House Judiciary Committee Sends Magazine Ban to the Floor for Vote

[davidsog]

The first successful, college educated, law abiding citizen that gets killed resisting confiscation because they were made a criminal at the stroke of pen in Washington DC will start the ball rolling.

It won't be an immediate uprising but history will note just like John Brown's raid, the beginnings.

[44 AMP]

The first successful, college educated, law abiding citizen that gets killed resisting confiscation...

I wonder why you chose that description. It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??

Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.

Is that really what you meant??

I think that NONE of us should be made criminals with a stroke of a pen, and all our rights matter, no matter what our "social status".

John Brown's raid was a turning point, there are many in history. You might consider the Boston Massacre to be one, as well.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Donald J Trump for starters. As somebody said, the only 'poll' that matters are the ones in November.

So many howl when Cory Booker(who?) or Beto O'Rourke says something about increased gun control, even got a trump twitter-response....as if it's really, really a BIG problem but when a member of the GOP says something about increasing gun control..'nothing to see here'...

Who says that? I just read Hal, a member here, complaining about Kasich. I've recently noted Mike DeWine's dismal performance on RFLs, and it is a commonly expressed sentiment that DJT can be useful, but few trust him. Respect for his intuition on constitutionality is quite low, and he wasn't even endorsed by the National Review. The reaction here when he decided to torture English to ban bump stocks wasn't positive.

Contrary to your sense above, it is taken quite seriously when DJT fires up the tweet machine and endorses UBCs precisely because no one can tell whether he is serious and the energy of the repub party stands in opposition to UBCs.

In contrast, when Robert Francis O'Rourke says "Hell, yes, we are going to take..." it is taken seriously because it is akin to what attorneys recognize as an admission against interest. Gun restrictions aren't ever presented by legislative sponsors as part of a progression that ends in confiscation, but the suspicion is that each new regulation is confiscation in installments. When RFO says "Hell, yes..." he confirms a long held suspicion. That is sort of a big deal.

Looking for the condemnations from other putative candidates on the stage of RFO's admission? There were none. This isn't an issue on which dem candidates at this level seem divided. That's significant.

Ted Strickland, a dem, was elected governor of Ohio after Bob Taft, a repub. Bob Taft deceived people about supporting a concealed carry law (said he would sign, then didn't wen elected), and Ted Strickland was generally OK on guns. That specific instances like those occur doesn't support a thesis that at the national level the major parties are fungible on this issue.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

I wonder why you chose that description. It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??

Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.

Is that really what you meant??

I don't concur in his thesis, but I know what he meant. He meant that when the kind of people who make up ordinary middle class suburban voters are seen being abused, that will have a greater political impact, than if, for example, some odd Mormons occupy a bird sanctuary, or a backwoods racist is besieged by federal agents when they fail to entrap him on weapons charges.

People with whom we would identify can be expected to generate greater general sympathy than people we can't fathom.


I think the violation of rights implicit in a buy back is going to have an impact on a lot of people who don't identify publicly as "2d Am. people". Having police, who are targets of Black Lives Matter messaging, run through minority neighborhoods violating the rights of people of color will be an odd fit for many activists.

[MTT TL]

It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??

Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.

Is that really what you meant??

I think that NONE of us should be made criminals with a stroke of a pen, and all our rights matter, no matter what our "social status".

I don't know where you have been the last few years but an update on the current state of affairs in America.

It's a left - right thing. Typically the left picks good victims for their outrage. They have to be a non-Asian minority or suffer from some other kind of social stigma such as being an immigrant or gay. Sometimes women too if it suits their purpose. But they have to be on the left side or they don't count.

The right tends to favor young college educated men victims with "lots of potential" that if it were not for their unfair treatment from the left they would be knocking the ball out of the park. Now if you look at Katrina they stuck strictly with the right (the 2A right itself) and did not focus on the victim so much, but that is not the norm. But that was 14 years ago. Sometimes also they will go with traditional families.

When the government starts killing people over guns the left will ignore it, except to point at that rich and powerful people are getting away with it. And of course to blame the police because it is always their fault for killing people that are threatening to kill them.

(edited for clarity)

[USNRet93]

When RFO says "Hell, yes..." he confirms a long held suspicion. That is sort of a big deal.

I don't think so and more than a few of the other Dem candidates have disagreed with his statement.

Democrat senators pushing gun control are not happy with O’Rourke’s push. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) explicitly stated that he does not support the confiscatory push. CNN quoted Coons saying, “I don’t think a majority of the Senate or the country is going to embrace mandatory buybacks. We need to focus on what we can get done.”

And

and it is a commonly expressed sentiment that DJT can be useful, but few trust him. Respect for his intuition on constitutionality is quite low, and he wasn't even endorsed by the National Review. The reaction here when he decided to torture English to ban bump stocks wasn't positive.

Contrary to your sense above, it is taken quite seriously when DJT fires up the tweet machine and endorses UBCs precisely because no one can tell whether he is serious and the energy of the repub party stands in opposition to UBCs.

No comment

When the government starts killing people over guns the left will ignore it

Yikes...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I don't think so and more than a few of the other Dem candidates have disagreed with his statement.

[Incorrect information removed]. Joe Manchin also spoke up about RFO's outburst, and Manchin's statement was stronger than a gentle statement of reservation about the political wisdom of RFO's words. Neither he nor Coons are putative democat presidential nominees. [Incorrect information removed]

[MTT TL]

None of those people on that stage spoke up about O'Rourke's proposal.

That's not entirely true. Biden pointed out that it was unconstitutional and was laughed at by Harris who said that it could be done, although she offered no reasoning for it. She then said Beto was courageous for bringing it up. Buttigieg suggested working with the Republicans to get it done and was then mocked by Beto for thinking that was possible.

Biden, Sanders and Warren have all previously expressed support for mandatory government buy ups of guns (they called them "Buy backs", but I don't recall the government ever selling AR15's so I am not sure what they are talking about.).

Yang wants "perpetual buy backs".

Cory Booker wants to throw people in jail if they don't participate in "buy backs".

Castro wants buy backs and to make it illegal for those who have committed crimes of domestic violence to be barred from ownership, which I am pretty sure is already the law but hey... double illegal right?

Kloubacher all by her lonesome supports voluntary "buy backs". This makes her the most moderate of all dem candidates on gun control.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Biden pointed out that it was unconstitutional and was laughed at by Harris who said that it could be done, although she offered no reasoning for it.

I thank you for the correction. I hadn't seen that.

I confess that this leaves me unclear about his position.

BIDEN: Bingo. You're right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second Amendment doesn't say you can't restrict the kinds of weapons people can own.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...al_period.html

[44 AMP]

back when Biden was VP, not only did he say the reason the govt barely prosecuted prohibited persons trying to buy a gun was "we don't have time for that", but he also made statements about how all that was needed for self defense was a double barrel shotgun, and how all one needed to do was shoot it in the air...

I don't have any doubts about his position concerning our rights.

[MTT TL]

how all one needed to do was shoot it in the air...

He said he told his wife that if she heard a noise in the backyard at night to grab the bird gun and shoot at the noise in the dark from the back porch. Other than murdering the neighbors kid who was sneaking back in after a night of teenage binge drinking it seems the perfect plan.

[Tom Servo]

Kloubacher all by her lonesome supports voluntary "buy backs". This makes her the most moderate of all dem candidates on gun control.

And that shows just how low the bar is at this point.

Confiscation has always been the agenda. It's just that O'Rourke was dumb enough to say it out loud. There's no going back to the "nobody wants to take your guns" rhetoric now, and I'm relieved for that.

[44 AMP]

He said he told his wife that if she heard a noise in the backyard at night to grab the bird gun and shoot at the noise in the dark from the back porch. Other than murdering the neighbors kid who was sneaking back in after a night of teenage binge drinking it seems the perfect plan.

Except in Biden's case, it might not be a neighbor kid, it might be one of his security detail the wife shoots! (is it the Secret Service who guards the VP and family, or is that someone else?)

I also seem to remember some comments about shooting through a closed door. to "chase away" an intruder...was that Biden, or some other fool??

[MTT TL]

I also seem to remember some comments about shooting through a closed door. to "chase away" an intruder...was that Biden, or some other fool??

No, that was Biden too, but he did walk it back later a bit.

I confess that this leaves me unclear about his position.

Biden wants mandatory gun buy backs but he wants them done "Constitutionaly". (his word, not mine).

He thinks an EO would be unconstitutional. He is right about that part at least. Harris and Beto see no problem there.

I think Yang's position is the most interesting. By allowing the government to buy an unlimited number of guns the idea is to reduce the number of guns in existence. I am unsure if he has ever heard of these things called "factories" where most guns actually come from.

The buy up schemes are terrible for the most part. They encourage gun theft since it makes it easy to dispose of stolen guns by selling them to the government. It also makes it easy to get rid of guns used in crimes. All one has to is take the gun one or two jurisdictions away from the crime and sell it. The gun gets crushed up and an important piece of evidence is gone forever.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, they’ve been saying stuff like this for DECADES.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/...ns_/5-1505639/

The only thing Beto did different was to say it in such a prominent media forum that the media finally had to acknowledge it.