Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Chuck Norris joins the crazy brigade in arguing that the Obama administration is on the verge of taking away everyone's guns. He makes it sound exceedingly ominous:
Right now, Washington is scheming and scamming to erode then erase the Second Amendment from our Constitution. And it will accomplish it through the signing of international treaties on gun control, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress, tightening regulations upon firearm and ammunition manufacturers, using the anti-gun financing of tycoons and ultimately confiscating all firearms under the guise of terrorism patrol and enforcement. Without public debate and cloaked in secrecy, gun control will covertly come upon us like a thief in the night. One day, we will wake up to discover that the U.S. has signed a global treaty that will prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership, force reductions in the number of firearms privately owned and eventually eradicate the planet of guns for law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals will still illegally have their guns. And on that day, if you do not comply with that global treaty, you will be fined and face imprisonment. This is not a fictitious story or false warning.
But if you look at the rest of the column, you'll see that is based on nothing at all. His only "evidence" for this claim is the existence of a treaty called CIFTA -- the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking of Firearms -- that not only has Obama not done anything to promote, he intentionally tabled it and hasn't pushed for it to get a vote in Congress.
This is Part One of three articles in which I'll be addressing the evidence - the smoking gun, if you will - of the pressing threat to the Second Amendment and our firearm freedoms.As Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, wrote in the American Rifleman (February 2010): "President Obama's political mantra of 'hope and change' has morphed into a very real threat. Obama's deep curtsy to international arms control has given 'hope' to the international gun-ban crowd that they will prevail."
But he even admits that Obama hasn't done anything on the treaty, which he attempts to explain away:
It was also no surprise, therefore, a year ago this month when Obama personally promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the White House would push to ratify through the Senate the CIFTA (the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms) treaty, which has sat tabled and unapproved by the U.S. Senate since 1997.But then, as quickly as he initiated the debate, the president just as quickly ceased trying to ratify CIFTA in the U.S. Senate. Why was that? Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter said there was a reason that the treaty was tabled a year ago by Obama. I agree. I believe that reason was Obamacare. He knew he couldn't tackle and force through Congress two incredibly hot and volatile issues at once, at least of this caliber. But now that Obamacare is law, it's no surprise that both CIFTA and a separate U.N. small arms treaty are experiencing a renewed life. And like Obamacare was pitched solely under "health-care reform," you can bet that a small arms weapon ban will be pitched under "a fight against global terrorism and drug wars."
Okay, now let's take a look at the actual treaty, which -- surprise, surprise -- doesn't do anything even remotely like what Norris and LaPierre claims it does. The first clue should be in the word "illicit" in the title of the treaty. The only thing the treaty does is say that the country would take legislative action against illicit manufacturing and trafficking of guns. That is, it deals with major arms traffickers who make and transport illegal weapons for use by terrorists, gangs and other unsavory groups.
Here's the definition of what the treaty seeks to restrict:
1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or
b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.
2. "Illicit trafficking": the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.
It isn't talking about someone going to a licensed gun shop, filling out the proper paperwork, going through the background check and legally buying a gun; it's talking about guns that are manufactured illegally in mass quantities and sold to gangs of criminals. And the treaty quite explicitly allows confiscation only for "firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked."
The reality that these people actively ignore is that the right of American citizens to own guns has probably never been safer than it is at this moment. For the first time in American history, the Supreme Court in 2008 explicitly declared -- quite correctly -- that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own handguns. Any attempt at a wholesale ban on gun ownership would be struck down immediately by the courts, as it should be.
This is pure fear-mongering and demagoguery.
Politics
Comments
This is why, as a private owner of firearms, I still can't bring myself to join the NRA.
Fear-mongering and demagoguery are all they have to reliably motivate their base, and they have largely decided to forego being a single-issue group and instead have wedded with social conservatives in general.
Posted by: Mystyk | April 27, 2010 12:13 PM
Maybe the NRA only has fear to work with, but those of us who shoot for fun have a better tool.
Take someone to the range. Nothing wins converts to the cause like a day of safe and fun shooting, turning money into smoke & noise. Events like Boomershoot do even more.
Posted by: Madrocketscientist | April 27, 2010 12:26 PM
One point of contention: Chucklehead hasn't "joined" the crazy train--he's one of the engineers. Evidence for the prosecution.
Posted by: Freemage | April 27, 2010 12:30 PM
I echo Madrocketscientist's argument. I have a good friend who's a gun safety instructor. He loves working with women who are scared of or strongly dislike guns. Almost invariably they end up having a great time and developing an appreciation for guns.
And he refuses to join the NRA, too.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 12:31 PM
Below is a viral email I received recently on this matter; everything that follows is from that email and is no way represents my position:
Error! Filename not specified.The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.
We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.â€
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 12:33 PM
there might be a legitimate reason to worry about some parts of that treaty, depending on how paranoid you want to be when interpreting it. it's almost certainly not going to matter in actual practice, but some of us pro-gun folks are more paranoid than is good for the rest of us, so i can kinda-sorta see which details they're worried about the devil hiding in.
private individuals can currently "manufacture or assemble" ammunition in their own homes, without needing to get any form of license. some folks seem to really like doing this, and/or claim to be saving reasonable amounts of money by doing it. threatening reloading would piss them off.
in fact, you can even "manufacture or assemble" entire firearms for yourself --- just not for sale (or even for giving away), and not of any type you wouldn't be allowed to otherwise own. hardly anybody does, because you need a metal shop and more expertise than most folks want to get, but it's possible and some few do. not really sure that particular hobby is worth pissing off foreign allies to retain, but the hobbyists impacted would scream like stuck pigs if their pastime was restricted.
then there's the issue of precisely how the treaty defines "firearms" and "other related materials". it's likely not going to be any issue in actual practice, but those concepts actually are kinda tricky to get just right; current U.S. gun laws tend to be at their worst precisely when you get into the fine details of such definitions. things you'd never guess as being "firearms" end up having to legally count as such, at times, with occasionally absurd implications. and "other related materials"... phrasing that open-ended is just asking for future confusion, i think.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 12:44 PM
I'm glad to see others generally echoing the same sentiment in a slightly different way.
I enjoy firing for:
-- Fun,
-- Stress relief,
-- Improving my skills for the military,
-- Increasing my self-confidence, and
-- Home defense (should it ever become necessary).
I am lucky in that my wife, also career military, joins me on the range. Outside of military ranges, I have never fired alongside someone who approves of the NRA's tactics or distinct ideological bend on non-2nd Amendment issues.
I have never been an instructor, nor have I brought all that many gun virgins to the range, but perhaps I should reinvest in doing so and share the enjoyment more. Thanks for the inspiration.
Posted by: Mystyk | April 27, 2010 12:45 PM
Nothing like the promise of more entertainment to come!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 27, 2010 12:46 PM
Michael Heath:
interesting catch. Reading the email and Chuck's article, it looks to me very much like Chuck rewrote that email for publication; there's a few phrases that leaked through ("bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress" and "This is not a fictitious story or false warning" are transferred almost verbatim).
Also rather amusing that following the part about bypassing congress, it goes on to explain the details of treaties being required to be ratified by the senate.
I have to really wonder about the sanity of people who take these viral emails seriously, but I know well that there are many otherwise apparently smart people who treat them as factually accurate and pass them on to their friends. Apparently Chuck is one of those people.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 27, 2010 12:47 PM
"Using the anti-gun financing of tycoons?!" What the fuck does that even mean? Sounds like a catch-phrase I'd find in the Turner Diaries or something. Or is Chuckie smoking to much PCP lately?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 27, 2010 12:47 PM
it's codespeak for "certain millionaire philanthropists occasionally give money to the Brady Campaign". why exactly somebody like Chuckles would object to rich folks lobbying for their personal favorite policies on this subject but no other, well...
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 12:51 PM
Well Chuck isn't the brightest star in the WorldNutDaily's dim constellation and you are right about the explicit wording of the treaty.
Still there are facts that point to Obama being less than ebullient about the second amendment.
Below are a list of "facts" I found at a pro gun anti-Obama website gunbanobama.com. They have been somewhat embellished to sound even more ominous than they would otherwise be and I haven't checked them all out but the basics appear to be true.
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.
16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.
17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.
18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.
Now let me again repeat that these "facts" have been padded with anti-Obama political spin and I actually voted for Obama, but I had no illusions that he was a strong supporter of the second amendment.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 12:51 PM
Joined the crazy brigade? He's a full colonel!
Morons like this are the reason I had to wait in line behind 12 paranoid CCW applicants at the county clerk's office when I went to apply for our marriage license.
And again, when I went to pick it up.
Posted by: DaveL | April 27, 2010 12:53 PM
Every time I think about getting one I think, "WTF will I be doing with it?". I'm not a marksman, but I suspect if I needed to shoot somebody that they would be near enough to me that being a good shot would not be at issue.
I spend a fair amount of time banging heads with gunidiotz. I have no problem with guns, I like 'em. I don't own any and don't think I need any. When people start bragging about their collections of SKS, AR-15, Mini-14's and the like I know that they're not folks who will have any reasonable reaction to ANY sort of firearms regulation. When someone can tell me why they really need to have a Barrett .50 caliber rifle I might consider listening to the argument.
Chuck Norris is a fucking idiot.
Posted by: democommieq | April 27, 2010 1:02 PM
The NRA bills itself as being primarily about firearm education and safety. I suppose that's why they lobbied heavily for Arizona's new law permitting concealed carry by everyone except convicted felons without any training at all. Now all you need to carry a hand cannon concealed is the money to buy one.
However, whether you're carrying a small arsenal or not you'd better have proof of legal residency. At least if you're brown, anyway.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | April 27, 2010 1:06 PM
hey, that's my sentiment concerning SUVs.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 1:10 PM
Nomen Nescio:
"hey, that's my sentiment concerning SUVs.'
I know we don't agree on the gun thing, but we're in synch on the SUV thing.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2010 1:20 PM
Hey, Dummy, treaties have to be ratified by the Senate:
In short, it's harder to ratify an international treaty than it is to break a filibuster. Yes, it's different than the 'normal legislative process' because treaties are not 'normal' legislation, but don't make it sound like this is something that is being, or even could be, unilaterally imposed.
God, I hate dicks. And stupid ones even more so.
Posted by: Equisetum | April 27, 2010 1:29 PM
Chuck Norris joins the crazy brigade
It would technically be correct to assert that Chuck Norris is not part of the lunatic fringe. He's a hardcore crazy, and has been for many years.
Posted by: Eric Lund | April 27, 2010 1:42 PM
[blockquote]This is why, as a private owner of firearms, I still can't bring myself to join the NRA. [/blockquote]
Right there with you.
[blockquote]there might be a legitimate reason to worry about some parts of that treaty, depending on how paranoid you want to be when interpreting it. [/blockquote]
Fair points. Paranoia aside, gun control bills tend to be written by people who don’t know jack about guns, so you tend to get a lot of unintended consequences.
[blockquote]When someone can tell me why they really need to have a Barrett .50 caliber rifle I might consider listening to the argument. [/blockquote]
How about: because it’s fun, I enjoy shooting it, and I can afford it. As a private citizen, that’s all the justification I need to present, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling need why I can’t have one. (Disclaimer: I don’t have a Barrett, but the same argument applies to the guns I do own.)
Posted by: WScott | April 27, 2010 1:45 PM
Wrong brackets, forgot to preview, sorry...
Posted by: WScott | April 27, 2010 1:48 PM
See, what we have here are sensible gun owners/non-owners. And then there are people like my ff-i-l who wants an unspecified hand gun "for protection". His wife is vehemently opposed. ("What good is a gun in the safe going to do? And it has to be in a safe!")
We tried "how about a shotgun? That's safer."
But the reality is that, when you live in a gated community with a large, loud, unfriendly dog, what you need is to *turn on your damn security system*! What is it about aging that makes people want guns?
Posted by: JustaTech | April 27, 2010 1:49 PM
Shooting is awesome. I just wish I could find a range that isn't mobbed by grizzled old white men wearing camo they bought from the army surplus store, ranting about how the monkey (yeah they don't mince words) is going to take their babies away.
Deer hunting, and you really don't want to half-ass it? That's all I got.
Posted by: Brandon | April 27, 2010 1:57 PM
Equesitum, #18: In short, it's harder to ratify an international treaty than it is to break a filibuster. Yes, it's different than the 'normal legislative process' because treaties are not 'normal' legislation, but don't make it sound like this is something that is being, or even could be, unilaterally imposed.
And that's why in some cases, especially on trade matters, the provisions of a treaty may be enacted into law through the normal legislative process rather than send the treaty itself through the formal ratification process.
Actually, I don't know whether this was actually done -- I remember reading that a past administration (Clinton?) was considering it for a trade agreement that had little chance of getting 2/3 of the Senate to agree to it.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 27, 2010 2:05 PM
Barrett .50-calibers (or any rifle chambered in .50BMG) are good for really long distance target shooting, and for showing off how much money you can spend on your hobby (low five figures, if you get a good scope, which you'll need if you want to hit anything that far away), and pretty much nothing else.
they're not hunting rifles, no matter what game you're after --- too heavy to lug around in the field. they're pointless on ranges much less than a mile, as lighter (and much cheaper!) rifles can go almost any distance less than that.
but then, similar things can be said for high-end sports cars, which cost a great deal more money and kill more people in actual civilian use. far as i know, these types of rifles have yet to be used in any crime --- which figures, since they're impossible to conceal and difficult to even transport, and tend to cost multiple dollars per round of ammo to even sight them in. so, meh, if somebody wants to show off how the size of their genitals are inversely related to the size of their range-queen firearm, i say let 'em.
(some folks own blackpowder cannon, too. just as pointless, but probably even more fun.)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 2:11 PM
Lance @ 12 states:
These are the so-called facts I know are not true that are cited @ 12:
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2 - Heath: There is no webpage for the URL provided and again, note the shifting of the goal posts by insinuating President Obama takes a certain position for the country when in fact it may, I repeat, may apply only to the local level (He may never have taken this position on the local level, he certainly hasn't at the federal level).It should also be noted that the President signed a bill (in a larger bill, I think the one regarding consumer protections for credit) that allows open and concealed carry in federal parks and some other federally-owned outdoors areas.
I'm very skeptical regarding a number of others, these are merely the ones I know are not true.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 2:12 PM
Yeah, Obama is such an enemy of gun owners. Must be why he signed a law allowing people to carry guns into federal parks.
Um, wait.
Posted by: D. C. | April 27, 2010 2:16 PM
I used a simple ploy to get my conservite friends to stop talking about gun control when Obama was elected. I waged them $20.00 that they would be no anti-gun laws passed on a federal level while Obama is in office. It worked better then I thought because they have money on the line they're paying more attention to the facts then the BS from most gun sites. I'm also going to make at least $140.00 dollars on this one.
Posted by: James | April 27, 2010 2:19 PM
Phallic substitutes.
And some men like to carry a big roll of money stuffed in their pocket. And love to pull it out and flash it.
Silly boys.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | April 27, 2010 2:29 PM
17
Nomen Nescio:
"hey, that's my sentiment concerning SUVs."
ok - I have physical mobility issues that meant ingress/egress from my sensible Saturn sedan was painful and awkward. So, I bought a crossover SUV. Which, BTW, gets better mileage than most current sedans, including the one I replaced. Lower emissions too.
(5.9 L/100 km freeway, 10.4 city)
/end hijack
Posted by: CanadianChick | April 27, 2010 2:31 PM
Wow, Lance did his "research" at an anti-Obama website! Great sources; very reputable.
Didn't he claim to be a scientist? Oughtn't he know something about finding valid sources?
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 2:32 PM
CanadianChick "(5.9 L/100 km freeway, 10.4 city)..."
My sedan gets way better fuel economy than that. I get, like, 12.9L/100km city*!
*I should note that L/100km is a stupid way of denoting fuel economy and, as such, it confuses me more than other things that also confuse me. Some metric version of mpg would make more sense.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 27, 2010 2:38 PM
well, you could always invert it and multiply by a hundred to get km/l if you'd prefer. although some have argued that the proper physical measure of fuel economy is square meters (or square centimeters, whichever) for the obvious reasons.
and yeah, physical mobility issues are a perfectly acceptable reason to get a large vehicle. wish every hummer owner in my town had as good of a reason, but from a highly informal i-took-a-look-at-the-crowd survey i'd say the odds are slim.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 2:49 PM
Chuck Norris doesn't need no stinkin guns!
he's got his two right legs*.
* (Chuck refuses to stand on anything left).
Posted by: Chilidog | April 27, 2010 2:50 PM
Here's a Politifact report that shows how some of these false memes @ 12 came into existence, distributed by the NRA no less: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/23/national-rifle-association/fuzzy-stand-in-96-does-not-amount-to-a-plan/
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 2:53 PM
Modusoperandi: Like, say, 17 or 7.75 km/L? ;)
Posted by: Michael Ralston | April 27, 2010 2:57 PM
I'm not exactly your flaming libertarian here, but you have that upside down. Owners of such things do not need to provide a reason why they need it. Those seeking to regulate them have an obligation to provide a reason that they should be barred from owning them. I'm honestly not aware of any significant criminal uses of these kinds of rifles; it's not like they're exactly practical for mugging somebody or robbing a bank.
Same answer, although in this case I'll accept that there are some rational reasons for some degree of regulation. More directly, though, I have to point out that my Tahoe is really, really good at driving up snow covered mountains...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 27, 2010 3:05 PM
Erm, hate to break it to ya MO, but 12.9L/100km is worse fuel economy than 10.4. My 10-year-old minivan that reached 230,000 miles last week, on the other hand, still gets 9.8 city. (That's 24 mpg for us US-centric folks). Doesn't compare well with CC's highway, though.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 27, 2010 3:41 PM
*sigh* blockquote tag fail...
As far as Lance's list of "facts," I'm familiar with a number of the claims. Some are pure fabrication. Others are exaggerations or distortions, or in a couple of cases, areas where the legislation could be interpreted to reach where the authors didn't intend (if you squint really hard).
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 27, 2010 3:48 PM
Michael Heath @ 26: Great refutation.
I was able to open that one. The Politico article refers to a couple of questionnaires that Obama (or a staffer) filled out in 1996. He has since said explicitly that he does not support a ban on handgun ownership.Jmaes @ 28: Doing well while doing good - I like it! I'll have to see if I can get a few people to take that wager.
Posted by: WScott | April 27, 2010 3:56 PM
Madrocketscientist @2: Take someone to the range. Nothing wins converts to the cause like a day of safe and fun shooting, turning money into smoke & noise. Events like Boomershoot do even more.
Meh.
I've fired many guns. The list includes an AR-15, a couple .45s, a .40, a couple 9mms, a .357 Magnum, a couple different shotguns, and a .22 rifle. Also BB guns and Nerf guns. I've also done my firing in a much cooler place than the local range. What can I say? I know gun people.
I don't own a gun. I have absolutely zero urge to own a gun. Hell, I just moved from Chicago to Texas, so I'm surrounded by gun people. That includes my best friend, who counts himself among the, "Own guns, hates the NRA," cadre of gun people.
In general I think the people who think that by owning a gun they're going to stop crimes in every store they walk in to and single-handedly keep Obama from turning the country in to an Islamofascistcommunocracy are misguided at best, dangerous at worst. But I also think that the majority of gun owners just like having guns and enjoy spending their time shooting guns. I don't think anyone will or should take their guns away.
But as for me, I don't want a gun. And I was actually more inclined to want a gun before I ever fired one. Once I'd put a few rounds downrange I realized, "Meh. This isn't as great as I'd thought it would be." I don't really see that changing any time soon.
Although one of my friends, who's turned out to be crazier than I'd ever expected, tried telling me that as a historian I should be more inclined to want to own a gun, as I'd understand the need more than most. To which my reply was, "I don't see myself joining a well-regulated militia any time soon." He didn't actually have a response to that.
Posted by: Geds | April 27, 2010 4:09 PM
I thought Chuck Norris was so tough, he didn't need guns.
Posted by: AL | April 27, 2010 4:12 PM
But what kind of gallons are you using?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 27, 2010 4:22 PM
US-centric
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 27, 2010 4:31 PM
I never really thought about this before. I figured "the second amendment is the second amendment." I don't like guns but hey, it's the constitution.
Now I'm wondering with the number of whackos coming out of the closet if we shouldn't actually reconsider.
Posted by: Duane | April 27, 2010 4:41 PM
I may have posted this before, but I was a Jr. member of the NRA back in the late 80s/early 90s because of my Dad. I had gone through a well-done safety course by them, but that was all the interaction I had. Then we stopped getting their letters and I asked him why, he just said they had gone nuts and weren't about hunters and target shooters anymore. Then a few years later I saw Bowling for Columbine, where ape hater/gun nut Charleton Heston talked about keeping a loaded gun under his pillow. This was the head of the organization that I had taken safety lessons from, and every night he went to bed with a FUCKING LOADED GUN UNDER HIS PILLOW? Sorry about the caps, but that's how stupid that is. And here he was in an internationally played movie, bragging about what an unsafe gun nut douche he was.
Democrats need to unabashedly tell the NRA to go fuck themselves with a 50 cal and pull the trigger. Teaching kids gun safety? Awesome. Advocating that we should all be able to buy teflon-coated bullets? Fuck you in the neck.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | April 27, 2010 4:42 PM
#25: "(some folks own blackpowder cannon, too. just as pointless, but probably even more fun.)" about .50 cal rifles is correct, except they aren't pointless where I live.
.50 cal muzzleloading rifles are common in southern lower Michigan for shooting deer, because many folks prefer them to shotguns (more accurate) and modern rifles are not permitted below a certain line in the lower peninsula. I've even seen handguns like that too("hand cannons"). Both are also used in special muzzleloading dear seasons. Perhaps for self-defense they aren't the best, but many very ordinary people own them.
Posted by: rork | April 27, 2010 4:43 PM
Seems unimpressive, when I can turn on TF2 and have all the fun without any of the long term endangerment of the populace.
Posted by: Rutee | April 27, 2010 4:56 PM
As I've stated previously I too am a pro-gun rights advocate who opposes not just the NRA but all pro-gun right advocacy groups except conservation groups who are pro-gun given both their rank dishonesty and their general using the politics of fear and identify, the latter which has them frequently supporting political parties rather than specific people and issues. It's like the Wall Street Journal, they claim they are "free markets, free people" unless the GOP doesn't support such on a particular topic.
I should point out we have a similar problem in another civil rights area on the Left. As a fierce separationist on church-state issues I strongly support nearly all but the trivial objectives of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It annoys me to no end with their President Barry Lynn uses his position to lobby and advocate for other causes, e.g., Mr. Lynn's last book was rife with examples of AU taking on women's rights or abortion rights causes. To me they're leveraging the politics of identity to market their group and frankly I'm offended since if I want to sign up for those specific causes I would or a more general group I'd become a MoveOn.org member. They dilute the power of their cause when they start marketing themselves to parties and ideologies rather than defending specific principles.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 4:57 PM
er, huh? it's been a while since i saw Bowling for Columbine, but i don't remember Heston saying anything of that sort in it. that was a whole other wackjob entirely. unless my memory is badly on the fritz, Heston didn't actually say much of anything in that movie.
@rork, true enough; i should have clarified i meant rifles chambered for .50BMG specifically, not just anything in .50 caliber.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 5:01 PM
Owners of such things do not need to provide a reason why they need it. Those seeking to regulate them have an obligation to provide a reason that they should be barred from owning them.
That's easy: unregulated posession of weapons of war by undisciplined civilians creates a clear and present danger to other civilians, and conflicts with that "well-regulated militia" mandated in the Constitution as "necessary to the security of a free state." (Trick question: which Amendment do those key phrases in quotes come from?) Therefore, anyone who wishes to own such unusually powerful weapons should be required to provide a good reason, and prove he can own them without unduly threatening his neighbors.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 27, 2010 5:23 PM
"When someone can tell me why they really need to have a Barrett .50 caliber rifle I might consider listening to the argument."
I did not say that I thought they had any legal obligation to explain why they NEED such a weapon. Need/want, whatever. Comparing a weapon, specifically designed to KILL people from a long ways off with a sportscar or an SUV is, or course, as silly as comparing Mr. Obama with Karl Marx. Guns don't make me nervous; otoh, men that want/need lotsagunz to feel safe or manly make me wonder wtf they're lacking.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2010 5:32 PM
analogy fail, and fail.
Obama and Marx are, at least, two public figures associated with politics. (although Marx was not a practical politician, at least he dabbled in it.) weapons and automobiles don't have nearly as much in common.
what a tool is designed to do is oftentimes irrelevant --- that's your second fail. heck, sometimes we don't even know what a tool was designed to do --- we can't read the designer's mind, and many of them are dead. whatever their intent was, that intent does not stick to the things built after the blueprints they designed like some sort of evil mojo. the relevant concept is what effect the tools have in practice, on society as it really is, not some nebulous intent to do murder which we can only speculate at.
but we can analogize the effects of cars upon society with the effects of guns upon society and have a perfectly valid comparison. we won't even have to wonder whether or not Karl Benz ever wanted to run somebody over. that's what i, for one, was trying to do. i may not have been clear enough; i apologize for any confusion.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 5:44 PM
James Hanley,
Of course I went to an anti-Obama , pro-gun website to look for information that would be, you know, critical of his position on gun control. Where would you go The Nation on line?
I stated that it was an anti-Obama website and put the word facts in scare quotes, twice.
I also stated that I hadn't checked them all out beyond looking at the listed references. I just threw it out there for discussion with a full disclaimer that it was a suspicious reference.
You seem to be triumphantly rubbing my nose, and my scientific integrity, in a fact I stated up front.
I also said that I voted for the gentlemen.
Are you arguing that Obama is an ardent supporter of the second amendment? So far the best anyone above has done to make even the mildest suggestion that he is not anti-second amendment is that he didn't veto a bill that allowed people to exercise their second amendment rights in national parks.
As I said I voted for Barrack Obama knowing full well that he was far from an ardent supporter of gun rights. I think Chucky Norris is around the bend, and over the edge, but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't in favor of limiting gun ownership in ways that would conflict with the current SCOTUS decision in Heller.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 5:46 PM
Nomen Nescio "well, you could always invert it and multiply by a hundred to get km/l if you'd prefer."
I could, but who has that kind of time?
"...although some have argued that the proper physical measure of fuel economy is square meters (or square centimeters, whichever) for the obvious reasons."
I prefer Pascals, myself.
Michael Ralston "Modusoperandi: Like, say, 17 or 7.75 km/L?"
Something like that, yes.
W. Kevin Vicklund "Erm, hate to break it to ya MO, but 12.9L/100km is worse fuel economy than 10.4."
And I hate to break it to you KV, but there was a joke in there somewhere.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 27, 2010 5:52 PM
You have data? I'm specifically talking about a .50 cal Barrett rifle.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | April 27, 2010 5:56 PM
One of my "less well adjusted" relatives send me this link http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/?page=guns last week, very similar to Chuck's vomit, but dated 10 days earlier.
Posted by: Mu | April 27, 2010 5:59 PM
...but that doesn't mean that Obama isn't in favor of limiting gun ownership in ways that would conflict with the current SCOTUS decision in Heller.
So what exactly IS "the current SCOTUS decision in Heller?" And how, exactly, does Obama's position on guns conflict with it? Last I checked, the majority said a certain DC gun law was unconstitutional, but then they backtracked and went out of their way to say they weren't really trying to overturn any large group of laws.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 27, 2010 5:59 PM
...i don't get it. please ruin the joke by explaining it to me, because i'd lose sleep over trying to figure it out otherwise...
(fuel consumption is measured in volume per distance, or vice versa. volume being distance cubed, do some algebra and you get area either way. visualize that area as the cross-section of the notional pipe full of fuel the car would leave behind as it drives down the road, and there ya go. but how'd you get Pascals out of it...?)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 5:59 PM
Nomen Nescio, you'll understand when you're older. Or, you won't. One of those.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 27, 2010 6:30 PM
Posted by: WScott | April 27, 2010 6:30 PM
Lance, you're full of crap. You wrote, "Still there are facts that point to Obama being less than ebullient about the second amendment." See, no quotes.
Well, yes, nobody doubts he's "less than ebullient" about the second (and fourth, and fifth) amendments.
But you didn't put facts in quotes there, and you immediately followed the claim that there are these facts by talking about your "research."
If you knew at the time it was all bullshit, why did you bother posting it?
And where would I go for actual facts about whether Obama intends to ban guns? How about any number of credible web sites, like snopes, factcheck, or even the legitimate news sources.
You went for craptastic and then cry because someone called you on the craptasticness of it. Saying you knew all along that it was crap hardly makes you look any better.
("In my defense, your honor, I knew I was pissing in public, so there's really no reason for the state to make a big deal about it." Yeah, great defensive strategy.)
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 6:46 PM
Americans and their guns....the civilised world watches in amazement, it would be funny if it wouldn't lead to so many dead people.
Posted by: Rorschach | April 27, 2010 8:10 PM
it deals with major arms traffickers who make and transport illegal weapons for use by terrorists, gangs and other unsavory groups.
Hey, don't drag Ollie North into this!
Posted by: Coragyps | April 27, 2010 8:44 PM
"Nothing wins converts to the cause like a day of safe and fun shooting, "
Mainly due to the nitrates in the smoke from modern powders - that's why people find it so relaxing.
Posted by: Paul Murray | April 27, 2010 10:02 PM
Unless you know something I don’t about crimes committed by civilians using Barrett Fiftys...
So it's a purely defensive weapon? In what circumstances does it serve a defensive purpose?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 27, 2010 10:19 PM
Raging Bee; vs giant robots (whether from outer space or some other kind of space) and zombies who are really far away.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 27, 2010 10:24 PM
Even that is technically incorrect. The Senate must consent to the treaty. The President still has discretion as to its ratification, even after the Senate consents. Only when the President instructs the Secretary of State to affix the Seal of the US is the treaty ratified.
I know it's pedantic, but my Int'l Law prof harps on this point repeatedly (the Senate doesn't ratify treaties).
Posted by: Davis | April 27, 2010 10:39 PM
Lance, I'm not sure what you're driving at either. No one is claiming that Obama is an ardent supporter of the second amendment. But that doesn't mean he's going to introduce gun-restrictive legislation. The pro-gun crowd won. The Democrats aren't going to touch gun-control they've realized it's a losing issue for them.
However the NRA and other pro-gun groups aren't going to acknowledge their victory because scare tactics keeps people sending them money. Which works to my advantage because I'm going to make money off them and hope they realize that all the "democrats are going to steal our guns" talk is bullshit.
Posted by: James | April 27, 2010 10:41 PM
Yo Hanley,
Did I accidentally piss in your Ovaltine? Why the attitude suddenly? Are you really outraged that I quoted an anti Obama website that I said was, well, anti-Obama?
Or is this still a show of solidarity with Heath over a joke I made three threads ago?
Also as other posters have pointed out, and I even alluded to in my original post, these "facts" take a kernel of truth and spin and distort them to make Obama look like he's chomping at the bit to "git are guns".
That doesn't mean there isn't a kernel of truth under most of these "facts".
I never worried enough about Obama's position on the second amendment to investigate it thoroughly. I casually Googled "Obama gun control" and that site was the first one I found.
In the last few hours I have done a bit more checking and have found pretty much what I expected. Obama, like most progressives, is in favor of a great deal of restrictions on gun ownership, such as the reinstatement of the "assault weapons" ban.
No big surprise, nor am I very worried about it.
You do know that this is just a blog right? I wasn't claiming to have found the definitive source that exposed the evil Obama's plan to git 'r guns. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to the total dismissal of Obama's intentions on gun control.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 10:45 PM
"purely defensive" and "weapon of war" are not the only two options here. look up "false dichotomy" and then try not to make one.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 27, 2010 11:31 PM
Wow, nothing like a phantom threat to take guns away from all these needy people to bring out the wacko gun nuts. Witness this thread.
Posted by: tomh | April 27, 2010 11:34 PM
No, Lance, I just find you annoying in general, and was amused at your pretension in mocking Heath, whose comments are so incomparably more thoughtful than yours.
As a consequence I find it rather fun to provoke you. It's all for my own amusement. Not exactly an exalted reason to be sure, but then I don't know who else's amusement I should be interested in.
But you know, if you go around attacking people, you don't come off looking very good when you get all wounded when others attack you.
But, hey, since you seem to need some patting on the back, kudos on doing the heavy lifting to demonstrate that a Democratic president, and a guy from Chicago no less, is something less than totally pro-gun. You totally proved the null hypothesis, man.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 11:44 PM
Hahahaha - he mentioned the Cato institute as a source .. hahahahaha!
I'd imagine Obama doesn't care to push that treaty since it will interfere with existing legislation for ITAR and probably introduces nothing significant. Basically it's not up to us to police the trafficking of arms in other countries - that's their job. Their police organizations can petition our law enforcement agencies through any number of established routes including Interpol. The treaty may be more significant between other nations.
Posted by: MadScientist | April 27, 2010 11:56 PM
Nomen Nescio:
You brouhgt up the SUV thing, not me.
I'm not at all sure that Karl Benz didn't design his car to kill and maim it's users and others. I have not the slightest doubt that the Barrett .50 was designed, specifically, to kill people at a distance (and as an anti-materiel weapon). If I'm wrong about that, please tell me what it's other uses might be?
That the automobile is a tool is beyond debate. That it is also a toy, a status symbol, a penis replacement for some and a has a number of other possible uses is something that might be debated I suppose. The Barret .50 is not a defensive weapon for any homeowners that I know--that's gonna be a BIG fucking yard for them as wants to justify having a gun like that.
What's funny to me is the way some folks (and, no, I'm not thinking of you in this regard) have told me that the Barrett is not something that will be mis-used by people who buy them. They've also stated that it's not a good "tool" for hunting and that it's very difficult to lug around and probably would be a very inappropriate weapon for home defense--meantime there are videos showing folks shooting them without seeming to worry about any of those things.
In a sense it's nice to hear people say that they have a right to have any and all guns that they can get their hands on, because it's their right--and that they really enjoy hosing down targets with a .50 cal BMG--the honesty is refreshing. Otoh, I do worry when people tell me that blowing shit up is their favorite form of recreation.
Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2010 12:12 AM
Lance @ 70
I can't speak for James Hanley, but I would imagine he is pissed at you you the same reason any school teacher would be pissed at you. You copy-pasted the aforementioned list of outright propaganda, lies, and bullshit, with a small amount of truth to make it slide down the throat easier.
Therefor your admittance of the poor value of this list doesn't change the fact that to argue your point, you brought up a list of lies with a disclaimer that
Being honest in your dishonestly isn't the best policy.
Posted by: Tamarron | April 28, 2010 12:15 AM
I'm not actually pissed at Lance. I just thought that in general he needed a little kick in the pants to make him realize his antics weren't playing in Peoria.
But everything Tammarron said, yeah, absolutely. I actually had two students this year tell me that it was ok that they had precisely the same answers because "we were working together." Not too very different from Lance's excuse.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 12:21 AM
tomh @ 72 said
If you honestly think the majority of the commentators on this thread are gun nuts, you really need to go to an NRA convention and advocate for Gun Control Laws. These people have not only discussed the issues at hand, they have done so without calling anyone Marxist Commy traitors. This is downright genteel compared to a significant portion of American gun owners.
democommie @ 75 said
Posted by: Tamarron | April 28, 2010 12:23 AM
Jame Hanley,
Well that's good to know. I think of you as decent and reasonable guy. You were just defending your bud Heath I guess.
You teach? What subject?
I teach math and the occasional physics lab course at IUPUI.
You teach?
Posted by: Lance | April 28, 2010 12:33 AM
Tamarron "To be fair, a lot of American males in general enjoy this activity."
Oh, woe is testosterone!
"I used to make pipe-bombs and a large variety of other explosives back in high school, mostly just to see how big a hole we could make in the ground."
I should hope that you stopped while you still had all your fingers. During my "fireworks...woo!" phase I had a little one go off in my hand. That was the last that I ever had to do with them.
"And I'm pretty damn liberal."
I'm a damn pretty liberal. Just thinking about me makes me swoon.
[short pause]
*swoon*
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 28, 2010 12:59 AM
Tamarron wrote:
If you honestly think the majority of the commentators on this thread are gun nuts, you really need to go to an NRA convention ...
The rhetoric may be more extreme at an NRA convention, but the underlying mindset is the same. No difference.
Posted by: tomh | April 28, 2010 2:09 AM
tomh "The rhetoric may be more extreme at an NRA convention, but the underlying mindset is the same."
NRA convention: "Obama's comin' to take away your guns!!!"
Here: "No. No, he's not."
...
Yes. Exactly the same. Frankly, I thought I was at an NRA blog until you mentioned that. Now I understand that my confusion was justified. Kudos.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 28, 2010 2:48 AM
tomh: perhaps the underlying mindset is the same, in that all are always against any regulations of guns, and will always suspect Democrats of trying to take them away, but you have to admit that in practice the two are very different. Nuts are so polarized that it becomes almost a group mental delusion, and includes fear of the government, hatred towards liberals/bureaucrats, and a totally out of wack political sensibility. On the other hand, I know a great deal of self-proclaimed gun nuts who consistently vote democrat locally, and make decent decisions federally except where particular politicians have a large bent towards restricting guns. Which if you are honest about, is not a whole lot of politicians outside of a few specific areas, such as DC or other large cities.
Posted by: Tamarron | April 28, 2010 3:08 AM
you seem to have missed the point i tried to make when i brought them up. i'm disappointed; when you initially replied to that post, i was sure you had grokked. i tried to use them to demonstrate how people shouldn't have to justify owning any given possession of theirs --- the same point WScott made in post #20.
see, those two are not logically connected. what a thing is designed to do, and what it actually gets used for, need not be identical. Barrett's line of .50BMG rifles gets used, in actual practice, for punching holes in paper more often than anything else --- what they were designed for is immaterial to that fact.
who on earth has ever claimed that it was, and where? i wanna go point and laugh at them, but you may be the only one who's seen such a claim being made.
well, y'know, Barrett has been selling their rifles to civilians for quite some years by now. rather a number of them are in private individuals' possession at this point, and have been for a decent amount of time. can you point to any, you know, actual instances of mis-use? then we could start working out some statistics and see just how great of a hazard they really are, proportionately speaking. but i'm honestly unaware of these kinds of rifles ever being misused, and i'm supposedly the gun nut of the two of us.
sort of how you enjoy using vaguely insulting slurs and slanting your language towards prejudiced conclusions? "hosing down", indeed. i really don't think you stumbled on that phrasing by any kind of accident, so tell me, what precisely did you think it would accomplish?
it's your perfect right to worry about whatever makes you worried. me, i worry when people tell me they attend church. in neither case does anyone have any obligation to try to ease our minds, although if we ask politely enough, somebody might decide to try anyway.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 28, 2010 7:49 AM
Rorschach (#63) I agree, I can't understand how so many of the male population of the united states have such an inferiority complex that they need to boost their egos with such an obvious phallic substitute. what between guns and huge cars it is a wonder that any of them have enough penis to breed!
Posted by: symball | April 28, 2010 8:42 AM
Yeah, Obama is such an enemy of gun owners. Must be why he signed a law allowing people to carry guns into federal parks.
And once all the gun owners are safely inside the federal, he'll lock the gates! It's so obvious! It's FEMA camps all over again!
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 28, 2010 9:01 AM
@Modusoperandi:
*swoon*
Seriously, that comment just made my morning.
@Tamarron: "...in that all are always against any regulations of guns, and will always suspect Democrats of trying to take them away..."
I, for one, am not against any regulation of guns, just against that regulation that is unnecessary and largely unjustified. For example: I am in favor of background checks and not allowing convicted felons to have firearms. I am in favor of training classes before one can get a concealed carry permit.
I believe the impetus should always be on the regulator to show why it is necessary and justified, however, and not on the owner to show why it is not.
Posted by: Mystyk | April 28, 2010 9:05 AM
The irony! Given how fit Obama is - 3-pointers, birdies, 6-pack abs and all that, should he ever learn marksmanship, seriously, there's no doubt he would outgun these guys in no time at all. All I have seen at gun ranges is paunchy, puffing and panting weekend faux warriors. These guys wouldn't stand a chance against a well trained squad of cops or National Guardsmen. Against a well-armed infantry squad, they would be turkey shoot!
Posted by: Marichi | April 28, 2010 9:26 AM
Lance,
I'm nominally a political scientist, although I find most of that field dull and meaningless. I teach American Gov't, Research Methods, Political Economy, Strategic Behavior, and whatever other courses I occasionally decide to try my hand at. Next spring I'm team-teaching a Science Policy course with a Chemist, which I'm really looking forward to.
I almost landed a job at IUPUI early in the decade. Due to certain connections, I think the job was almost certainly mine, but I bungled the interview big time. Too bad, as I would have really enjoyed living in Naptown.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 9:33 AM
That's not just factually true, it hints at the deeper issue of individual preferences. Despite all the smug talk about phallic symbols and penis substitutes, the reality of the world is that each person is distinct, and has his/her own set of things that bring pleasure. I doubt I would personally have the patience, vision, or fine motor skills to hit a paper target from a mile away, but I can easily see how someone would find that kind of activity enjoyable. I enjoy throwing darts, playing pool, and shooting free throws (all equally badly), and in their fundamentals they're not that different from long-distance target shooting.
What we see here is not just antipathy to guns, which is legitimate in itself, but a disdain for people whose individual preferences are different from the critic's. That's a depressingly normal human response--but as most of the critics here consider themselves more thoughtful and intelligent than the average person (and probably are), they might want to consider thinking about their implied logic of imposing preferences on others.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 9:50 AM
@ RagingBee & Democommie:
No one’s claiming the Barrett is useful for home defense; we’re saying it’s fun for target shooting. Just because that’s a hobby you don’t enjoy is beside the point; it’s perfectly legal. You still seem to think that gun owners have to justify owning a weapon, but that’s not the way it works in this country.
I’m still waiting for you (or someone) to explain why the government has a compelling interest in keeping this type of weapon off the street. “They’re scary” doesn’t cut it. What real criteria do you suggest we use to decide where you draw the line? Is .40 cal okay? .45? Or would you rather use muzzle velocity? I’m genuinely curious?
Tomh @ 72 & 81:
With the possible exception of Lance, no one here has said they believe Obama is “coming for our guns.” Everyone seems to agree the government has a legitimate interest in restricting some classes of weapons. The discussion here is over where to draw the line. If that make me a “gun nut” in your world, then I respectfully suggest your paradigm needs adjustment.
Posted by: WScott | April 28, 2010 10:18 AM
"THEY CAME FIRST for the assault rifles,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't own an assault rifle.
THEN THEY CAME for the handguns,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a handgun.
THEN THEY CAME for the hunting rifles,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a hunter.
THEN THEY CAME for me and my Mk-54 SADM
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Posted by: rob | April 28, 2010 12:25 PM
How I wish we'd ban possession of all the damned things...screw the fucking 2nd amendement.
Posted by: peter | April 28, 2010 12:40 PM
WScott wrote:
The discussion here is over where to draw the line.
Really? Besides a lot of talk about some big, heavy rifle, there has been exactly one post, yours at #61, with a suggestion of where to draw the line. You draw the line at, "heavy machine guns, anti-tank missiles, and nuclear weapons". Quite a concession on your part.
Posted by: tomh | April 28, 2010 1:39 PM
well, considering noone's offered anything in return for it, such a concession would in fact be somewhat generous.
i'd like to propose a compromise on gun control legislation. you propose a new law you'd like to see passed, i'll pick an existing one i'd like to see repealed, and then we horse-trade. how's that sound?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 28, 2010 1:55 PM
I’m still waiting for you (or someone) to explain why the government has a compelling interest in keeping this type of weapon off the street. “They’re scary” doesn’t cut it.
I'm still waiting for YOU to explain why you have any compelling interest in owning weapons comparable to those used by trained military and/or law-enforcement personnel. "I'm just having fun, I won't use it for the actual purpose it was made for, trust me" doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 28, 2010 2:12 PM
You still seem to think that gun owners have to justify owning a weapon, but that’s not the way it works in this country.
Really? So if a guy bought a tank or an antiaircraft rocket-launcher, no one would question him?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 28, 2010 2:17 PM
Funny how Chuck "Shorty" Norris didn't scream or kick or join such groups when Georgie Bush was in office.
Chucky Norris didn't complain when the Patriot Act was passed. Nor complain about the illegalh wipe taps and other such things Bush and Co did violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
But when it comes to his little gun he starts crying like a baby.
Sorry Chuck,you can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights you want to have. You have to have the m all or none.
Posted by: goddamnathiest | April 28, 2010 2:32 PM
you really don't know how downright ordinary your average cop's duty pistol (or cruiser shotgun) actually is? they're not at all special, most of them, i assure you.
granted, a military assault rifle is something few regular civilians are trained on, and which actually needs some training to control well; such rifles are fully automatic, machine guns, and that takes some practice to handle. but machine guns aren't really available for civilian use, either, without jumping through very significant legal hoops above and beyond what non-machineguns require. other military small arms (pistols, shotguns, etcetera) are not significantly different from civilian arms, however.
why not? what's so magical about the maker's purpose (and how can you even be certain of that purpose, in the general case?) that it should outweigh the owner's actual, practical usage of whatever-the-thing-is?
say, i think i'll go make myself a knife. i'll just need some bar steel, a few files and whetstones, and a bit of wood for the handle. the finished result will look indistinguishable from an everyday steak knife, but i will make it for the specific purpose of seeing how many throats may be slit with it in one night by a running man. question for Bee: on what grounds would you ban that knife, and how are you going to tell it apart from the (presumably legal) steak knife i bought at K-mart and used for a template?
those might be bad examples, because as it happens, you could buy those without many questions asked. old tanks are available on the surplus market; rocket launchers are rarer, but i wouldn't swear to them being totally unavailable.
the cannon and machine guns that make a tank into a weapon, as opposed to just an overweight bulldozer, those are much more strictly controlled. similarly, actual rockets to fire through your surplus rocket launcher will be very tricky indeed to legally own. but if you just want to putter around your back yard in an unarmed Sherman tank, or decorate your front yard with an outdated rocket launcher, that's doable. (they're expensive, and i don't think most tanks are remotely road legal, but doable.)
(it's barely, theoretically, possible to own a fully armed tank in most states of the USA. the legal obstacles and licensing fees for the cannon and machine guns are remarkably prohibitive, however, and i doubt anyone's ever managed it in practice. antiaircraft rockets... might be hypothetically possible, but even if the BATF somehow screwed up and signed off on the paperwork, where would you find a seller?)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 28, 2010 2:39 PM
Nomen: that's exactly my point -- regardless of what the gun-rights advocates say, we really don't have an unrestricted right to own weapons, on paper or in practice. It's easy to make such claims in the abstract, but when it comes to real situations, we, as a society of peace-loving people who want "well-regulated militias" to ensure "the security of a free state," tend to throw up major roadblocks based on common-sense (though admittedly imperfect) assessments of danger vs. utility.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 28, 2010 2:58 PM
quite so, and i'm glad for it.
i'm somewhat familiar (from a layman's standpoint) with the weapons regulations we have in the USA at present, and overall i think them a decent compromise, personally. there are always little tweaks that could be enacted, as is always the case with any compromise legislation, but the general gist of them is quite acceptable to me. if i ever gave any other impression, i misspoke badly!
(in fact, the biggest beef i personally have with U.S. weapons laws currently is with knife regulations. they're a confusing and inconsistent patchwork cobbled together with little or no consideration of the practical utility of the laws, more often made to assuage moral panics or further some political career or other. there's no national knife association, and it shows; the NRA's political activities are often despicable, but they do sometimes act as a knowledgeable sounding board of firearms experts pointing out when some gun law just makes no sense. many gun laws still make no sense, but the situation there is better than on the knife-law side, and i know of no other major political group to credit with that but the NRA.)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 28, 2010 3:06 PM
James Hanley,
Jees no wonder your knowledge of socio-political issues is so well developed. I'm just an opinionated amateur provocateur in comparison.
Where do you teach? Is it in Indiana?
I fell into the math gig here at IUPUI. I hope to complete my PhD in physics with an emphasis on atmospheric physics, hence my interest in the whole global warming brouhaha.
Posted by: Lance | April 28, 2010 3:17 PM
Just to render one liberal's opinion on gun control: I think guns that are 'easily' used in a "spray'n'pray" fashion should be heavily restricted if not banned, guns that are easily concealed should be restricted, weapons capable of killing large numbers of people simultaneously should probably be banned (so tanks, artillery, nukes, etc etc), and otherwise you should maybe have to get a permit that is no harder to get than a driver's liscence, at most.
I think this is a reasonable stance, trading off public safety against the right to do whatever the eff you want.
So: Hunting rifles? Yeah sure, maybe you have to write down that you know you're to store them unloaded, whatever. If someone kills someone with a hunting rifle, they meant to kill that specific person, or they're a child and their parents should not have had children. In the former case, well, a lack of guns wouldn't stop 'em.
Automatic machine guns? Fuck no, too dangerous if some guy gets his hands on one and snaps and goes to visit a crowded place.
Handguns? A bit more dangerous than rifles, I'd definitely want a liscencing procedure, but only because of the concealability.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | April 28, 2010 3:45 PM
on the subject of Barretts being used by the bad guys:
State Attorney General Jesus Montejano told the local Milenio television station that the attackers used assault rifles, grenades, a grenade launcher and a powerful .50-caliber sniper rifle whose rounds are capable of penetrating bullet-resistant materials.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14954774?source=pkg
now this is not in the US, and Mexican govt pronouncements are perhaps not always the models of accuracy, but...
my office is now handling lots of weapons-exportation cases. Barretts are something the carteleros want, along with FN FiveseveNs and the other stuff firing the 5.7 round due to the capability to penetrate much body armor. Uzis, cuernas de chivo, and Ingrams are passe... to put it in perspective, a Barrett with the right ammo (RBCD?) could conceivably bring down a helicopter with a skillful and lucky shot.
i'm a gun enthusiast and an NRA hatin liberal, and philosophically believe that there needs to be a good reason to ban anything...but i have to admit that it COULD be rationally argued that guns in .50BMG might oughta be subject to the same restrictions as MGs, silencers, and other title 26 weapons. just food for thought....
Posted by: payaso de la mar | April 28, 2010 4:53 PM
Tomh @ 94:
Yes, I’m the only one to use that particular phrase. But the other 99% of the thread has been out whether “some big, heavy rifle” belongs above or below the line. I deliberately chose rather extreme cases that I figured everyone could agree on. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Bee @ 96
Wrong again. You’re the one arguing that a specific weapon (or class of weapons) should be banned. I don’t have to make an argument; you do. For example, let’s talk about fully-automatic weapons: you can certainly argue that their high rates of fire make them too dangerous for civilians to own, and they’re more likely to be used in crimes, etc, and therefore they should be illegal or at least heavily regulated. And I would agree with you. But here you’re talking about a specific rifle – a class of weapons that is otherwise perfectly legal – claiming that it’s too dangerous to allow civilian ownership, but you seem unable to back up your claim with WHY you think that.
Bee @ 97
Of course they would, because the government has already made the case for why those types of weapons should be illegal. (I think Nomen is technically right, but for purposes of discussion…) But the principle is the same – the government has the burden to make that case.
Bee @ 100
I never claimed it was an unrestricted right, and I’m glad it isn’t. I’m saying the burden is on the government to justify restrictions on that right. I don’t know how many other ways I can say it.
Payaso @ 104
Thank you! I’m not sure if one case (domestic or not) should be enough to justify a ban. But thanks for actually presenting a coherent rationale – that’s all I’ve been asking for.
Posted by: WScott | April 28, 2010 6:40 PM
Here in western Oklahoma, guns are ingrained into the culture. Hunting, shooting, collecting are common, and fiercly defended. Say what you will, but going down to the river and shooting is just plain ol' good fun! I've got a Curio and Relics Federal Firearms License ($30 for three years) and can have most military surplus rifles and handguns delivered by UPS directly to my home. Just received three Soviet made Mosin Nagants (bolt action 7.62x54r) and 440 rounds of ammunition for less than $400. Yep, President Obama has really cracked down on the BATF. Why, I had to wait almost three weeks for my FFL to be approved!
Posted by: apusgov | April 28, 2010 9:34 PM
Lance,
No, I teach at a small college in SE Michigan (only 2 hours from my hometown outside Fort Wayne, though). I should see if IUPUI's hiring, though. I'm currently a disgruntled employee, and with all this talk of guns.... (just joking! I don't even own a gun!!)
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 9:37 PM
Raging Bee @96
Uh, oh, constitutional law lesson time again. Citizens do not have to show a compelling interest in anything in order to exercise their constitutional rights.
The government, on the other hand, must show an interest--sometimes just a legitimate one, sometimes a compelling one (as the Supremes currently work their jurisprudential magic)--in order to apply some constraints to those rights. That is, the right is unlimited--wholly and completely unlimited--unless and until the government demonstrates that it has a justifying interest in constraining it.
Now before anyone gets excited, I think government has a legitimate interest in some degree of regulation of guns. Just as a government may restrict my speech just a little bit, so that I am not necessarily free to commit slander, or to drive around my town in a sound truck in the middle of the night preaching the gospel of libertarianism at full volume. So there are, of course, legitimate arguments about where government may draw the line on guns.
But citizens do not, ever, have to demonstrate a compelling interest before they can push the limits to see how far their constitutional rights extend. That's a wholly backward and upside-down jurisprudence that has no place in our legal history.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 9:48 PM
It might be noted that the right to own and control arms doesn't necessarily extend to the right to own and control heavy ordnance, just like a right to private property doesn't necessarily include the right to own air or other indivisible resources. Bringing up nukes, rocket launchers, etc. in a debate over Second Amendment rights is simply a red herring.
For the record, I'm generally a supporter of Second Amendment rights, including the ability to own fully automatic weapons (although I favor instituting mandatory insurance for the latter as a condition of ownership).
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 28, 2010 9:59 PM
James Hanley,
Hey, if you want me to check with the poly-sci department to see if they are hiring let me know. I don't think I know anybody over there but I'm not shy and I'd be happy to stroll over there and inquire if you really have an interest.
IUPUI has really changed since I was an undergraduate student. Have you been on campus recently? It's still a bit of a red headed step child of Indiana University and Purdue University but we do have the law school, the dental school and the medical school on our campus so theoretically IUPUI could be considered the more important campus.
Also the campus itself is hugely improved. It is becoming quite a sophisticated metropolitan university complex. I just wish we had snagged the University of Indianapolis name before Indiana Central took advantage of our indecision and grabbed that name.
So we're stuck with the cumbersome old "EWI PEWI" moniker for the foreseeable future.
At least it isn't as bad as the Fort Wayne campuses old name IUPUIFW. Talk about alphabet soup! They wised up and just go by IPFW now, but being from Fort Wayne you probably knew that.
Posted by: Lance | April 28, 2010 10:28 PM
Lance,
Thanks, I appreciate the thought. But they'll be sure to advertise in the usual places if they're hiring. And the problem for a guy like me is a) I have tenure, which makes them more reluctant to hire, and b) I've managed to create my own curriculum over the past 8 years, and I'd probably have to start all over with a department chair saying, "We hired you to teach state and local government, and you're damn well going to do it!" It's so hard to go backward on something like that--kind of like going back home for Thanksgiving and having to sit at the kids' table. So the reality is I'll probably never move. But I like eewy peewy (or however you spell it), and it's one of the few places I'd consider moving to.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 10:37 PM
Nomen Nescio:
This is an argument that we've had before and neither of us will be changing our minds on the subject, I'm quite sure. For me, it's got nothing to do with legality, it's got everything to do with common sense.
Nobody on this thread has mentioned using a Barrett for home defense, I assure you that it has been brought up elsewhere.
The term "hosing down" is what? insulting to the sensibilities of people who do things like the Knob Creek, Fort Morgan, Big Sandy, Texas or other "Machine Gun Shoots". The videos I've watched pretty much depict a bunch of knuckle headed yahoos blasting away, with little or no intent to aim at anything and getting huge kicks from shooting up cars, propane tanks and pumpkins. I also notice a lot of amazingly stupid range behavior. I watched a number of other videos that showed people firing all sorts of fully automatic weapons, gleefully in many cases, without a lot of context about how they became fully automatic (an M2 carbine was one of the featured weapons) or whether the shooters were all federally licensed to own same--I'm going to guess the answer to the latter is "No.".
I particularly enjoyed this analysis of the Knob Creek fete:
"I wasn’t disappointed. The overwhelming majority of the attendees were White. There were slightly more White males there, but White women and children were almost as numerous. All the non-Whites in attendance could have fit in a single large SUV. The Whites in attendance were also ordinary people and predominantly working class. They were the Middle Americans you see in any big box store, gas station, or restaurant.
This demographic has a few distinguishable characteristics: they are all White, they are mostly Christian, they love firearms and exotic forms of weaponry, they dislike the federal government, they are working class to lower middle class, they are zealous about liberty, they don’t seem to fit into the establishment, and they passionately despise Barack Hussein Obama. There was a palpable sense of whiteness at Knob Creek. A vibe in the air - this is a White man’s event - that registered with even the most desensitized racial antennae."
posted by Mr. Hunter Wallace @ http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/12/kentucky-knob-creek-machine-gun-shoot/.
A genuinely nice sort of KKKlanner I'm sure. If I insult the sensibilities of folks like Mr. Hunter then I'm doing something right.
People (and I AM including you in this) have asked me, on several different blogs to furnish some proof that someone has used a Barrett for criminal purposes. I can't do that. Considering that virtually every weapon/weapons system that is easily purchased, maintained, equipped with ammo and portable enough to work with HAS been used by criminals (some of them "war criminals") I doubt that the Barrett will be exempt. Mr. de la mar's comment @ 104 indicates that such a thing may have already happened. One can, btw, buy .50 BMG ammo on the open market, including API (Armor Piercing Incendiary) rounds. Since Barret is not furnishing figures for how many of their weapons are sold to civilians there is really no way of knowing who has them.
I don't have anything against gun. I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I have and will continue to have a problem with people who say that their "right" to bear arms is license to be a shithead.
Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2010 11:29 PM
James Hanley,
Sounds like you're entrenched. I'm just adjunct faculty so I'm low man on the totem pole.
In one way it's nice. I'm so far out of the power loop that I'm no threat to anyone so I'm universally liked in the way that a stray dog is petted by all passersby.
Also they pay me so little I don't have to take any shit from anyone so I just do pretty much what I want.
I have a very extemporaneous and playful teaching style, especially for a math teacher. My students are often taken aback by my "in your face" interactive pedagogy. But once they realize I'm just trying to get them involved and to have some fun they usually enjoy my class.
Well as much as you can enjoy a math class. Some students want to play video games on their lap-tops or text on their cell phones or chat with each other.
That won't fly in my class. Sometimes it pisses them off. Too bad. I'll do about anything for a student that wants to learn but I'm not letting some immature wastrel distract me or the rest of the class.
The math department knows I really care about my students and that I'm actually a pussy cat once a student takes the smallest amount of responsibility for their education. When the occasional spoiled brat complains they back me up (usually).
Actually I can't believe the disrespect that many students show to their instructors and professors. Some of my colleagues are either too timid or too complacent to do anything about these refugees from 8th grade home-room.
Maybe it's because IUPUI is an inner-city campus and accepts students that other more prestigious universities would reject, but I am continually discouraged by the behavior of many students.
I really don't have too many problems because, as I said, I get right on any students that cause distractions. I must also say though, that many of these "problem" students turn out to be some of my favorite students.
Just tonight I tutored one of my past "problem" students for his calculus final exam. We now joke about how we originally bumped heads.
Have you noticed a decline in student decorum at your university?
Posted by: Lance | April 28, 2010 11:32 PM
democommie,
Just because an event is populated by one racial group doesn't make it a gathering of racists.
I am often the only white face when I accompany my wife to Ethiopian social gatherings. Does that somehow mean they are a bunch of racists?
You seem to be the one with the racial obsession.
Also one of my neighbors makes a yearly trek to Knob Creek with his small arsenal of fully automatic weapons (all legally registered by the way). He is anything but a red neck racist.
He is a college educated aeronautical technician that just happens to like most things mechanical and especially fire arms.
I have fired his Uzi, M-16 A3 and his Thompson machine gun. No minorities were endangered nor were any crosses burned.
I thought it was fun, but I got bored after about twenty minutes and the ammo was pretty expensive so it's just not for me.
Of course you do understand that the 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting or sport shooting right?
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 12:02 AM
Lance "I am often the only white face when I accompany my wife to Ethiopian social gatherings. Does that somehow mean they are a bunch of racists?"
...because the an Ethiopian social gathering*1 and a Teabagger protest*2 are exactly the same thing.
*1. Which, pretty much by definition, will be disproportionately...oh, I don't know...Ethiopian.
*2. Which, ideally, will bear the mark of the Melting Pot©*3. And yet it never even comes close.
*3. "Melting Pot" copyright Uncle Sam Industries Inc®*4.
*4. "Uncle Sam Industries Inc" registered trademark of Raytheon/Disney Corp.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 29, 2010 12:20 AM
Wow, talk about force of habit. Just swap "Teabaggers" in my comment for whatever the actual subject of this page is*.
* Hey, look, everybody at the complete lack of overlap between Teabaggery and gun kookery! If it was a Venn diagram it would be two non-overlapping circles!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 29, 2010 12:24 AM
Modusoperandi,
Teabagger rally? We were talking about Knob Creek.
I'm sure they're the same thing in your fevered cross-wired brain but they are actually two separate events.
Have you ever heard of Zippy the Pinhead? I have found your posts to have a savant-like quality reminiscent of that cartoon strip.
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 12:45 AM
Lance, I'm cross-topical. It's a blessing and a curse.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | April 29, 2010 1:07 AM
Modusoperandi,
Free association is good so long as you don't forget how to get back.
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 2:12 AM
is nothing to do with the Barrett .50's we were discussing at the time, is what it is. how do you make the cognitive jump from long-range target rifles to an insult-laden rant about the Knob Creek machine-gun shoot, exactly?
i've never been to any gathering of machine gun enthusiasts, much less Knob Creek, so i couldn't say what manner of folks are in attendance. you seem to be judging them by third-hand evidence and youtube videos, too, going by your rambling. why do you even feel the need to bring them up in this wholly unrelated context?
(and no, you don't need to be federally licensed yourself just to shoot a machine gun. you need to have that federal license to own a machine gun. such owners may allow others to try out their toys, even rent them out by the magazine-full if they please. adult supervision extremely strongly advised, naturally. why did you bring that point up, either? are you aiming at anything other than "let's talk smack about rednecks for a few kilobytes" here?)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 7:39 AM
Nomen Nescio:
You're smarter than your last comment.
My comment said:
"In a sense it's nice to hear people say that they have a right to have any and all guns that they can get their hands on, because it's their right--and that they really enjoy hosing down targets with a .50 cal BMG--"
says nothing about the Barrett weapons; a BMG is a Browning Machine Gun--I do actually know the difference between the two weapons--it does say something about the mindset of a lot of folks who think a Barrett rifle is something a person should have in their home.
You said:
"i've never been to any gathering of machine gun enthusiasts, much less Knob Creek, so i couldn't say what manner of folks are in attendance. you seem to be judging them by third-hand evidence and youtube videos, too, going by your rambling. why do you even feel the need to bring them up in this wholly unrelated context?"
I'm not judging anyone by "third hand evidence", I'm judging them based on videos--videos which, btw, they seem perfectly happy to have up on YouTube.
Again, I'm not equating the Barrett Rifle with the Knob Creek, or any of the other "Blowin' shit up" festivals. I am saying that the people who DO attend those events seem to have a special fetish for sending thousands of rounds downrange with no specific intent except to blow shit up. Not one paper target in any of the videos I watched (over thirty) and not a lot of gun range etiquette either. One guy was firing a mini-gun at the "night shoot"--1800 rounds into the dark in less than 30 seconds--just for shits and grins. That's certainly his right if it's all legal. It's also his right to drink himself into insensibility until his brain or liver fail--but most reasonable folks would agree it ain't too bright.
And, yes, I'm well aware that one does not need an FFL to merely shoot a fully automatic weapon--and this proves it:
http://www.webcastr.com/videos/news/8-year-old-boy-killed-at-gun-show-family-sues.html
It's all gonna work out okay, though. Dead kid, disgraced and possibly convicted ex-chief of police in Westfield, MA, some other folks maybe going to jail and the kid's dad suing the bejesus out of all parties concerned. Of course the fact that Dr. Charles Bizilj, who is the director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn AND kid's dad was standing a few feet away when the "mishap" occurred is something that I find more than a bit thought provoking.
A number of the videos I watched were NOT anything to do with events like Knob Creek's. They were just regular "G.I. Joes" showing off their "expertise" at converting weapons from semi to full auto (they don't bothr to say whether they have FFL's) and demonstrating their piss-poor weapons handling skills.
I've fired a few .22 rifles, the M-16 and the M1 Carbine. AF recruits in my time in service fired 60 rounds in basic training and maybe another sixty at the firing range where they were permanently assigned--we were expected to die quickly and bravely if the Warsaw Pact ever decided to come in via the Fulda Gap. Having expertise in shooting, reloading, converting weapons from semi-auto to full auto are skills, not wisdom. I know a lot of folks who hunt and I wouldn't decide to hunt with someone because they had the neatest guns, hottest loads of tightest paper target groups. I would decide to hunt with (if I hunted) someone whose most important "weapons system" was their common sense. Those folks at Knob Creek? I wouldn't want to hunt with them.
Like I said in my last comment, we aren't going to change each other's minds on this. It's sorta fun to spar and do the surfing to find interesting videos of idiots being stupid with guns, but it's also pointless. I respect you, if not your opinion in these matters and understand that your experience is not mine. Those idiots who seem to not just want, but really, really NEED automatic weapons to be complete as a person; yeah, they bother the shit out of me.
Lance:
"Just because an event is populated by one racial group doesn't make it a gathering of racists. "
I wouldn't say that the event was racist JUST because a lot of racists attended it; but since you think I did, here's some background from:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14825
Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's how I spent my weekend.
The 'Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot' is a gun show in Kentucky which features a few times per day a barrage of machine gun fire (along with a few other weapons such as a cannon from the American Civil War). I didn't actually shoot any machine guns cuz I guess you have to get there super early in the morning to sign up, and pay a bunch of $, but watching it from about 10 ft behind the guns was great. They had these old cars and a a bunch of random tanks of gasoline which were shot up and set on fire, was like a front row seat at the beaches of Normandy.
They also had booths full of all sorts of interesting stuff, mostly guns, knives and militaria, including loads of third riech themed t-shirts and replica helmets. Rand Paul regalia was everywhere, also militia and Infowars (Alex Jones' website).
Poker Face, the libertarian band, was playing live.
An all around good time
Below are reports from both a racialist and a 'mainstream' site
Here's a report from a website:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...ine-gun-shoot/
As several of you know, I spent the weekend on the road in Kentucky at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot, which bills itself as “The World’s Largest Machine Gun Shoot and Military Gun Show”. We had a blast. I snapped lots of photos and shot about thirty seconds of video.
Knob Creek has a reputation as a bastion of implicit whiteness. I traveled to Kentucky expecting to find a predominantly White, largely Tea Party conservative crowd; the sort of people who are the most vocal supporters of the NRA and Second Amendment. To my surprise, I found a more eclectic mix of gun enthusiasts and Far Right types, including White Nationalists.
First impression: the Gadsden Flag was everywhere in sight; on backpacks, on hats and t-shirts, flying from trucks and SUVs, hanging from booths, being carried around by children. The Confederate flag was equally ubiquitous. In fact, I saw more Gadsden and Confederate flags at Knob Creek than American flags. Always an encouraging sign!
Before we got into Knob Creek itself, I noticed the militias were on the scene in the parking lot. Rand Paul signs were everywhere. Paul volunteers were distributing stickers and signs as well as brochures under the windshield wipers of vehicles. As I was walking in, I was already getting the impression that the crowd in attendance was more “Alternative Right” (in the Sam Francis sense) than Republican.
I wasn’t disappointed. The overwhelming majority of the attendees were White. There were slightly more White males there, but White women and children were almost as numerous. All the non-Whites in attendance could have fit in a single large SUV. The Whites in attendance were also ordinary people and predominantly working class. They were the Middle Americans you see in any big box store, gas station, or restaurant.
This demographic has a few distinguishable characteristics: they are all White, they are mostly Christian, they love firearms and exotic forms of weaponry, they dislike the federal government, they are working class to lower middle class, they are zealous about liberty, they don’t seem to fit into the establishment, and they passionately despise Barack Hussein Obama. There was a palpable sense of whiteness at Knob Creek. A vibe in the air - this is a White man’s event - that registered with even the most desensitized racial antennae.
What interested us (the whole reason for making the trip) was to see how far along the Knob Creek attendees were on the path to White Nationalism. I would say the majority of the Whites there are in the “Don’t Tread on Me” anti-government, anti-establishment, patriotic self defense phase. They are implicitly White, but far more so than your average Tea Party protester. Most of them are only a notch or two away from explicit White racial consciousness.
There was a huge explicit racialist presence at Knob Creek. This is what shocked me the most. There were multiple booths selling Nazi paraphernalia: swastika flags, Third Reich patches, pins, medallions, t-shirts, videos like The Eternal Jew, pins, knives, bayonets, you name it, everything a Third Reich enthusiast could ever want was there. I snapped photos of all this. I even bought a Afrika Korps t-shirt that I fancied.
White Nationalists were milling about the crowd with all sorts of WPWW t-shirts. A few White girls had t-shirts on that explicitly acknowledged their whiteness. Someone had been distributing William Pierce literature about gun control. We found several of these NA brochures around the site. Presumably, there were a lot more WNs there, but we couldn’t identify them because most were dressed inconspicuously.
What struck me the most is how normalized White Nationalism has become at these gun shows. I didn’t see a single leftist there expressing his shock and outrage at these politically incorrect displays of White identity. You could literally walk a few feet away from the Louisville Tea Party booth and purchase a Wehrmacht helmet or a Rhodesian military uniform! If our immediate goal is to penetrate this demographic, it appears we have already done so. I saw lots of causes for optimism.
Article by a reporter from New Zealand I met there:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/religion-a...ectid=10637412
Anyone can attend the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot.
Once you arrive it feels more like a pilgrimage for white American men and their kin.
Entire white families attend the event, including babies with earplugs and 10-year-olds with assault rifles casually slung like a knapsack.
But this is a select crowd. During the entire weekend I see five blacks, two Asians and a Mexican. The rest were self-designated "good ol' boys" like former army soldier and retired police officer John Marks who is here to celebrate his right to sell an Uzi, buy a bazooka or stockpile 140,000 rounds of military grade ammunition.
"If you have even a passing interest in guns," he says, "you have to come here; this is like a Muslim going to Mecca."
But all is not well in the brotherhood. A dark cloud has descended on the Homeland. Black president. Gay marriage. Complete financial meltdown with socialist style bailout. The Republican Party in tatters. All of that was enough to make a good ol' boy nervous.
End of long piece C&P'd from that there blog.
Rand Paul, Tea Baggists, confederate flags outnumbering US flags--just your average bunch of MOR weekend shooters--you betcha. I wonder how The Impalinator missed the show. Oh, Stormfront, btw, "hearts" that show, big time.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2010 9:52 AM
ah, so you just don't know which one of them we're talking about at any given point in time. gotcha.
please, do go into more details on what all a person should have in their home. could you give us the full list, for future reference? i'd hate to think i owned anything that wasn't on it.
[kilobytes-long smack-talk of racist rednecks deleted for brevity. i guess that was what you really wanted to do, after all. got it out of your system now, or would you like to put up another few kb of that?]
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 10:07 AM
Lance, addressing Modusoperandi:
i'm sorry, but i can't read the words "zippy the pinhead" without thinking of the Dilbert strip that took the piss out of it. ("just one joke, but enough fancy artwork that nobody will notice" / (Dilbert, as reader:) "the joke's on me, isn't it?")
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 10:46 AM
Demo,
Yeah, but Knob Creek is a damn fine bourbon, so it's all good.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 29, 2010 2:18 PM
"but then, similar things can be said for high-end sports cars, which cost a great deal more money and kill more people in actual civilian use. far as i know, these types of rifles have yet to be used in any crime --- which figures, since they're impossible to conceal and difficult to even transport, and tend to cost multiple dollars per round of ammo to even sight them in. so, meh, if somebody wants to show off how the size of their genitals are inversely related to the size of their range-queen firearm, i say let 'em."
It's not an insult when you make fun of the same people I do?
This link:
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.html
is to a VPC report that seems to indicate that Barrett Rifles and similar weapons have been used by people who were intent on committing numerous crimes. Maybe what you meant to say is that nobody can prove that anybody has ever been killed by a criminal equipped with a Barrett. Of course there was that IRA group that was shooting British soldiers with a Barrett but that's probably not really a crime.
Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2010 10:19 PM
and for an encore, i shall begin to quote NRA statistics at you. they are, if anything, rather more credible than the violence policy center.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | April 29, 2010 10:34 PM
I like Knob Creek but prefer Elijah Craig 12 year old.
Posted by: Lance | April 30, 2010 12:55 AM
Rob@92: "by that time, no one was left to speak up."
This doesn't provide much of a logical "punchline" (or "kicker" or whatever you want to call it) to your little poem since the only actual human being that "they" come for is you (I'm referencing the "for me" inclusion in the poem).
Posted by: daniel rotter | May 3, 2010 12:59 AM
Obama is a doctrinaire Marxist. Oh they'll take our guns alright. Either you are a fool or a liar.
Posted by: William Cook | January 2, 2011 2:06 PM