesty period. Probably any serious ban would require periodic amnesties as well and the type of turn ins that follow the discovery of "inherited" NFA items.

And the political climate is really unfavourable for this type of law. It has been since the Heller decision came out. But like anything political in this country: no one (in power) had the fortitude to address the issue.

Bottom line: too much talk has been about gun rights, rights come with responsibilities.  It's time we start factoring in that too many people are not responsible gun owners. But they are the loud crowd.

Nice idea, but...

Luigi Mangione and the real elephant in the room

OK, while I support gun regulation: I am on the outs with a lot of the groups who are "working" on this effort. This is due to their support for duopoly candidates, who caused the problem. But it has gotten even worse with this incident.

Legislators who denounce "ghost guns" use this as a springboard for a "discussion on healthcare". I would hope that the reaction would have been different had Mangione been a mass shooter, but I am not so sure. His admiration for the Unabomber and use of assassination seems to be passed over.

If anything, this incident is a side show to distract from the real issues out there. In this case, his use of a ghost gun, which is a definite issue in the "gun violence" sector.

According to the Department of Justice, the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement skyrocketed from 1,758 in 2016 to 19,344 in 2021, a surge of more than 1,000%. Nearly 700 of those weapons were involved in suspected homicides or attempted homicides.

OK, other than the gun rights crowd, not too many people are paying attention to this.

So, while I know the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, I doubt that the US will ever be able to address its gun violence problem. (BTW, anyone for using "domestic violence", US Constitution Article 4, Section 4, for some fun?)

I would also add that the US's tendency toward violence is actually quite frightening.

Trigger Warning--Literally!!!

I've been thinking about posting this video clip since I first saw it. 

I have a weird feeling this post will be pulled by the overly sensitive pro-gun crowd: which is why I titled it what I did. 

This video is (1) A good reason to check out the words to a foreign song...and also the video (2) disturbing. 

"Tu me Manques" is French for I miss you. Of course, It can also mean "missing" in the context of "missing the target".  She misses him in the first sense, but not the other.  It's a nice song if you just listen to the lyrics and music. 

The video is something else. 

 

It's weird how even "progunners" when pressed begin to realise that maybe the right they believe to exist is actually limited. 

It would be nicer if they would just use their brains and do some serious research. But that would mean that they would have to admit that they have been living a lie.

It would be nice if I gave a translation of the words:

I'm wasting my time and my spring
Wandering around Paris
I don't care about the people who are always telling me
You gotta forget about him

I should erase your face
I'm not sure what to do, I'm not sure what to do
But your words are echoing
I'm drowning in them

I'm drowning in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

I'm pretending, absent gaze
To fill my boredom
I don't care about the people who keep telling me
You gotta forget about her
I should erase you
And go straight to the front
But there's your words that resonate
I get lost in it

I get lost in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

We've got our whole life to do over
We're wasting time, we're wasting time
I don't care about the whole world
I'm not pretending, I'm not pretending
I'm ready to do anything to please you
I'm not gonna let you down, I'm not gonna let you down
And you're gone in a flash
I'm waiting for you

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd have to forget you but you haunt me

℗ & © Dorcas 2023

Are Liberals & Conservatives REALLY That Different?

 

This points out that both want to protect. The conservative wants to protect the group and is sensitive to threat. The Liberal also wants to protect, but comes from a different point of view.

Take the issue of firearms. The right winger sees firearms as something which can be used as protection. The liberal sees the harm that comes from them. There is far too much based upon emotion and not enough relating to what the actual cost is to society.

A longer version of the above interview:

It was going to be a failure.

Take a country which went "Socialist" and then was "invaded" by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Forget that the country in question is next door to an Islamic Fundamentalist state (Iran), or at least one that had a problem with Islamic Fundamentalists. Toss in Cold War blindness that the Soviet Union is "the Evil Empire". Then fund Islamist warriors, the Mujahideen, to fight in that country.

And you have a recipe for disaster.

Especially since the Mujahideen dislike the United States as much as they hated the Soviet Union. To them, the "West" was the "Evil Empire", which included the idiots who were funding their battle in Afghanistan.

This was the confrontation of Realpolitik and Idealism. Which is worse, communism or Islamic Fundamentalism which has the goal of destroying the west?

The blowback happened on 9-11 and 7/7 along with other Islamic Attacks in London and France. The Zastava AKSU used at the Bataclan was bought legally from Florida.

The Taliban doing their impression of US Militia Members on 6 Jan 2021

Not that gun control will totally disarm the Islamic fighters since they have the technology to keep cranking out guns. Sort of like the AR15 underground can keep cranking out AR15s for as long as the 80% receivers are lying about. Unfortunately, like the problem with Islamic Fundamentalism, the US gun problem was allowed to fester due to the same mistakes in judgement which allowed Islamic Fundamentalism to get out of hand.

I look at the pictures of the Taliban with their assault rifles and beards and it reminds me of the current state of US politics. What will the outcome of the mess that the world finds itself in?

The problems with an assault weapons ban

Or the many reasons that Biden will fall flat on that promise. 

First off, been there done that with the original AWB which was a failure. It was intentionally a failure in that it was poorly written. Fixing that would require that the firearms that are banned would be simply defined as "any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting, or has, a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds". The problem there is that the political will doesn't exist. It never has in the US. Making New York's gun laws the laws of the land might have worked when the NFA was first passed in the 1930s, but good luck getting them through now.

The Second Amendment isn't really a barrier to adopting strict gun laws. It never really has been. The Second Amendment is an obscure clause in the US Constitution which few people really understand, has been openly misinterpreted, and will be a barrier to action as long as it is considered a part of the Constitution. Heller and McDonald didn't change the landscape. Point it out once again: the Heller-McDonald language showing regulation is acceptable:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Better yet:

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?

If that isn't good enough for you: show me the words "self-defence" or "Tyranny"  in the US Constitution and we can have a discussion.

Next we come to the people who are running around talking about defunding the police. That goes to one of the talking points that the pro-gun crowd have working for them. Who is going to protect you if the cops can't? Like it or not, one of the objects to having a government is to keep order. No order=no society.

Or to paraphrase the 60s bumper sticker: "Don't like the police? call antfa!"

And Antifa are a set of bozos I can live without. They did fuck all to stop the rise of fascism the first go round. If anything, they helped it get powerful.

Anyway, we've had toddlers shot and a horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Nothing has happened yet.

If anything, the divide between the two sides has widened and become more entrenched. I see the animosity getting stronger.

So, if anything, the situation will get far worse.

Biden and Guns

OK, the main reason I didn't expect Biden to "win" the election was that he needed to win a few states which are pro-gun. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those people to get on the Biden Bandwagon if Biden is going to tighten gun laws. Not to mention telling a UAW member to basically fuck off because "no one needs an AR-14".

Biden has a long history on the gun issue, which is contradictory to say the least. It went from being pro-gun and being involved with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) to now saying he wants to get tight on regulating "AR-14s". Personally, I think Sanders would have been a safer bet to address this issue than Biden: especially since Bernie is from Vermont.

On the other hand, Bernie is a commie. And the Establishment Dems don't like him.

Biden's campaign was:

increasingly worried about the polling in Pennsylvania and fear that his previous, slim lead could be slipping away at the eleventh hour. But this doesn’t sound like a move that would help him much, if at all, on that score. The vast majority of Biden’s support in the Keystone State is going to come from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But the latter city is currently overrun by mobs and is going up in flames. Philly is one of the places where the demand for guns is off the charts in a Democratic stronghold and people can’t even get applications for permits, to say nothing of laying their hands on a legal firearm. Something tells me that even his base there doesn’t want to hear any gun control claptrap at the moment.

OK, I would like to believe that Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris will turn out to be a disappointment, but he has managed to surprise me by winning an election.

Despite the odds.

On the other hand, there is a lot of red in places like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina which might hold their nose and vote for the next Trump if Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris make good on their promise to ban guns.

And I am truly surprised that combination was able to pull off a win to begin with: especially with gun control on the agenda. 

But gun control is something which is talked about but rarely acted upon: especially by opportunistic politicians.

Why I think Donald Trump will get another four years!

I remember driving through Western Pennsylvania a few days after the 2016 election. It was obvious why Trump won then. The Dems didn't bother to reassess what happened and are now set to fuck up even worse than in 2016.

First off, running Joe Biden who was a train wreck to begin with, but continues to show WHY he is correct when he tells people to vote for the other guy. Biden lost the election when he told the UAW Worker in Detroit he didn't need an assault rifle among other things, but it gets us to.

The Riots, while the Dems would like to pin everything on Trump. The "Trump is Bad" strategy was a loser in 2016: it's even worse in 2020. Toss in the riots happened in Democratically controlled areas for the most part. Nixon won as the law and order candidate in 1968. Trump will win because the Dems are the party of disorganisation.

The fall out from the riots. Loads of people bought guns. Assault rifles vanished from the marketplace both brick and mortar as well as internet. Gun control, firearms regulation, gun violence prevention, or whatever you want to call it is going to be a dead letter for some time as armed bands troop around left and right: literally.

Let's add in the talk of defunding or disbanding the police, which is one of the worst imaginable cases of branding an idea that anyone could have come up with at this time. Armed groups from all sides of the political spectrum are walking the streets: what could go wrong here? Police reorganisation might have made more sense.

But it doesn't matter since Biden has made it clear that he's not on board.
Let's not forget the Covid-19 thing, which was another disaster. It was something that pointed out the need to "medicare for all", universal basic income, or just good leadership.

In fact, the past few months have been an advertisement for why the Democrats are on the wrong track and running the wrong candidate. But I am not expecting much change. Especially when the candidate who is running is one who really isn't going to change a thing.

Casey Jones is driving the train full speed ahead high on cocaine, And there might even be speed involved.

I almost bought an AR

I guess the H&K MR556 or SIG516 are AR-15 variants.

So, number one deterrent was price. The SIG is the less expensive of the two, but still in the four figure range. We are talking a price of US$ 1400+. Ouch. Toss in that I am leaning toward the H&K compared to the Sig.

And that's the price if you can find one.

Assault Rifles and guns in general are a hot commodity these days. For good reason given the chaos of the past week. Some people have seen it on TV. Other people have lived it.

And people want to protect themselves. And what better way than with a weapon that was designed for the battlefield and proven in mass shootings across the country. Las Vegas was a good advertisement. The chaos of the past week are the perfect advertisement for a weapon like this.

I may not like it, but it is hard to say that people shouldn't be able to own these weapons when the cities are under siege. That makes me different from a lot of people on the left, but I am also much more pragmatic than a lot of people on the left.

Those are the ones who are moaning about the militarisation of the police, like this article in the Guardian. But it misses something that this post is pointing out. Civilians can buy the 5.56 Assault Rifle with no problem. Shouldn't the cops be as well armed as the civilians if they are going to keep the peace?

Toss in there is a movement to defund the police:

Defunding, said activist Jeralynn Blueford, is the logical response from leaders in this moment of unprecedented unrest. “If police had been serious about reform and policy change, then guess what? People would not be this angry.”

What The Fuck? Serious What the Fuck?

We have seen chaos and looting in US cities over the past week. Gun stores have lines that wrap around the block as people scramble to buy weapons to defend their homes.

While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.

It's the image in this Tommy Gun ad from the days when they were freely available.  The ability to protect your home against marauding bands of evil doers.

And the do gooders (I can't really say the left since there are some of us who get what needs to be done) who would defund the police and try to make assault rifles illegal. The argument that "no one needs one of these in a civilian world" rings hollow these days.

The chaos of the past week ISN'T the civilian world and toleration of those who are destroying US cities is wrong. It's turning the "silence is consent" argument back at them. Even worse, it's not silence, but outright appeasement.

Black Lives Matters lost any relevance the moment the fires and violence broke out. They could have salvaged their effort if they stood down and denounced the violence. But allowing violence on either side is wrong.

I don't really like that I have to accept that assault rifles are an undeniable fact of US life, but there needs to be some feeling of safety and security until people stand down: especially the rioters and looters. Violence isn't the answer. Especially if you are not the body authorised by law to keep the peace. Breaking the law really isn't the answer.

There are options other than violence and chaos, however, there is a misguided belief that is what is necessary. That is costing the Black Lives Matters its legitimacy even amongst the people it claims to represent.

Because the people buying guns aren't just white.

Reality versus gun rights

It's really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I'm going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

 You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Bloomberg hypocrisy

The fact that Michael Bloomberg has a 10 million dollar home in the tax haven of Bermuda should be enough to get people to question his sincerity. And just ask a lot of questions in general.

But Bloomie does more in Bermuda than just have a place to bolt to when things get annoying in the Big Apple.

He brings armed guards. That's something that got a lot of attention a while back from the gun bloggers. But now that he is campaigning as the "Gun Violence Prevention" candidate should be discussed.

The Bermuda police didn't carry guns when Bloomberg started bringing armed guards to Bermuda in 2010. Toss in that it is pretty much illegal for private citizens to own guns.

Bermuda is not part of the UK proper, but it is an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom. But this is pretty much applicable to the issue:

Is it possible to have armed Bodyguards in the UK? 

At present, it is not lawful for any members of the public to carry a firearm, for the purpose of Close Protection. This includes SIA licensed and professionally trained Bodyguards.

Gun control laws are tough in the United Kingdom, a country that prides itself for having one of the lowest rates of gun-related crimes in the world. Since 1997, the private possession of handguns and other weapons classified as firearms (pepper spray, CS gaz and the likes), is banned in the United Kingdom by the Firearms Act 1997 that came into force after the mass shooting at Dunblane Primary School in 1996 that saw the death of 16 school children.

I would add that the Bermuda Police has its on close protection group which is supposed to protect VIPs.

Those are the people who  should be protecting Bloomie.

Unlike the rest of us, Bloomie has special dispensation to bring armed guards onto the Island.

I would like to compare Bloomie's situation to that of Charles Stein. Stein was
a former police officer in San Fernando, CA. He was also the bodyguard to Teddy Kennedy.
Stein was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police when he arrived at a Senate office building metal detector on 7 January 1986, just hours before Kennedy was to leave on his trip to South America.  Stein identified himself as Kennedy's bodyguard, told a guard he had weapons in his briefcase and asked where he could check them.

Stein was arrested.

the reason I mention this case is that one person said that "a lot of highly visible executives, celebrities and politicians, the majority take armed guards with them everywhere they go, due to kidnap and extortion risks...The armed and trained security guards who pass all sorts of background checks to protect their clients."

While that may be the case, those armed and trained security guards still have to obey the laws of the jurisdiction where they are operating.

On the other hand, being the 12th richest person in the world can buy dispensation from the laws the rest of us have to follow. I would also add that Bloomie goes to Bermuda because that's a place where the wealthy can walk around and no one will harass them. His Bermuda bolt hole is close to that of Ross Perot (another rich scoff law) and Silvio Berlusconi.

Anyway, it seems that the real message here is that there is one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.

Why I went Green (and sort of silent on Guns)

“There was once a big atomic bomb
That wanted to be a bullet.
His friends all asked why, when he was such a big atomic bomb, he would want to be a tiny bullet.
"I miss", he sighed, "the personal touch.”
-- Tuli Kupferberg

I've kind of gone silent on the topic of guns since, like the above passage, climate change is something which affects us all. Sure, guns are bad, but the coming crisis makes the gun debate in the US look tame.

Climate change is happening. It's undeniable (if you are not totally out of touch with reality). And it will require cultural as well as political changes.

It's also long overdue that people start addressing it. We shouldn't have needed Greta Thurnberg.

The United Nations has estimated that we need to reduce carbon emissions by half within a decade to have a 50% chance of avoiding global catastrophe. Of course, this is likely to be an underestimation as recent science shows permafrost melting 90 years earlier than forecast and Himalayan glaciers melting twice as fast as expected. Feedbacks and locked in heating will take us over 2C even before we factor in additional temperature rises from human caused emissions over the next ten years.

In short, we're fucked


George Monbiot says:

A paper published in Nature shows that we have little chance of preventing more than 1.5C of global heating unless existing fossil fuel infrastructure is retired. Instead the industry intends to accelerate production, spending nearly $5tn in the next 10 years on developing new reserves. It is committed to ecocide.
But the biggest and most successful lie it tells is this: that the first great extermination is a matter of consumer choice. In response to the Guardian’s questions, some of the oil companies argued that they are not responsible for our decisions to use their products. But we are embedded in a system of their creation – a political, economic and physical infrastructure that creates an illusion of choice while, in reality, closing it down.

Sure, people can try to say that this is "liberal nonsense", but climate change has been on the radars since physicist Edward Teller told the American Petroleum Institute (API) back in 1959 that a 10% increase in CO2 will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. “I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”

Lyndon Johnson’s President’s Science Advisory Committee states that “pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air”, with effects that “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings”. Summarising the findings, the head of the API warned the industry: “Time is running out.”

A confidential report prepared for Shell’s environmental conservation committee in 1988 found that CO2 could raise temperatures by 1C to 2C over the next 40 years with changes that may be “the greatest in recorded history”. It urged rapid action by the energy industry, “By the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even stabilise the situation.” 

Instead of addressing the issue in the past sixty years, people have been heading full tilt on the road to disaster. It would have been far easier to have addressed this issue early on than to wait until the house has almost burned down.

Anyway, I am more interested in addressing climate change than in wasting time on trying to impeach Trump. This issue requires cultural and political change. I've made as many of those changes as I can, but others need to catch on.

The ecological and climate crisis is not be owned by any political ideology, culture, age or gender.  We ALL need to take action on this pressing issue.

MELT THE GUNS!

OK, the real problem facing any solution to the US gun problem is getting the guns off the streets. Yes, there will have to be a buyback which will be fun given that it will have to be on the same level as the Aussie one. There will probably be later gun amnesties, but without the monetary incentive.

So, cash in early.

There is a solution for those who can't wait to get your guns off the streets but aren't altruistic enough to just give them to someone without some kind of benefit.

The National Center for Unwanted Firearms

They say they are willing to buy or allow for donation of the firearms. That is a pretty good deal if one can realise the fair market value of your firearm: even if it's only as a tax deduction.

Gun control won't work in the US as long as there are guns in circulation which is why getting them off the streets is the most important aspect for dealing with this problem.

Judith Collins tells US lobby group NRA to 'bugger off' over New Zealand gun reform

OK, the correct Originalist intepretation of the Second Amendment should make it clear that it relates to the Common Defence.

Also, the Second Amendment means fuck all outside the US. Only a few other countries in the world recognise gun rights: mostly third world. A country that wants to somehow see itself as "Great" shouldn't go for a misinterpretation of its founding document.

That said, National Party MP and former police minister Judith Collins has told the National Rifle Association to "bugger off" out of New Zealand's affairs as it prepares to introduce sweeping gun law reforms following the deaths of 50 people in an attack on two Christchurch mosques.

"They talked about how we were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights to own guns. We don't have a right to bear arms. To own a gun in New Zealand is absolutely a privilege and not a right," she said.

Likewise, if owning a gun doesn't contribute to the common defence, then it is a privilege not a right according to a proper originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If the founders had intended on people using guns for self-defence, killing their kids, or mass murder they would have said it clearly in the text.

It's not in the Second Amendment, only words that connote the common defence, a goal mentioned in the preamble, exist in the text.

Now, bugger off because the revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment is contrary to what the founders intended in so many ways.

Grasping at Straws (or the Pro-gun side really has a problem)

I was trying to find the study that demonstrated using a gun for self-defence is usually counterproductive. Instead of finding that data, I was bombarded with this "Secret CDC Study" that "confirms" The 2-3 Million annual DGU number. It doesn't which is why I am publishing it in full.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Odd that most of the people who want to use this fail to quote the title: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

The reason I call this post what I do is that any person who says this somehow "confirms" the 2-3 million annual DGUs is either dishonest as fuck or illiterate.

This doesn't confirm anything other than gun violence research is not being properly carried out. The fact that the progun side is using this to back up their claims shows that they are really desperate to prove their claim.

Which this doesn't do.

Sorry, but the reason for the research ban was that the facts were against the "pro-gun" side. And it doesn't seem that is going to change looking at how they are using something like this to back up their claims.

The progunners would be better off letting the research happen and let if fall where it may

See also:

• How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?
• Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Heckler & Koch ceases US sales

Heckler & Koch announced today that it has adopted a more ethical export control policy than the German government's. H&K announced that will no longer to sell arms into warzones or to countries that violate corruption and democracy standards.

Heckler & Koch – sometimes called Germany’s deadliest company by activists – said it would now sell only to “green countries,” which it defined according to three criteria: membership of Nato or “Nato-equivalent” (Japan, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand); Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index; and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index.

 The US fails in two categories and Trump is talking about removing the US from NATO.

I applaud Heckler & Koch for being a corporate good citizen and realising that the US is one place where arms do not belong.

If the US isn't a "crisis region", I don't know what is!

See also:

• Germany's 'deadliest company' pledges to stop selling guns to crisis regions
• America falls short of being a full democracy for second year running, report finds
• Is the U.S. No Longer One of the Top 20 Most Democratic Countries in the World?
• U.S. Is a Rich Country With Symptoms of a Developing Nation

The proper Originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment

I can go into a long analysis of why the Heller and McDonald decisions are bullshit, but here is the simple take down using the Originalists' own description of their school of interpretation. That is:

"Constitutional interpretation should remain anchored in the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, which is the source of the Court’s authority and legitimacy."

 OK, it's not popular to use the preamble. Most people miss that it says more than just "We the people". Instead it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's take these words as the original intent of the founders for what the Constitution is supposed to be about. How do the Heller and McDonald decisions address these issues? They don't: they expand the Constitution to include matters of self-defence.

On the other hand, the Constitution makes it clear that it addresses matters of the common defence. One can look at the transcripts of the debates relating to the adoption of the Constitution to see that the intent of the founders was to address the common defence. While the people who try to promote a concept of gun rights use the Patrick Henry's "The great object is, that every man be armed" to support that, the actual quotation was made in relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

Henry makes that clear in the paragraph before the above misquotation comes from. In fact the complete paragraph takes a different meaning when it is read in its complete form:

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

That takes us to the real concern of the founders, which wasn't private guns. The concern was the militia. It was that Congress would indeed arm the militia as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

Had the authors of Heller and McDonald done some source checking, they would have seen the quotations used were taken out of context. Toss in that their cases were not cases of first impression: although US v Miller, is indeed not helpful since it contradicts the assertions made in the later cases.

This is a topic I've gone over before, but one doesn't need to go beyond the four corners of the US Constitution to see that Heller and McDonald are bullshit.

The authors were bound by precedent: even if they disagreed with that precedent.

Likewise, they were bound by their own claimed theory of interpretation to stick to the text and not engage in mental masturbation. And here is the text of the 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.

The text explicitly says militia. It also says "provide for the common defence."

There is no mention of self-defence in the US Constitution. Even more importantly: there is no mention of keeping handguns in the home for defence.

If one wants to go to basic statutory interpretation as used by the founders: "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."  That is when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned others of the same class are excluded. In other words, you can't read shit into the text which isn't there.

That is called legislation, which is a no no for judges.

Judges interpret the law as written, they don't make it. And they sure as fuck don't amend the constitution if they believe that is the source of their authority.

It says fuck all about self-defence. As Presser v. Illinois said:

The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

And while Presser was more along the lines of the "unorganised militia" argument. I would say that its holding would be even stronger had the issue been solely the possession of arms by civilians. That's because promoting the general welfare makes regulation of firearms a no brainer.

And the Second Amendment only relates to Congress' power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to arm the militia.

So, let's cut the silly buggers. US v Miller said:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

And Aymette said:

Suppose it were to suit the whim of a set of ruffians to enter the theatre in the midst of the performance, with drawn swords, guns and fixed bayonets, or to enter the church in the same manner, during service, to the terror of the audience; and this were to become habitual; can it be, that it would be beyond the power of the legislature to pass laws to remedy such an evil? Surely not. If the use of arms in this way cannot be prohibited, it is in the power of fifty armed ruffians to break up the churches, and all other public assemblages, where they might lawfully come, and there would be no remedy. But we are perfectly satisfied that a remedy might be applied.

And

To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

Sorry, but the Second Amendment relates to the military, not private arms.


Bottom line: the US Constitution addresses matters of the common defence, not self-defence. A judge cannot change that by fiat.

Especially if they believe in the Constitution as written.

Originalism and the Second Amendment

This is all very simple since according to people who claim to believe in Originalism, "Constitutional interpretation should remain anchored in the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, which is the source of the Court’s authority and legitimacy." Using that definition:

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.

The text of the Second Amendment begins with "A well regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free State". The language of the text does not mention Self-defence, hunting, target practise, or any other non-militia uses. It is a well established rule or statutory interpretation that inclusio unius est exclusio alterius  which means  that ‘including one excludes another’. The example given where I found this was the statement ‘no dogs allowed’ under this rule would mean that panthers were allowed.

Likewise, the fact that the Militia is specifically referenced would lead one to conclude that this text addresses the militia, but does not cover uses other than the militia.

Likewise, a search of the US Constitution shows that it addresses the militia, but personal defence is not addressed. Likewise, the preamble of the text makes it clear that one of the reasons for adopting the Constitution is to deal with matters of the common defence. However, there are people who claim to follow originalism who are willing to ignore the actual text of the Constitution to advance their beliefs.

The actual wording of the Constitution makes it clear that the Militia and Common defence are covered, but personal uses of weapons aren't.  I am not going to get into the grammar of the Second Amendment since that isn't really germane if one is going solely upon the text. Anyway, Dennis Baron addresses that issue in his amicus brief to the Heller decision and this essay where he demonstrates that the founders would indeed have seen this as only relating to the militia.

Reading the Second Amendment as a statement in which every word counts follows from the opinion articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803). But even without that landmark ruling, it would have been clear to 18 th -century readers that the first part of the Second Amendment was bound to the second part in a cause-and- effect relationship, that the right to bear arms was tied by the framers directly to the need for a well-regulated militia.

The Second Amendment was pretty much considered settled case law which was thrown into disarray by Heller and McDonald. US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) wasn't very helpful since it addressed private action, but Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) both made it clear that the Second Amendment related to the Militia. Miller is usually not properly represented in recent "Second Amendment Scholarship" and totally ignored in the Heller and McDonald decisions because it is "not helpful".

Indeed, it is not helpful to the recent decisions which were ultra vires because they amended the Constitution to add a new meaning to the Second Amendment, as this essay has demonstrated. I would also add that Justice William O. Douglas addressed Miller and glossed it in his dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) , which somehow is omitted in lists of SCOTUS cases mentioning the Second Amendment. Which is too bad since Justice Douglas was a member of the Supreme Court when Miller was decided, which makes him a very good source for how that case should be read.

Justice Douglas pointed out that in Second Amendment jurisprudence:

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.

The Heller and McDonald decisions are examples of Judges failing to follow the rule of law, precedent, and their claimed theory of judicial interpretation. As I pointed out, those two decisions are ultra vires and should be ignored, which is easy since they are incredibly limited in their scope. But even then, some daring justice should show that the emperor has no clothes in these decisions.

Anyway, one doesn't need to go far if you believe that the text of the Constitution is determining in how to interpret the Second Amendment that it only applies to the militia. It is quite obvious that the Second Amendment relates to the militia from the text. But the Heller and McDonald decisions made it clear that the text was optional, which means that Originalism is a nonsensical school of constitutional interpretation.

German Responds to the Nazis had gun control argument

Crisis Actors and gun violence

Not sure why this one needs to be debunked, but it does.

Crisis Actors are people who are somehow hired to "fake" shooting incidents for those who are even more removed from reality than the people who push this theory.

Like any good lie, there is a bit of truth here. The first thing to understand is that the “crisis actor” conspiracy theory has a slender tie to reality. Crisis actors do exist, though there is nothing underhanded about them: they are simply performers hired to play disaster victims in emergency drills or wounded combatants in military exercises. They provide a degree of realism for people practising for real emergencies further down the line.

This term has been hijacked where the gun plague is concerned to somehow say these incidents "didn't happen".  Despite there being obvious victims and proof of the shootings having happened. That is what makes this bullshit so hard to fight.

I used to agree with Michael Moore that the crime scene photos would stop this shit from being mentioned. I even had an online argument with Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung's daughter about this. I used to believe that facts could be used to counter bullshit, yet this crisis actor shit still keeps coming up.

Now, I have to agree with the daughter: no amount of sanity can fight this insanity.

We can provide documentation, but that is all "faked" by an all powerful "deep state".  Hell, we could exhume the graves and show these people the bodies, yet the deniers would say that was somehow "faked".

There are a lot of problems with denying mass shootings and gun violence: one of which is that it re-traumatises the victims and their families.

The other one is the biggie: if the whole point of these false flags is to bring about gun confiscation, then why the fuck hasn't it happened?

The US has had mass shootings at least since Howard Unruh went crazy and killed 13 people in Camden, NJ. Probably even before that happened. There was the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting where you can still see the bullet holes. While there was a trend to "strengthen" gun laws in the 60s-70s, that has been weakened from the 80s on.

Instead of confiscating guns, the US is awash with guns in the hands of who knows since there is no registry. Short of the authorities going after the rabid people who post on the Internet (which happens to be a USDoD creation). I would even bet that a "deep state" capable of creating realistic "mass shootings" can probably even read your minds.

Problem number two with this theory is why don't people like Alex Jones meet fatal "accidents" perpetrated by a "deep state" which has these capabilities?  Or are these people just useful idiots?

Anyway, the signs are pretty obvious that the "crisis actor" thing is bullshit as is the likelihood of any "mass confiscation" of guns. To be honest, a mass confiscation would cost far more than an Aussie style gun buyback ever would.

Toss in an all powerful, deep state capable of doing such a convincing job in producing these "mass shootings" could probably also take your guns without anyone knowing about it.  For all we know, the mass confiscations are occurring right now and the "truth" is being silenced. So beware of the shadows in your bedroom at night: they are probably agents of the New World Order.

See also:

• Crisis actors, deep state, false flag: the rise of conspiracy theory code words 
• Florida Republican's aide fired for false suggestion shooting survivors are actors
• Memorial Issue of Eagle Eye, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school news magazine