The Big Gun Control Thread

The guy appeared to have a GSG-522 -- a semi-auto LR22-chambered MP5 knockoff. A standard mall ninja issue.

This would be more amusing if he wasn't armed and didn't have a popular youtube following.

I don't own a gun right now, so maybe I'm biased. But holy sh*t, this dude needs to relax.

That feller's video had an ad pop up "edited" by the "X" close button: "Four years of slow economic progress: Is Obama to blam"?

Mister Steroid Monster has scared me a very little bit.

Oh, and I played the world's smallest open-source violin for him when he complained about Interwebs piracy of his videos.

EDIT: And: "Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous!"

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Oh, and I played the world's smallest open-source violin for him when he complained about Interwebs piracy of his videos.

Yeah, I laughed about that. Guy posts crazy provocative video on worldwide video sharing service, gets pissed when people want to spread his lunacy around.

Does he not realize that there is no such thing as bad publicity (except for maybe being known for child sex abuse)? Doesn't he realize that this will inevitably result in a spike in his business as like-minded people toss money at him to piss off liberals?

Funkenpants wrote:

This would be more amusing if he wasn't armed and didn't have a popular youtube following.

I don't own a gun right now, so maybe I'm biased. But holy sh*t, this dude needs to relax.

So this genius, who is a former police officer, openly says he's going to start shooting people and can't understand why someone would react negatively to that?

I find guys like this endlessly entertaining and simultaneously frightening. Not only because of their overwhelming ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment but largely due to their position that "this is Americuh and we're all about freedom" right up until the point where the majority believes nutters like this are far more detrimental to gun rights than they are helpful.

I think it's time to take the "well regulated" provision of the 2nd amendment and shove it right up the NRA's ass.

OG_slinger wrote:

It is one sided. The only group actually threatening violence right now is a not insignificant portion of pro-gun crowd. And though it's couched in hackneyed phrases like "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" or "watering the tree of liberty", what they're really saying is "I'm going to kill as many of my fellow Americans as I can if things politically don't go my way."

To them, what the gun control advocates are doing is equivalent to depriving them of one of their greatest liberties. And in their eyes, the Americans that support gun control are no different than the people that supported the British in the Revolutionary War. At that point, you are no longer an American in their eyes. You are a traitor to them.

Not how I personally see it, but just offering you the perspective of some of the people I know.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

It is one sided. The only group actually threatening violence right now is a not insignificant portion of pro-gun crowd. And though it's couched in hackneyed phrases like "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" or "watering the tree of liberty", what they're really saying is "I'm going to kill as many of my fellow Americans as I can if things politically don't go my way."

To them, what the gun control advocates are doing is equivalent to depriving them of one of their greatest liberties. And in their eyes, the Americans that support gun control are no different than the people that supported the British in the Revolutionary War. At that point, you are no longer an American in their eyes. You are a traitor to them.

Not how I personally see it, but just offering you the perspective of some of the people I know.

Here's the thing.

If you believe that the case for gun ownership is somehow tied to its utility as a deterrent to tyranny, then you should favor nuclear weapons being accessible by private citizens.

Because really, that's the level of armament that we're talking about to deter a determined government that possesses nukes.

If you don't believe that private citizens should possess nuclear weapons, congratulations - you support gun control. (Though it's possible we disagree on where that line should be drawn, among other particulars).

ZaneRockfist wrote:

To them, what the gun control advocates are doing is equivalent to depriving them of one of their greatest liberties. And in their eyes, the Americans that support gun control are no different than the people that supported the British in the Revolutionary War. At that point, you are no longer an American in their eyes. You are a traitor to them.

Don't you think that sounds kind of loony? If some black people decided to start shooting cops because of stop-and-frisk policies that they say violate their civil rights, would the gun lobby declare, "Hey- this is America. Killing people is what you're SUPPOSED to do when someone tramples on your rights." Because that's essentially what gun fans argue they have the right to do.

We have a process for dealing for civil rights issues, and it involves the court system. This is basic civics.

I think the pro-gun crowd is of an opinion that NO lines can be drawn! It's a matter of a principle!

The rise and fall of the RECOIL magazine can serve as a curious and recent example. A project with a promising "sane" take on the gun culture was boycotted and shouted down into irrelevance for a mere suggestion that perhaps H&K MP7 is NOT a "sporting weapon" that folks should think they are supposed to have... The audience's overwhelming response was that even an admission of an idea that there a firearms out there that the populace should not be allowed to have flies into the face of the Second Amendment.

I imagine some of these loony tunes fantasize a noble death at the hands of a government oppressor but I wonder if they have ever considered that they would most likely die from a hellfire that wouldn't even be heard? Why endanger a soldier / jackbooted UN ObamaNazi stormtrooper when you can use a drone to do your killing and the soldier can sift through the ruins of some sh*tty bunker after?

If White House efforts to prevent gun violence doesn’t result in a new ban on so-called assault weapons, President Obama may have a group of disappointed supporters to deal with. But gun control advocates won’t be among them.

From TPM. Background checks and closing loopholes sound to be the focus now.

The republican house is ready to kill anything gun control related, so the only measures democrats can hope to pass are those that a republican will accept.

Biden said that Obama is ready to issue executive orders. If he wants to make anything happen at all, he will not wait (or rely) on the House.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Biden said that Obama is ready to issue executive orders. If he wants to make anything happen at all, he will not wait (or rely) on the House.

I won't say "I told you so", but...

Oh, who am I kidding? Go back to my concerns about the abuse of executive orders right here in the P&C back during the Bush administration, and all I can say is "I told you so."

Funkenpants wrote:

If White House efforts to prevent gun violence doesn’t result in a new ban on so-called assault weapons, President Obama may have a group of disappointed supporters to deal with. But gun control advocates won’t be among them.

From TPM. Background checks and closing loopholes sound to be the focus now.

The republican house is ready to kill anything gun control related, so the only measures democrats can hope to pass are those that a republican will accept.

Eliminate DHS, War on Drugs money to states not in full compliance with FBI reporting after 6 months, the same for any state that does not ensure that every vendor at a gun and knife show is ATF certified, same with online sales. And then you sell it as a spending cut bill. But Obama could get this done tomorrow with his discretionary spending.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Biden said that Obama is ready to issue executive orders. If he wants to make anything happen at all, he will not wait (or rely) on the House.

I saw that, but I don't think there's much he can do by going that route. Frankly, I'm not sure how serious the administration is about the issue.

KingGorilla wrote:

Eliminate DHS, War on Drugs money to states not in full compliance with FBI reporting after 6 months, the same for any state that does not ensure that every vendor at a gun and knife show is ATF certified, same with online sales. And then you sell it as a spending cut bill. But Obama could get this done tomorrow with his discretionary spending.

He wouldn't get a bill like that through Congress, and there's probably a limit to what he can do with federal spending. I don't know how much discretion he has to shift money among various accounts. This isn't just the federal government trying to urge uncooperative states along, this is one part of Congress just refusing to approve a policy.

That is the beauty of it. He can eliminate executive spending now, and wait to see if congress changes in 2014 later. The president has broad discretionary spending powers. Given the gridlock any funding bill to off set any of that would likely be killed by either party.

The president spends the money allocated to him and his officers as he sees fit. If Reagan and Bush can defund much of the EPA deny Medicare funds, Obama can slash DHS and War on Terror spending. There are practically no constitutional limits on what the president can refuse to fund.

KingGorilla wrote:

The president spends the money allocated to him and his officers as he sees fit.

Is this what you're talking about?

Impoundment is the decision of a President of the United States not to spend money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The precedent for presidential impoundment was first set by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. The power was available to all presidents up to and including Richard Nixon, and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. This severely inhibited a president's ability to reject congressionally-approved spending.[1]

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, this has removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and has ignored the vast majority of presidential requests.[2]

KingGorilla wrote:

Eliminate DHS, War on Drugs money to states

I'm with you.

KingGorilla wrote:

...not in full compliance with FBI reporting after 6 months, the same for any state that does not ensure that every vendor at a gun and knife show is ATF certified, same with online sales. And then you sell it as a spending cut bill. But Obama could get this done tomorrow with his discretionary spending.

Eh, I'm still with you.

I think the Administration would talk about not an outright impoundment per se, but about creation of new, more rigorous standards upon which the funds are appropriated and disbursed. As KG says, Obama would be able to sell it ostensibly as elimination of government waste, and maybe even appeal to the black helicopters-watching crowd! I am sure there would be no shortage of examples of avoidable DHS funds appropriations to showcase -- along the lines of "elite anti-terror squad of Central Tennessee".

What I am saying Funken, is that largely no matter what allowance congress confers on the president; he and his officers determine how and when to spend it, if at all. Unless the program or funds are mandatory, the president can just hold onto the money. This is the same mechanism by which National Highway funds were used as carrot and stick to get states to pass .08 Drink Driving laws, raise the drinking age to 21.

KingGorilla wrote:

What I am saying Funken, is that largely no matter what allowance congress confers on the president; he and his officers determine how and when to spend it, if at all. Unless the program or funds are mandatory, the president can just hold onto the money. This is the same mechanism by which National Highway funds were used as carrot and stick to get states to pass .08 Drink Driving laws, raise the drinking age to 21.

I think that was provided for by Congress in The National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995.

Do you have a federal opinion or some kind of law review article that lays out the scope of the ability for the president to spend money as he sees fit? It would help me if there was something I could read that would got into detail about the nature of the power.

Probably under Nixon.

The president cannot essentially make an act of congress moot using discretionary spending. That brings into question what programs are mandatory and what are purely discretionary. What Nixon was attempting, more or less, was to use discretionary spending and the EPA to effectively repeal enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Reagan accomplished a good deal of what Nixon failed to do justifying it as cutting government waste with discretionary spending; but with a complicit congress.

The President, ATF, DHS also have a strong argument that states not in compliance with FBI reporting, in preventing certain dangerous individuals from getting fire arms is a direct frustration of the very purpose of the agencies and laws that DHS, the DOJ, the ATF, the FBI, the NSA are funding the states with.

I am not saying that the president can do as he pleases like Jefferson did with discretionary spending. But there is still a lot of power there to withold funds from states. This very topic seems most in line with black letter law as far as the executive's power to deny funds to those states not using them for their purpose. There is nothing that says the president or executive agency must give the money to any individual state. And when we talk spending in a recession, those powers get a bit of a bump.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/h...

What we are talking here is not holding onto the funds, rather denying them to non compliant states and reallocating them elsewhere.

Bear wrote:

Apparently threatening to "start shooting people" is a bad idea even in Tennessee

IMAGE(http://wtvf.images.worldnow.com/images/20566009_BG1.jpg)

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

As hysterical as this is, it's probably only going not going to help reinforce his already tenuous grasp on reality.

I'm really, really, really trying to keep from thinking that's Danny McBride playing Kenny Powers with a shaved head.

Apparently threatening to "start shooting people" is a bad idea even in Tennessee

IMAGE(http://wtvf.images.worldnow.com/images/20566009_BG1.jpg)

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566009/dept-of-safety-suspends-handgun-permit-of-local-man-after-gun-control-rage-video

As hysterical as this is, it's probably not going to help reinforce his already tenuous grasp on reality.

Good article in Salon today on what turns out to be the fallacious "Hitler confiscated the people's guns" argument we've all seen. Not only did he not do that, he eased restrictions on firearms, and long arms in particular - unless of course you were Jewish or otherwise named an "undesirable".

So Wayne LaPierre is totally lying with that point.

Meanwhile, much of the Hitler myth is based on an infamous quote falsely attributed to the Fuhrer, which extols the virtue of gun control:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “probably a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite note.

It's about time someone took Yeager's license away, considering all the sh*t he spouts. Hopefully more legal punishment comes down his way. I haven't read anything nice about the guy.

----

Here is an animation from the FBI on how the National Instant Criminal Background Check System works for those of you who are curious.

Seattle is doing a gun buy back in two weeks. The last time we did it, gun violence increased. [Seattle PI]

Shooting victim: Tougher gun control not the answer [KOMO News] Universal background checks (private sales through an FFL for a NICS) are a good start, but it's not enough.

Since open carry was talked about earlier, here is how it works in California.

Open carry has to be one of the dumbest things you can ever do in an urban area.

Edwin:

Thanks. The video is quite interesting. My uncle's a sheriff in California. I didn't know he's had to deal with such complex law enforcement and social issues in the course of doing his job.

It impresses me that in the sense that the state is surrendering its responsibility to private citizens in the amount that it's justifiable to carry a deadly weapon in the name of personal safety, it makes sense not only to issue gun licenses, but also to deputize all gun owners. That is, each gun owner by virtue of self-defensive actions, acts as an agent of the state in his capacity of defending himself or herself from crime.

From that perspective, it makes sense for the state to make sure each such owner is extensively trained in the safe use and care of their weapons, and to have greater oversight over the actions and use of their powers in their implied role.

The wording of the gun advocate is worrisome in that he used the word "confrontation" as part of the reason to carry a weapon. That should never be a reason to use a weapon. Deadly weapons are tools of last resort - to be used only in the extremity where there is no other means to defend lives. That is less "confrontation" and more "imminent and expected use of deadly force," which justifies the use of the same for defense.

Sigh.

I have been parsing through a lot of the polling folks are bandying about regarding public opinions on gun control and am just dismayed at the inadvertent or deliberate misinformation out there.

The latest is the leading question of "armor piercing bullets". Incidentally, 56% of Americans favor a ban.

The reason I state that it is misleading is because any and all bullets have the potential to be classified as "armor piercing". Class 2a body armor (the most common worn by law enforcement) is rated up to about a .357 magnum round. This basically means that just about any rifle round would technically be an "armor piercing bullet". This includes your grandpa's deer rifle, your uncle's varmint gun, and your great great grandpa's .30-40 Krag that he and Teddy Roosevelt used to storm San Juan Hill. And the only way around the whole "armor piercing" issue is to reduce muzzle velocities and total kinetic energy to the point that they would be worthless as hunting rifles.

As for the whole "teflon coated" bullets, sales of those constitute such an extreme minority that they are really in the statistical noise. Moreover, the purpose behind their creation (allowing folks who venture into Alaskan wilderness to defend themselves against grizzlies and kodiak bear with a handgun) still remains an acute and pressing need for the extreme minority who require it.

It would be like instituting a ban on surgeon's scalpels because a tiny minority of crimes committed involved their improper usage.

Statistical noise is being used improperly there, I feel, Paleocon. It doesn't mean "It's nothing," which is what I perceived you to say there. It refers to the property of probability and statistics that there exists 4 error types; a probability that what you're saying with statistics is wrong when you think it's right (and all other associated errors). "Statistical noise" refers to variations within the dataset that is probably not significant for a given statement, within what the math says.

An extreme minority is not insignificant, and they are not noise. As you yourself have stated, that minority requires the specialty bullets involved, and they have specific needs that loom large and are very significant within the context of that conversation.

While it would be improper to ban scalpels (a commonly used instrument in medicine!) on the basis of their being a problem with crime, it is not uncommon for medically useful practices, drugs, and even instruments to be controlled and even banned on the basis that they're too dangerous to allow on the open market (see: Rofecoxib; see: Dangerous Drugs; see: Dangerous Drugs Licenses).

I have to have a very specific and special license to acquire particularly dangerous drugs used in my profession, the location and amount of all drugs of that nature are tallied and recorded, I have to pay additional fees for special requisition sheets for them, and I have to publish a notarized affidavit of loss of ID (not a gun, just a piece of plastic) in major newspapers if I happen to lose it, as a prerequisite for a new one.

This is because these drugs are so dangerous that we don't even allow normal MDs with normal MD practice licenses to access them. It stands to reason that weapons and armaments of similar danger should have similar precautions taken against them, even though they are useful tools and not dangerous in skilled hands. Not a ban necessarily, but strict control definitely; and a ban should not be off-table. There are perfectly good drugs banned because they were deemed too dangerous to use.