Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

After the Gun Ban

Looking back a few years after hypothetical new restrictions on semiautomatic weapons in private hands, we see a country grown more divided, but no less armed.

Can Americans overcome hurdles to changing this country's gun culture and the laws regulating firearms? There may be a path to accomplishing just that—but it's unlikely that anybody would like the results. Let's look back from a possible future…

The strategy that gun controllers finally settled on was to shift the culture to make firearms ownership socially unacceptable. Then, legal changes would be possible.

"I think we have to cleanse our culture of this false idea that guns are cool," gun opponents wrote. "Guns are not cool. Cool kids don't use guns." Others agreed, and they all pointed to an earlier example of demonizing a previously popular product. "Guns should be the new cigarettes," they insisted.

Perhaps sounding a bit of a cautionary note, cigarette smoking was actually on the rise among college students who rolled their eyes at the gross old TV ads. One risk of cultural programming is that people may change the channel. But the plan to shift the culture was adopted, and it worked—sort of.

That's "sort of" because, while anti-gun messages were a big hit with some media platforms, they were immediately countered by vigorous counter-efforts through opposing channels by pro-gun groups. That was something that never happened during the battles over tobacco. American culture—and media, with it--was far more fragmented than it had been in the days of unchallenged anti-smoking ads.

So the anti-gun message found an audience among those who were already predisposed to listen. These were people whose politics were generally left of center, and who followed media outlets to match. The result was declining gun ownership among those who were already wary of the practice. Before the anti-gun campaign, researchers found that "44% of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say they own a gun, only 20% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the same," but now the number of left-leaning gun owners started to fall even further.

Pollsters who had found that many gun "owners associate the right to own guns with their own personal sense of freedom" were unsurprised to see them openly stockpiling weapons and ammunition in response to the cultural battle. It quickly became clear that the partisan arms gap was growing in a politically fragmented country. Conservatives and, especially, libertarians (who almost universally valued liberty over laws that threatened that liberty) owned weapons at far higher rates, and increasing, than their opponents

But the cultural onslaught, ably assisted by the stumbling GOP and its internal civil war, had enough impact at the margins to affect elections. Democrats seized the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress and promised major changes to come—including on guns.

Warned by experts that yet another "assault weapons" ban made no sense because "as a matter of functionality, these guns are just like other rifles. They're more powerful than some handguns and rifles, and less powerful than others," they decided to go a step further. Encouraged by Supreme Court turnover and the resulting opportunity to redefine the Second Amendment out of existence, Congress banned all semiautomatic firearms in private hands, with compensation promised in return.

Many lawmakers later admitted that they never realized that semiautomatics made up maybe half of the 310 million guns estimated by the Congressional Research Service to be in private hands as of 2009. Just as important, they'd never understood that, outside of a very few jurisdictions with some sort of registration on the books, the government really didn't know who owned what guns. Even in those jurisdictions, compliance had been spotty—15 percent compliance with assault weapon registration in Connecticut, and 5 percent in New York. Many owners had openly refused to abide by registration laws out of fear of precisely what had come to pass: compensated confiscation.

A few million guns were surrendered, and victory weakly proclaimed—to much cheering in some media circles, and jeering elsewhere in the fractured country. The largely unplanned-for cost of compensating the owners of those few million guns sparked a new round of jeers. The surrendered guns came overwhelmingly from the jurisdictions with registration, and from people sympathetic to the law.

Congress summoned its energy one more time and passed ammunition restrictions. From now on, you could only purchase ammunition for weapons registered in your name.

Gun sales surged again, now for bolt- and lever-action rifles chambered in rounds traditionally used in semiautomatic rifles, and revolvers that similarly accepted traditionally semiautomatic calibers. It escaped nobody's notice that ammunition purchased for a legal weapon could also be used in guns that never made it to the registration lists.

Enjoying similar surges in popularity were ammunition reloading supplies, purchased by people who wanted to stay entirely clear of registration lists. A new generation of 3D printers and CNC machines also saw booming sales as enthusiasts flocked to arsenal-in-a-box solutions that let them manufacture almost anything they wanted at home. The simplest CNC machines converted 50 percent lowers into finished firearm receivers—that was down from 80 percent, but likely to go no further after engineers scolded legislators that they were coming close to criminalizing blocks of metal.

Enforcement of the new laws proved to be exceedingly uneven, with many state and local law enforcement agencies—especially those serving gun-friendly constituencies—explicitly opting out. "It is well established that the federal government cannot force state officials to implement federal laws," legal experts reminded angry gun control advocates. That left the most enthusiastic enforcement in areas where support for the law and compliance was already strongest.

New restrictions on semiautomatic firearms had been driven by concerns over mass shootings, but it remained almost impossible to tell if the law had any effect on crime. The U.S. remained average to above-average in the frequency and impact of what had always been unusual crimes. "Though rampage shootings are rare in occurrence, the disproportionate amount of coverage they receive in the media leads the public to believe that they occur at a much more regular frequency than they do," scholars noted before the law changed. Such incidents remained rare—and frustratingly horrifying—after the new laws passed. Few actual experts had held out much hope anyway. As one gun skeptic commented after researching various proposed policies, "the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence... I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them."

What increased in frequency, though, were confrontations between law-enforcement officers seeking to enforce the new laws and citizens on the receiving end of raids. Like earlier drug-enforcement efforts, the new gun laws were implemented with violent, no-knock raids--especially in minority communities that had relatively little political clout with which to resist. Grisly headlines spoke of the death of innocent people killed when police hit the wrong address, and of officers killed when targets shot back. Juries in some areas showed a growing tendency to give defendants a pass when they'd broken the locally unpopular laws—and even when they fired on police. Local law enforcement became even more inclined to let the feds enforce their own laws—if they were up to the job.

With guns now a more explicitly partisan issue than ever, left-of-center media have taken to painting gun-friendly areas as practically in a state of insurrection. Opposing gun-friendly media return the favor by encouraging resistance to what are seen as police state tactics and by sharing tips on doing just that.

An especially troubling development is that political violence appears to be on the rise in a country where the seams are beyond frayed and where members of opposing political factions "despise each other, and to a degree that political scientists and pollsters say has gotten significantly worse over the last 50 years." A line appears to have been crossed in the minds of many Americans, and what were opponents are now enemies.

New elections loom, but nobody expects them to resolve much of anything.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is a hell of an article

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I'd go see that movie.

  • TLBD||

    This article is why it would never happen in America, at least not for another generation or two. The police get a lot of their legitimacy and support from the same people who own guns. Confiscation and no-knock raids are betrayal, and that would end really badly.

  • Curly4||

    Maybe in the next generation but not much more than that. That is unless the younger generation(s) learn to think on their own.
    But look at the nations that have gun bans. These nations fall in two types. The first type are the totalitarian who is afraid of a revolution. The second type is nations that have lulled its citizens that the government can protect them. Yet we have seen many times in not very distant history that the government cannot always protect its citizens. Just look to Europe where guns are strictly controlled there have been attacks by guns. Some of those guns have been of the machine gun or fully automatic and some that are not but are still band in Europe. But that is not the only that those who want to kill will use to accomplish their goal. Cars, trucks, propane tanks have all been used to kill.
    So that leads me to think that those who wants to ban guns here in the US are of the type that wants to prevent a revolution against them. But even that is against the constitution. So the best way to limit gun usage in killings is to enforce the law (all the laws) and not pass more laws until all laws that have been passed are enforced. What good is another law if the ones we have now are not being enforced. It would become just another law would not be enforced.

  • Agammamon||

    They already made it - Bunraku

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bunraku/

  • Flinch||

    Yes, it is a hell of an article. The shooting of JFK was a purge in my estimation - to move the party away from the middle, away from normal, and race towards some amalgam of Eurosocialism and whatever chairman Mao liked minus the gulags [for now]. The downward trends of our public schools pretty much begins there, and the race to the bottom was on. As for gun regs, I think we have enough composites knowledge today to produce a firearm without any metal at all, although shells may need to be replaced with a disposable cube of sorts that once distended/distorted from a round firing are disposed of as a single use consumable. Barrels will have short lives too, maybe limited to 100 rounds, but it can be done. So if congress gets more stupid [refusing to lift the felon like punishment of teachers for getting their degrees] to put metal detectors in all schools that's next. And it will be a disaster: non metallic projectiles still not only do great damage, but the survivability goes down. I don't know if an ER has time for an MRI with contrast to map blood pooling/loss points as a method for finding the pieces of anything radio opaque. The needle needed for an IV could heat to a point that does permanent vascular damage if not tear the wall out of whatever vessel it's in.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Interesting idea! Whenever I thought of "What if they won and could ban guns by waving Harry Potter's wand?", society reverted to might makes right, because of course the only way you really could ban all guns would be to include police and the military; otherwise, we know what corruption does. Thus you'd end up with "God made man; Sam Colt made them equal; hoplophobes reverted that cultural advancement."

    I've tried pointing this out to hoplophobes, and they simply refuse to admit that fists would rule the world. Actually, they first amend their fantasy to include banning knives, swords, arrows, etc, and you can sort of get them to admit that's nt very practical, but nevertheless, that's where they go. They just refuse to admit that any good ever came out of guns.

    Same way they refuse to recognize defensive gun uses have any relevance. A niece recently blindly reposted some facebook rant about gun deaths. I commented on 2/3 bing suicide, with Japan and Australia for reference; the war on (some) drugs causing most of the rest, and all being far outweighed by 2M DGU. That will go nowhere but I'm not going to let these blidnly naive factoids go unchallenged.

  • Griffin3||

    You misread, I will presume unintentionally. Corruption in the armed police and military forces will lead to some amount of guns winding up in civilian hands, mostly criminals paying for the service. Today, with guns legally available, cases of Beretta M9s and other weapons go missing from our armed services; do you think this will suddenly stop when corrupt officers are the only source of firearms?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Speaking as a mechanical engineer with machine shop experience, it's worth remembering that corrupt officers won't be the only source of firearms; As the essay points out, they can be manufactured at home, if necessary from raw stock. Using tools that are very widely owned.

    To the extent you need specialized tools, such as for boring and rifling barrels, those too can be built at home, and are built at home. See, for instance.

    In fact, the very best firearms actually are manufactured as one offs in home shops.

    Currently, while ammo is reloaded at home, the actual brass is seldom DIY. However, there's no reason it couldn't be.

  • LarryA||

    Machine shop? There are several back corners of the world where black-market copies of modern firearms are made with hand tools. Like Pakistan:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE

    Had a conversation with a middle-age woman recently who thought she "grew up before semiautomatic weapons." I told her about the first production semiauto rifle, the Mannlicher Model of 1885, and complemented her on her youthful appearance. (Probably shouldn't have done the latter.)

    Gun control aficionados just don't know that they are trying to ban 19th-century technology. AFAIK the only widely-used type of arm invented since 1900 is the compound bow.

  • Bavak||

    You must visit here. https://www.americanprecision.org/
    Much of early engineering was devoted to guns. Especially precision.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    True. Micrometers were developed by the firearms industry in the 1860s.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Michael, how are you going to defend yourself against bullies without the right to bear arms?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too stupid to say which rights are in conflict and how they specifically conflict.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? Again the argument from Hihntimidation, seasoned with ad hominem, but no explanation of what rights are, or by what standard they are important, much less how they conflict. Tara Smith knows how to define rights, but is not rattled or alarmed enough to become embroiled in gun rights imbroglios. She instead focuses on things like the initiation of force--something all mass shooters and both Kleptocracy parties advocate and practice.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the whiny pussy can't answer which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict. That's how you know Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't shit about what he's trying to prove.

  • Flinch||

    I'd say this: the law begins and ends with congress. The determinations of any court are rightly called Opinions for a reason - they have no power to repeal. When SCOTUS puts a law on the "ash heap", all that is happening is the executive branch is informed that attempts at future enforcement in court will be met with sanctions, as the US attorney was willfully incompetent in bringing charges, opening up malicious prosecution and possible civil rights violations in the most egregious cases. That law stays on the books until it is repealed, when and if congress gets back from their 3 martini lunch. Publications may be annotated until such time as congress actually does their job.

  • Flinch||

    More interstingly, most people would be alarmed at how bad inventory controls can be at say... national guard armories. Receivers are well tracked, but alot of bits float around like candy and milling a receiver isn't that hard to do, once you have the map math for it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Interesting question. The problem with answering being that, of course, and 'mass shooting' incidents comitted by the Authorities will have been called something else. Was Ruby Ridge a 'mass shooting'?

    All of which ducks MY core issue; until a Constitutional Amendment is passed granting the government the authority to restrict gun ownership among adult citizens, all gun control laws are Unconstitutional. And I am far more worried about a State that feels no need to obey its own laws than I am of any rationally possible number of mass-shooters.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about the Scalia ruling again.

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Chip Woodier||

    Fully functioning war ships were expected to be available to the general public when the Constitution was written, or else Congress wouldn't have been able to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to combat the nation's enemies at sea. If they didn't think that citizens shouldn't have war ships, why would you think that they didn't want citizens to have other weapons of war?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano expects you won't read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling he cites:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies and lies and lies...

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You wouldn't happen to be related to Ernest McGill, would you? You really remind me of him.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I would argue that the TYPE of weapon would necessarily be "such as might be used by combat troops", if we were going to use the 'for the militia' argument.

    But I would personally argue that 'shall not be infringed' is the stronger language. No taxes, no regestries, no limitations of where you csn arry or how. Maybe not a good idea, but clearly what the language says.

    I would say, you can't take away somebody'd right to bear arms unless you also take away his citizenship. If you can legally go that far, he has no civil rights save waht society may grant him as a courtesy.

    Want to stop mass shootings? Execute those that perpetrate them, messily and publicly. It's called 'deterant', and no study of the death panalty has examined it adequately because no study has been done under circumstances where the criminal had reason to believe he would not die of old age before they got around,to executing him.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know what unalienable means.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still can't answer the most obvious question, which is which rights are in conflict and how they conflict.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Don't fuck with me, because you cannot cope with this very simple question I'll TRY to dumb it down.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still can't answer the most obvious question, which is which rights he thinks are in conflict and how they conflict. Because he's too fucking dumb to figure out how to answer it other than his usual chimpouts.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines about the judiciary because he's too stupid to specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict. Stupid shit has more hot air than the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta.

  • ace_m82||

    What are "unalienable rights' according Hihn?

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....the-rand-p

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    So Hihn doesn't believe in any unalienable rights, only the "right" to pick a government.

    (He does a very good job of showing why "consent of the governed" theorists can't believe in unalienable rights.)

    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano melting down because he's a mewling pussy who can't read his own links and can't specify which rights are in conflict and why they are in conflict. Cancer-addled dope! (chortle)

  • ace_m82||

    Does THIS look familiar?

    Yep, and it's wrong (as all "democratic" history shows).

    The powers of a "just" government are ..... whatever THE PEOPLE delegate (consent to)

    By plurality. I'm sure those Jews in Germany in the early 1940s were heartened by the thought that their "rights" weren't being violated!

    Look closely at Ace's rant. He says we CANNOT "consent " to the government of OUR choice BECAUSE HE HAS A VETO OVER EVERYONE.

    You cannot take my rights by majority (or plurality) vote. Your argument would have to be that the 1933 election in Germany meant that Hitler violated no rights!

    A Just/Moral government is whatever we freely consent to.

    1933 Germany

    It may not be an ideal government. But it is JUST and MORAL

    1933 Germany

    The ideal society TAKES TIME … Why? … THE PEOPLE MUST CONSENT.

    1933 Germany

    IT EXPLODES HIS BRAIN that we have the right to tax ourselves.

    You cannot "tax" yourself voluntarily. A tax is involuntary, definitionally.

    YES, if he objects, he fucking leave. Just like a club membership.

    1933 Germany

    His and his goobers have NO CLUE how to GET TO a free society.

    You think 1933 Germany was a "free society"!

    Any Rand knew!

    She was wrong.

    Fuck off. slaver

    Those Jews (and others helping them) fighting 1933 Germany were "slavers".

    But, regardless of your moral ineptitude:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too much of a dumbfuck to understand what he's typing.

  • ace_m82||

    CRAZY ANARCHIST SAYS "THE PEOPLE" MEANS .... A PLURALITY

    The supporters of the war that brought the Declaration were a plurality. The supporters of the Constitution were a plurality. The voters in almost all American elections are a plurality (the majority don't vote).

    You can't really argue that your POV is that the elections in 1933 Germany must have been the "will of the people", and as that cannot violate rights, then the Nazis must not have violated rights.

    Heck, that must mean that any popularly elected President must be unable to violate "rights".

    Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

  • ace_m82||

    BTW, this is the same nonsense he posted below, so I'll just copy/paste my response:

    How crazy is a Rothbardian anarchist?

    "Crazy" enough to know that Majority rule =/= protection of rights.

    MOAR crazy bullshit on majority/plurality.

    How?

    There cannot be majority consent …. unless even the newborn can vote! … or if even ONE registered voter is too sick to vote."

    No, there cannot consent of "the people" if someone doesn't vote (and the resolution doesn't get 100% approval). See, majority rule =/= protection of rights. This is obvious; see all of relevant history.

    "We cannot allow people to form governments", he SCREECHES

    Bald-faced lie.

    "Because humans are fallible," he SNEERS

    Bald-faced lie.

    You missed my main contention (on purpose, I'm sure), that your concept that elections get you "the consent of the governed" and (ergo) democracies cannot violate the rights of the people necessitates that the 1933 election in Germany gave the Nazis carte blanche to do anything and it mustn't have violated rights.

    So, the Nazis didn't violate rights, cause they were elected. Correct or incorrect?

    If the Nazis violated rights, then elections ("the will of the people") don't determine if rights are violated, and your entire concept of government is plainly wrong.

    But, regardless of your bitter clinging to your disproven concepts of just governance:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • ace_m82||

    Click his link IT GOES NOWHERE!

    You lie. No surprise there.

    And his first example has NOTHING to do with unalienable rights!!!

    A government that can do whatever it wants is a government that ignores rights.

    This CONFUSES him.

    No, it just shows you don't care about rights.

    HE SAYS WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH!

    Cause you can't. Majority rule =/= protection of rights.

    If anyone has problems with the links, here they are again:

    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....e-will-die
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/06.....the-rand-p

    Believe him? OR JEFFERSON, OUR FOUNDERS AND ...AYN RAND?

    All wrong. No one is terribly surprised.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his prissy-bitch meltdowns of baby gibberish.

  • ace_m82||

    Clicking a link to the top of a PAGE ,.. and then having to search 172 comments for whatever the hell he's babbling about now is ...going nowhere

    Ctrl-f is your friend (it is a direct quote, after all)...

    How crazy is a Rothbardian anarchist?

    "Crazy" enough to know that Majority rule =/= protection of rights.

    MOAR crazy bullshit on majority/plurality.

    How?

    There cannot be majority consent …. unless even the newborn can vote! … or if even ONE registered voter is too sick to vote."

    No, there cannot consent of "the people" if someone doesn't vote (and the resolution doesn't get 100% approval). See, majority rule =/= protection of rights. This is obvious; see all of relevant history.

    "We cannot allow people to form governments", he SCREECHES

    Bald-faced lie.

    "Because humans are fallible," he SNEERS

    Bald-faced lie.

    You missed my main contention (on purpose, I'm sure), that your concept that elections get you "the consent of the governed" and (ergo) democracies cannot violate the rights of the people necessitates that the 1933 election in Germany gave the Nazis carte blanche to do anything and it mustn't have violated rights.

    So, the Nazis didn't violate rights, cause they were elected. Correct or incorrect?

    If the Nazis violated rights, then elections ("the will of the people") don't determine if rights are violated, and your entire concept of government is plainly wrong.

  • Chasman1965||

    All of what we currently consider to be "hunting rifles" are descended from military rifle. The common bolt-action deer rifle is a direct descendant of the most used military rifle of the first half of the 20th century--the Mauser.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Disagree? With Antonin Scalia, the most renowned originalist of the past half-century?

    You certainly do, since you hate what he said on page 2 so much, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Rat on a train||

    That isn't what Scalia said. He explicitly stated the 2A is not restricted to 18th Century weapons.

  • Rat on a train||

    Scalia explicitly stated in Heller:

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
  • Rat on a train||

    the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


    The 2A protects weapons useful for military use regardless of when they were developed, including semi-automatic versions of assault rifles.

  • Rat on a train||

    No, Scalia's quote from Heller is clear to those who can read. Heller corrected bad precedent.

    We had an "assault weapon" ban in 1994, which was in effect for 10 years


    We had segregation for much longer.

  • markm23||

    No, segregation by law was unconstitutional beginning July 9, 1868. The problem is that the federal government largely stopped enforcing the 14th Amendment in 1877, and only began to take it and the 15th Amendment seriously again in 1954. By then there were about 80 years of laws _requiring_ racial segregation, even by businesses such as railroads that really, really did not want to run extra cars so they could split up their passengers by race - and often turn them away because one section filled up... This was approved by the Supreme Court under the theory of "separate but equal", and they refused to look at whether the segregated facilities were ever equal. Worse, they utterly gutted the Privileges and Immunities clause, which was intended to be the vehicle for requiring states to respect the bill of rights regardless of race, as soon as they realized that it meant "Negroes" had the right to keep and bear arms. ("Privileges and Immunities" is among other things a reference to a section of the Dredd Scott decision that listed a number of rights - which even states were obliged to respect - and concluded that granting them to free blacks was absurd. The 14th Amendment as written clearly said that blacks _would_ have those rights the same as white men. But too many judges would rather ignore the plain language than allow blacks to have guns.)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too fucking stupid to read past page 1 of the Scalia opinion. He also doesn't specify what an "assault-style weapon" is, which is another sign he's a Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano expects you won't read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling he cites:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies.

  • operagost||

    Ho Chi Hihn, the military rifles in the 18th century were also flintlocks.

    Duh.

    You fail.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows jack shit about what Scalia wrote, which is why I own his dumb ass like Kunta Kinte every time.

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    (smirk)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Someone will eventually ask Hihn the Non-Absolute for the definition of a "right." He holds himself forth as an expert on the subject solely, it appears, to set up what he imagines must be a logical dilemma. This waddles and quacks like an argument from intimidation so long as nobody else knows what he means by a right.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Your brain seems to EXPLODE at the concept of a conflict between two ABSOLUTE rights.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's simple brain can't spell out which rights are in conflict and how they specifically conflict.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano tries to deflect to MUH JUDICIARY because he can't specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict in a thread about firearms. Because he's a stupid dumbfuck pussy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blabs his stupid baby gibberish, but whines about MUH JUDICIARY because he can't specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict in a discussion about firearms.

    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE
    LEARN HOW TO ARGUE

    Your name is Toby!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Schofield makes a perfectly cogent point. It therefore follows, as the night follows day, that it must draw the boiling wrath of Hintimidation, The Non-Absolute. The hissing will sizzle about flintlocks at a time when mulatto girls and boys were chattel property by law, ignore the 13th and 14th Amendments and blink away the fact that the Second Amendment is neither changing nor going away. Still his conclusion with arms windmilling will be that militias/Americans are somehow restricted to weapons used against antlered herbivores. All small parties attract these personalities, but we manage to use spoiler votes to change jurisprudence just the same, so no worries.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's simple brain can't spell out which rights are in conflict and how they specifically conflict.

    As for his repeated citation of Scalia (which he hasn't read past page 1):

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Ride 'Em||

    How about Wounded Knee?

  • Agammamon||

    Well, there was Waco. More than once.

  • epsilon given||

    I honestly don't know. In Mexico, between turning a blind eye to the violence, and in some cases, either through defection or through bribery, surely the mass shootings -- and in some cases, mass murder by other means (I would imagine it would be unpleasant to be beheaded, for example) is actually pretty high. I just don't know the numbers.

    In Cuba, it's in the thousands.

    In the former Nazi Germany, it's in the millions.

    In the former Soviet Union, and in China currently, and in other Communist countries, it's in the hundreds of millions.

    Granted, I've conflated gassing and slave labor in unsanitary conditions with shooting deaths, but hey, your side conflates suicide with homicide, so I figure, why not?

    But seriously, I see no reason why we shouldn't observe that "corrupt" police officers have a significant amount of blood on their hands.

  • Rat on a train||

    So the right to bear arms ends when you misuse them? I don't have a problem with that. Your right to life is not infringed by responsible gun ownership. What you are asking for is preemptive. No one can say anything in a theater because someone may yell fire.

  • Jerryskids||

    Forget about it rat, it's hinnytown.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    So, we can assume that you're supportive of the Patriot Act and the invasion of privacy that it entails? The collection of all of our data without a warrant?

    Some Libertarian you are.......

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "How is that even remotely related to what I said? Not even the same right."

    It's the same trade-off, dumbass.

    You want to deny the right to own guns in deference to the right to safety (you're calling it the right to life).

    The Patriot Act and all of its results end up denying the right to privacy (to be secure...against unreasonable searches) in deference to the right to safety (to not get killed by a terrorist).

    If you're wanting to be intellectually consistent (ha ha, right?) then you have to think the Patriot Act is the most swell thing going. Or is it different when it's your personal ox that's being gored?

    If it just comes down to your ox vs. somebody else's, then you're just another internet hypocrite.

  • TLBD||

    When two fundamental rights are in conflict., neither can trump the other. The ONLY resolution is a boundary that best defends BOTH rights.

    Of course every libertarian agrees with that, Hihn. The right to swing your fist ends at my nose. The right to fire your gun depends on my location.

    You want to ban the word fire, or severely limit in its use in all of society in case someone might say it in a theatre.

    You should really be ashamed of yourself for your stance on this.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know which rights he's saying are in conflict, nor how they are in conflict.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano tries to deflect to MUH JUDICIARY because he can't specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict in a thread about firearms. Because he's a stupid dumbfuck pussy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You should really be ashamed of yourself for your stance on this.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't even keep his arguments straight or be bothered to read past page 1 of a Supreme court ruling he repeatedly links to, why would he feel shame?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    The more desperate you get, the more you use caps and boldface.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Um.... maybe a general definition of a right? A definition that holds for all rights everywhere? We have since circa 1908 a definition of government. The only clear message so far is that Hihntimidation has never even audited a single class in logic or ethics or troubled overmuch with the meanings of very important nouns.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano tries to deflect to MUH JUDICIARY because he can't specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict in a thread about firearms. Because he's a stupid dumbfuck pussy.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    This isn't a binary proposition. There is no one to one correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings.

    There are all sorts of other possible solutions to mass shootings, and as far as I can see, we aren't interested in trying any of them, which suggests that the goal is to eliminate guns and mass shootings are just a convenient tool.

    How many mass shootings have there been at charter schools? How about small rural schools? How about looking at correlations between drugged kids who've suddenly gone off their meds - this one isn't one I endorse, I've just seen it here often. It could be true, but we'll never find out until we stop pursuing the goal of eliminating guns and start trying to solve the problem of mass shootings.

  • Flinch||

    Rat: the right to keep and bear arms [by the people] is merely an embedded feature for governors to call out the Militia. It was meant for large scale protections [managed by government] and not as a right to self defense on an individual basis outside of the militia. Given all the comments regarding the Florida massacre this week, I would suggest we need another amendment, to define and secure the right of self defense in those times where the Militia has not been called out or condition of martial law exists. It's time to strike the other side of the coin, to fulfill the currency of freedom and end the assumptions.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Oh, look, someone misquoting the famous "fire in a crowded theater" line. Learning opportunity.

    And in fact the line from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." That "falsely" is what's doing the work, both in Justice Holmes's hypothetical, and in how such a false shout would be treated by First Amendment law today.

    Falsely. There is no right to falsely shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.

  • Jordan||

    And it's still wrong. Schenk - a decision which said that the government could imprison antiwar protesters - has long since been overruled.

  • Jordan||

    Brandenburg v Ohio and Hess v. Indiana.

  • Ron||

    Falsely is implied, since a real fire would be ... a real fire,"

    So i'm to assume that whenever some yells fire i'm to assume its false and ignore it. then die when its not false

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Eat your cat poop Hihny. Nobody cares what you think.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn is really back lately. Then some of the sock puppets handles slow down on their lefty rhetoric. It must be pure coincidence.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his meltdowns.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    83% of us enjoy the fact that you're cat shit crazy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He's not a Libertarian but he gets Reason more website traffic, therefore more advertising dollars.

    I think its a Reason intern though. Too much effort to be an actual troll.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his copypastas.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Hihntimidator does realize that Republicans are a concatenation of Prohibition Party and National Socialism, and that the Dems are flailing and grasping at all looter ideologies that demand a huge bureaucracy and heavily armed tax collectors. Just mebbe some blind spots where definitions would be useful, and maybe some anger issues. I'm hoping he at least votes for LP candidates and would gladly buy him a beer if so.

  • Jordan||

    I recently learned that the UK has had ONE mass shooting since 1996, after adopting strict controls. Multiply that by 5, to adjust for population. We've had more mass shootings in 6 weeks (8) than England had in 22 years (5).

    Did you also learn these facts?

    1). Prior to 1996, the rate of mass shootings in the UK was already vastly lower than in the U.S.
    2). Prior to 1996, the rate of mass shootings in the UK was already declining.

    Is gun ownership greater than the right to Life itself?

    No. Fortunately, gun ownership doesn't conflict with the right to life. I have guns in my closet right now, and I've never killed anyone.

    All MY way

    So you live in an alternate reality where the U.S. has no gun control laws.

  • KevinP||

    Fake libertarian Hihn reveals his true colors.

    Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans


    Quotes: (but read the whole article and see the charts)
    Original post: Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it's Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

    ... Take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997. After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002. The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano! (sneer)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Remember it's not the people who vote that count, but the people who count the votes. Government pseudoscientists vigorously adjusted thermometer readings to show global warming, and millions of idiots believe the tampered data. Why would their ilk hesitate to rectify gun violence statistics to fit the going theory or settled pseudoscience?

  • KevinP||

    Fake libertarian Hihn reveals his true colors.

    Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans


    Quotes: (but read the whole article and see the charts)
    Original post: Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it's Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

    ... Take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997. After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002. The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano! (sneer)

  • TxJack 112||

    This is total BS 68% of all gun deaths annually are suicides and 27% are crime related. A very small percentage are random less than 1%. The homocide rate has been dropping for years according to FBI data. Also the rate of gun deaths is much less in cities where concealed carry is legal. Houston and Chicago are similar in population but Houston has less than half the number of murders than Chicago. For every 100,000 people in Houston, there are 5.3 law enforcement personnel. In Chicago, the number is 12.6 per 100,000. So even with more police personnel, Chicago has more murders. Only real difference is Houston has 30,000 people with a LTC.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • ||

    Maybe some perspective will help you understand why I am happy to sneer at 17,000 murders per year.

    2,035,000 murders in 4 years. Cambodia, 1979

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

    Could that have happened in a country with an armed populace? No fucking way!

    You are scared of the infinitessimally small chance a child could be targeted by a mass shooter, while the rest of us with a shred of intelligence are scared of the very likely chance we could all be targeted by an agent of the government.

    220,000,000 killed in the last century by people looking out for the 'common good'.

    Fuck off, assassin! Go back to masturbating to video of that North Korean cunt.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You need to wash away the filth from your exploding Depends, Hihnny-poo.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What Hihnny-poo doesn't want you to look up is that the murder rate hasn't been above 6% since 1998, and it's currently at 5.3% after being below 5% from 2010-2015.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Posted in DEFENSE of 55 aggressions on this page (so far) by a psycho stalker

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like his bullshit being exposed as bullshit.

    (Pity the handicapped)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano deserves no pity.

    Your name is Toby!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano expects you won't read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling he cites:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    A shameful Dumbfuck Hihnsano1 (chortle, sneer, lol)

  • TxJack 112||

    The UK is also 1/10th the population of the US and has had 100x as many terrorists incidents in the past 50 years. How about BOMBS as a weapon in the UK? Evil people will find ways to kill and are you going to argue bombs in the UK have killed fewer people af one time than guns in the US? I would argue compare the two as mass killings, period and the UK is far dangerous hands down.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Flinch||

    Crime is like investing Jack: we have to look at the percentages. Usually those stats are measured per 100k population. But you left out the de-facto secession of a sector of Londonistan. How many can be honestly considered UK citizens? There is a very large chunk that will NOT under any circumstances adopt English law, and have unfortunately lobbied successfully for their own sharia courts, and bobbies have abandoned their streets as a regular presence. To that end, what are their stats? They are not included with regular UK folks, I would believe as the home office plays it's hear no evil/see no evil peekaboo game with the truth. Aside from that, what percentage lurking in the UK are actually Romanians? The open border problems of the EU make stats a very slippery thing I think.

  • FlameCCT||

    I find it interesting that ignore all the homicides by weapons other than firearms. The UK has been looking at banning bladed weapons because of the increase in usage after firearms were banned. Both the UK & Australia saw a dramatic rise in violent crime and homicide by other weapons when they instituted their bans yet the USA continued to decrease both violent crime and homicides including firearm homicides. Truly sad!

  • KevinP||

    Correct. Why does Hihn and other gun ban advocates support increasing the rate of rape and other violent crime in America?

    NCPA: Australia: More violent crime despite gun ban


    --Begin Quote:
    Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    * Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    * During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    * Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
    * Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    * At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    * Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
    --End quote
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm not a gun ban advocate.

    "Just ignore that I spent the previous three days advocating for gun bans!!"

  • KevinP||

    With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

    UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)


    Quote:
    It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe... By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
  • Brett Bellmore||

    The party in power doesn't usually brag about how bad a job it's doing.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    WHOOOOOSH

    "What is, The sound of air going through Dumbfuck Hihnsano's skull?"

  • Flinch||

    It's the sound of somebody snapping a bongload? Just a guess...

  • makattak||

    This is called "cherry picking" Michael.

    What was the rate in the UK prior to the ban versus the US? What is the rate in other countries that have enacted similar bans. What was the rate change after the ban?

    So, the UK hasn't had many mass shootings. Is that a change?

    (Let me give you a hint. I already know the answer to these questions, and they don't bode well for your argument.)

  • KevinP||

    Hihn seems be taking a lot of time to respond to your questions, so let me try! Let me try!

    At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 - an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

    UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You've already lost by NOT knowing the UK had TWO bans.

    I'm not a gun ban advocate.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't keep his arguments straight.

  • Ron||

    "Is gun ownership greater than the right to Life itself?"

    gun ownership guarantees the right to life.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Which two rights are in conflict? How are they in conflict?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano deflects to abortion in a discussion about guns.

  • Flinch||

    Maybe not RRWP, but it is a stretch. If the open borders crowd is to be consistent in it's search to delete citizenship, then the time honored birth certificate must also be on their hit list of lamps to extinguish to make the world go dark and unleash more insanity than we will can hope to catalogue. That dovetails everything, as rights are generally a function of citizenship [we of course extend a slightly smaller consideration to foreigners in our borders, and they don't get to enjoy everything]. And... citizenship is determined at birth. To this hour, embassies around the world are processing paperwork titled Consular Report of Birth Abroad [CRBA] which declares a baby citizen at birth - not conception, and neither is it naturalized as there is no point in its post birth life a status change occurs. So whatever anybody thinks about abortion, there isn't a level playing field the moment we focus on rights. Guns are just one component of the same picture the moment the discussion is about rights. Anyone get a glock as part of a baby shower... speak up.

  • epsilon given||

    So you're saying that right to liberty is greater than the right to life? That, in particular, my right to liberty exceeds the mother's right to life?

    Cool, that means I can kill any mother I can, even if she still has the right to life at conception!

  • epsilon given||

    Your position makes no sense whatsoever.

    You are in favor of destroying life, in favor of liberty, when the life is in the womb of a mother, and the liberty is the mother's itself.

    Yet you are in favor of destroying liberty, in favor of life, when the liberty is to own a model of gun that is already owned by 15 million people, and on average, five of those guns a year are used to murder innocents. And this, of course, is putting aside the fact that some of those millions of guns is used to prevent murder, and putting aside the fact that those millions of rifles in the hands of citizens will give any government pause before deciding to kill millions of innocent civilians, as governments this past century have demonstrated they are willing to do.

    Seriously, if we're going to ban tools that kill innocent people, why haven't we yet banned government? Governments have killed far more citizens than private arms in the hands of citizens *ever* will. (That's an exaggeration, of course. At the rate American civilians are going, we'll catch up to Russia, Germany and China in, oh, about 4,200 years!)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Why is this rocket science to Dumbfuck Hihnsano? Because he's a dumbfuck!

  • epsilon given||

    "WHY IS THIS ROCKET SCIENCE TO THESE BRAINWASHED GOOBERS?"

    Because you provide no analysis as to why the mere act of owning a weapon puts the lives of so many people at risk, that it justifies taking them away from all people. Indeed, you have ignored:

    (1) That the United States non-gun homicide rate is greater than the entire rates of other countries;

    (2) That other governments have inflicted far more death on civilians than the civilian gun death rate will ever be able to match;

    (3) That the UK's gun bans did nothing to change their murder rate;

    and (4) That you insist on using a "mass shooting" definition that has been debunked -- for otherwise, how do we get "8 mass shootings in 6 weeks", and have only one of them plastered on the news?

    There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens (although it's likely double that -- the 300,000,000 estimate is old); if we assume that each and every one of the 30,000 who have met their demise via gunshot were killed by exactly one gun (a dubious proposition, but nonetheless convenient), then approximately 0.01% (Yes, one hundredth of one percent) of guns have been used to kill someone.

    C'mon, use your rocket science background, and make the conclusion that should be staring you in the face: guns aren't the problem that you make them out to be!

  • epsilon given||

    I'm sorry, Michael Hihn, but the NRA has a far better track record of telling the truth than pretty much any gun banner. Everytown, Joyce Foundation, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center -- all notorious for manipulating statistics to tease out conclusions supporting their cause. And let's not forget Bellesiles "history" research! It is you who is the TRUE BELEEBER.

    As to the other points: why are you so insistent that gun rights aren't an absolute, if your end game isn't to ban guns? Sure, gun rights aren't absolute, but the standard should be to expand them as much as possible, as is the standard for the First Amendment -- and gun rights advocates are pushing back, because the infringements of this right have been enormous over the decade, and still are pretty bad.

    (to be continued...)

  • epsilon given||

    (...continued)

    Why is the non-gun American murder rate relevant to this debate? Oh, I don't know -- perhaps it demonstrates that the problems America has are not with weapons, but with *violence*. Indeed, if we were to magically get rid of all our guns this instance, there's no reason to believe that our total murder rate will disappear. Instead, the logical assumption would be that our non-gun murder rate will merely rise to match the current murder rate.

    And the murder rates of governments is relevant, because calling for gun control gives power to the very entities that have done far more harm to the human race, than civilians owning private guns ever did. In other words, we don't have to look hard to find examples that demonstrate that we need guns for self defense against governments, more than any other reason.

    So, you want a link that describes how the UK's gun bans did nothing to change their murder rate? Here you go. Of course, if Britain's gun ban really *did* reduce the murder rate (not just gun death rate, by the way, because you're just as dead having your head smashed in with a hammer, as you are if your brains are shot out), you would have provided a link demonstrating otherwise.
    (to be continued...)

  • epsilon given||

    (...continued)
    Finally, the percentage of guns used in gun deaths is important, because we're assured that (1) guns enable normal people to commit horrible crimes that otherwise wouldn't be committed, and (2) if we reduce access to guns, all our crime will magically go away. The fact that a very tiny percentage of guns are even used in gun crime (and, for various reasons, the percentage of 0.01% is false -- it's actually likely considerably smaller than that!) means that all these efforts to take guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, or to keep future guns out of the law-abiding, is merely targeting people who have done nothing at all with their weapons -- and it tells us that no matter what cosmetic features we ban from weapons, it's not going to do one whit to the murder rate at all.

    The fact that you think all of this is "rocket science" tells me that you need to go back and take a few physics courses, and maybe a statistics course or two wouldn't hurt as well, while you're at it.

  • epsilon given||

    My dear Michael Hihn, you keep on using this "8 in 6 weeks" figure, yet I cannot see a single link to back up your sources. Why do I have the funny feeling that you're referencing well-documented Everytown lies? Seriously, how do you get "69.3 mass shootings per year" for the United States? You're not going to get that using the FBI's definition of "shooting in which 4 or more people die, not counting the shooter(s)".

    I'd like to see the link to the source of your data. You asked for (and dismissed mine); I want to see how much credibility you have.

    I strongly suspect that you are clearly far more manipulated than I am.
    (to be continued...)

  • epsilon given||

    (...continued)
    Just to be sure, though, I have just checked the list of massacres in Great Britain. BEFORE the Dunblane attack, Great Britain had only ONE mass shooting event, not counting anything on or before 1842 (when the military fired into a crowd to stop a riot). But boy, did they have a lot of car bombings! (Most of those occurred in the 1970s.) Of course, this IS Wikipedia, so it might not be accurate, but still....

    So I'm not all that convinced that Great Britain banning guns has had all that much to do in preventing massacres in general -- who cares if they stopped rifle shootings, if people are dying in suicide bombings and vehicle/knife attacks? Heck, what does a rifle ban have to do with mass shootings anyway, considering that only 1/3 of the mass shootings that have happened in the United States (the real ones, not the "some punks shot at a school during the weekend, when no one was there" types that Everytown likes to count as "school shootings") have used a rifle; the rest were handguns.

    Seriously, take a stats class. You can learn for yourself how to check the data, and see the wool that's been pulled over your eyes!

  • ||

    "No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater."

    I won't listen to anybody who uses this phrase, because it shows me they are ignorant on the subject matter of constitutional rights and regulations of those rights. This is a completely discredited phrase. Stop using it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know where the phrase originated without Googling it.

  • the original jack||

    Notice that Hihn doesn't ever actual qualify ~which~ "two rights" are in conflict. And specifically ~how~ they are in "conflict."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    That's because Dumbfuck Hihnsano is a dumbfuck.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when his narrative is destroyed. That's why he can't explain which two rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict, and devolves to his typical bitch-fit.

    That cancer ate your brain, Dumbfuck Hihnsano!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is incapable of answering these simple questions in a discussion about guns: which rights are in conflict, and how are they in conflict?

    If you understood anything about, well, anything at all, you wouldn't be a Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieking like a bitch.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass as Dumbfuck Hihsano shrieks for a gun ban:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    ***GOOBERS *** ARE***WHINING ***** PISSING *** AND ***MOANING *** OVER **** A*** DICTIONARY***DEFINITION!!!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates definitions when they don't suit him.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Are you admitting you don't know shit about anything?

  • epsilon given||

    An unalienable right is a right you have, that cannot be transferred to another person. I can't give my right to life to someone else, because it's mine, and it's mine alone.

    A right is alienable if you can give it away. If I were to write something, I have a right to be the exclusive publisher of that work. I can give that right to a publisher, who is then free to do whatever they please with my work, while I am left with nothing: in this case, I have alienated my right to do things.

    Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to say that two unalienable rights automatically clash with each other. I have the right to life, and thus have the right to defend said life. I have the right to property, and thus have the right to own tools to defend said life. I do *not* have the right to threaten the life of someone else with that tool -- unless, of course, that person is actively trying to violate my life, without me doing anything to provoke the altercation -- in which case, I can use whatever force is necessary to neutralize the attack. Sometimes, the person dies in that act, but hey, if you try to violate my right to life unprovoked -- that is, if you have decided that someone is going to die or get grievously hurt at this very moment -- it is you who have forfeited your life.

    In all of this, there is no conflict between the right to own a gun, and the right to life. None whatsoever.

  • epsilon given||

    Let me look this up in the dictionary:

    al·ien·a·ble
    ˈālēənəbəl/
    adjectiveLAW
    able to be transferred to new ownership.

    An unalienable right is a right that is intrinsic to you -- you can't transfer it to someone else, and no one can transfer theirs to you. You can forfeit a right by doing something horrible, but the government is supposed to only do so after due process.

    "How can YOUR right to life be taken from you and given to someone else ... unless YOU deny that EVERYONE already has a right to life?"

    This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I no one can give my life to anyone else. That's what makes it inalienable. The most that can be done is to have it taken, permanently and forever. And there are only a handful of conditions where this is morally acceptable:

    (1) Someone is trying to kill me unprovoked, so I do what it takes to stop that person. Sometimes that action results in the death of that person.
    (to be continued...)

  • epsilon given||

    (...continued)

    (2) I have done something horribly, horribly wrong (usually, I have killed someone), and through due process, the government has decided my life is now forfeit.
    (3) My country has become entangled in a war, and I need to help stop the other country from perpetuating that war. Granted, that may mean I have to kill innocent people in this case (because many of these people, through no fault of their own -- their governments are forcing them to do this, after all) -- but these people are pointing guns at innocents, and perhaps even me, and will kill if I don't do something about it. This is war, though, and war is weird.

    Life is inalienable, and we have created a huge system of rules to prevent it from being taken altogether, except in very limited circumstances. Owning a gun, any gun, does not automatically cause the rights of others to life to disappear.

  • ace_m82||

    We all know you don't think "rights" are absolute, except the "right" to vote in your dictators.

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    So, Hihn, the winners of the 1933 German elections mustn't have violated rights, right?

    Right?

  • ace_m82||

    SNEERS to defend his "right" ... and his alone ... to to overrule 320 million Americans (ANY single individual can block 320 million)

    Yes, my "rights" (my right to do anything other than initiate force) is not up for vote. That's what "rights" mean. Governments don't give them.

    Why do you keep arguing? I am just quoting you. If you don't like what you said, then retract it.

    Throughout human history, the worst moral barbarities have been committed by those claiming to be acting in the name of some god, or defending some "greater good"

    Like "the will of the people"?

    1933 Germany, 1932 US (National Recovery Act and stealing of gold). 1940-44 Internment of Japanese in the US.

    You must defend these things as they were "the will of the people". What "moral barbarity"!

    And you accuse me of evil because I refuse to initiate force!

  • epsilon given||

    Michael Hihn, I fail to see how your definitions of "unalienable" and "inalienable" contradict the definition I provided for "alienable".

    My point was that "alienable" rights are rights that can be taken away or given up. Thus, "inalienable" and "unalienable" rights are rights that can't be taken away, nor given up.

    If you're going to call me a GOOBER (and then sneer at me), I would appreciate it if you could actually do it after correcting me (rather than after confirming what I just said)!

  • epsilon given||

    Sigh. You're hopeless and inconsistent, Michael. I can't argue with a bully who can't figure out what "inalienable" means after defining "alienable", and accuses someone who's trying to be reasonable of being aggressive and dishonest, while displaying aggressiveness, bullying behavior, and dishonesty himself.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    As an aside, Scalia's Heller ruling reaffirmed a 1939 ruling that the only protected weapons are those in common use at the time, brought from home for militia duty -- essentially what we now call hunting rifles.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying again because he didn't read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano, a dumbfuck lying loser.

  • Rat on a train||

    I don't have a problem with prohibiting the misuse of firearms.

    As an aside, Scalia's Heller ruling reaffirmed a 1939 ruling that the only protected weapons are those in common use at the time, brought from home for militia duty -- essentially what we now call hunting rifles. The 1939 ruling is what allowed the assault-style ban.


    Go read Miller: "Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation." Hunting rifles would be less likely to be protected than an AR-15.

  • ||

    They had the equivalent AR-15s in their homes ,... in the 1700s?

    Yes, next question.

  • Rat on a train||

    I am just quoting Miller. Miller said nothing about the 2A only protecting weapons common at the time of ratification. It said the 2A protected weapons useful to the military at the present.

  • wingnutx||

    IOW, battle rifles like the Garand, SMGs like the Thompson, and pistols like the 1911 or Hi-Power.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't want you to read this part of his link:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Dance for me, Dumbfuck Hihnsano!

    (SNORT)

  • A_Spellman||

    What was meant by Miller was the use of 'unusual' weapons, not connected with the military. In Miller's case, a sawed off shotgun. The quote from 1939:
    "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
    So you're wrong about Miller. Scalia did not use Miller to prove that all restrictions were valid. Miller can be used as a reason to restrict 'unusual' weapons, not commonly used by the military. Such as nukes, which are a political weapon, not a military one.

  • Rat on a train||

    You have a link, but cannot comprehend what is written.

    From Miller:

    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.


    From Heller:

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Rat on a train||

    You are dense. Read the text of Heller.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    My link is to Heller. DUH

    Which you're too fucking stupid to read past page 1. DUH

    (hops away giggling)

    Your name is Toby!

  • Rat on a train||

    Your link is to your own comment. I linked to the actual text of Heller.

  • Rat on a train||

    Wow, what a child. If you don't want to read the text of Heller just say you prefer your feels over the actual opinion.

  • Rat on a train||

    I will leave with:
    IAW Miller and Heller, the 2A guarantees an individual right to arms of military use in the present. Ownership of protected weapons is not in conflict with the right to life. You can disagree and scream to your hearts content, but that is the current state.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know what "essentially" means.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • DaveSs||

    You seem to be forgetting that rights are also something possessed by the individual not a group.

    A's right to arms is not in conflict with B's right to life until or unless A threatens or commits an unjust act of violence against B.

    C's right to arms is not in conflict with B or D's right to life even if A has threatened/committed an act of violence against B because the individual C has not put the exercise of his right in conflict with another's rights.

  • DaveSs||

    You seem to be forgetting that rights are something possessed by the individual not a group.

    Yes, also should not have been there. Editing error, sue me.


    Oh and you seemed to completely ignore the argument that destroys your argument.

    C's right to arms is not in conflict with B or D's right to life even if A has threatened/committed an act of violence against B because the individual C has not put the exercise of his right in conflict with any other persons rights.

  • DaveSs||

    You are trying to claim that because A has put his rights in conflict with others, that C's rights are somehow forfeit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too much of a dumbfuck to say which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict.

  • A_Spellman||

    Been lurking in Reason's comment thread for a while now. I have to say that Hihn's arguments get more incoherent, and the amount of bolding goes up, as his points are taken apart.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still too stupid to specify which rights are in conflict and how they are in conflict in a discussion about guns.

    LAME (chortle)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Great blog/article J.D.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You forgot to add where some Americans went on the offensive with their guns to stop the tyranny of the politicians, bureaucrats, and police.

    Not all Americans are just going to sit idly by and wait for the police to try and grab their guns.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If this is how America must rid itself of its lesser elements -- the superstitious, downscale, disaffected, no-count, irrelevant right-wing goobers left in our depleted backwaters -- so be it.

    Go "the full LaVoy." Be my guest.

    Say 'hey' to LaVoy for me when you see him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly you don't understand what "going on the offensive" can entail.

    La Voy was driving down the road and thought he was being equally treated under the law. He was wrong. The government was scared of all the armed protestors in Oregon and Nevada. The protestors never shot anyone. The FBI murdered La Voy though.

    J.D.'s hypothetical would leave no doubt in most American's minds what was going on. Big difference.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If the Day of the Rope ever does come, Arty-poo, rest assured the police will be far too busy responding to massacres of known progressive havens to start doing door-to-door raids on gun owners.

    At that point, progressives will learn to love the police!

  • Eric||

    That's right buddy. Massacre those filthy Untermenschen, progressives! Them along with the intellectuals, gays, and communists. God you bad-assed Uber-Murican patriots get me wet.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're still operating under the delusion that they don't want to see you and your children dead.

  • Eric||

    Jesus Fucking Christ. Get out of your Mom's basement dude.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Jesus Fucking Christ. Take your thumb out of your mouth dude.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Chip Woodier||

    Any insurgent knows not to attack the army head on. You catch them at home with their families. Newbs.

  • KevinP||

    Kirkland, what do you think of this depleted backwater?

    In California, harassment scandals roil ruling Democrats


    Quote:
    A national reckoning on sexual harassment that got its start in Hollywood is now upending Democratic politics throughout the nation's most populous state.

    "We have rapists in this building. We have molesters among us."

    Last month, then-Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, a Los Angeles Democrat, resigned after the Los Angeles Times published accusations of harassment from six women. Shortly after, Assemblyman Matt Dababneh, a former aide to Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman announced he will resign effective Jan. 1, after multiple women accused him of misconduct. A Sacramento lobbyist, Pamela Lopez, accused Dababneh of cornering her in a Las Vegas bathroom last year and masturbating while urging her to touch him.

  • the original jack||

    Poor Artie... he has so many people doing satire accounts using his name it is hard to tell if it is the real Artie or not. Must be hard going thru life as a living example of Poe's Law.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn thinks patriots could not liberate the prisons and free all the held patriots.

    Poor Hihn thinks the state is untouchable.

    Its the reason why lefties need to get rid of guns. You cannot completely control people without getting rid of arms and our 2nd Amendment protects all weapons from government prohibition.

  • Don't look at me.||

    You mean like they did in Vietnam?

  • Chip Woodier||

    You defeat a $600 billion military by catching them at home, dragging them into the streets with their families, as an example to the rest of them.

  • ace_m82||

    www.reason.com/blog/2018/02/21.....nt_7150853

    Hihn thinks that, as the Nazis were elected in 1933, they didn't violate rights. Also, the Jews were free to leave!

    Me: Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?
    Hihn: ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did. YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

  • ace_m82||

    American Colonists? Check.

    Viet Cong (twice)? Check.

    Taliban (twice)? Check.

    Or, you know, just check out this list:

    www.wikipedia.org/wiki/History.....la_warfare

  • ace_m82||

    Do YOU have a son or daughter in an American classroom?

    Non Sequitur. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    Facts do you no good if they are Non Sequiturs and Red Herrings.

    Which of the two would sacrifice the life of your own child or grandchild for ... political expedience?

    Non Sequitur.

    www.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

  • ace_m82||

    WHY is it a non sequitur?

    Because it doesn't matter if they have a child in an American government school.

    just throwing down a dictionary is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY fallacy.

    So you think you can argue while denying the definitions of words? That explains a lot.

    LOGICALLY. on your own evidence, you grasp NEITHER non sequitur NOR Appeal to Authority.

    "It doesn't follow" is obvious and "authorities" can be wrong. You have no idea what they mean or you'd cease using them in your stupid "arguments".

    Intimidation -- a/k/a bullying.

    Telling you you're wrong isn't "bullying". It's fact.

    In over a year of stalking.

    No, I just respond to wrong things. You are more wrong than most, so I reply to you more.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who do you think supplies that military?

    People who work at businesses around the USA and they need resources from places usually outside a city.

    Farmers will give food to patriots they know. instead of selling it on the open market. The dollar becomes worthless, so the US treasury can only buy foreign stuff with gold. That runs out quickly when you are trying to squash a patriotic civil war of probably 50 Million America or more.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    By farmers, do you mean the global corporations that dominate American agriculture or the scattered Beverly Hillbillies types that require subsidies to continue to pull out the occasional handful of carrots?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Well, Arty-poo, certainly not the limp-wristed soyboys that shriek when their hands get dirty.

  • Paulpemb||

    Not only that, but who do they think composes that military?

    I would like to see what some young soldier or Marine says when his superiors tell him that his mom, dad, brother, sister, cousin, etc. is an enemy of the state who must be forcibly disarmed and killed if they resist.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    We can't -- and don't -- rely on soldiers much anymore. This is good, because we haven't won a war in 75 years. Instead, we have a string of vague draws with ragtag irregulars despite our overwhelming resource advantage. Increasingly, when we really need to get something done, we rely on surrogates and mercenaries rather what you get with a volunteer force. The military personnel who are worth something tend to design weapons or push buttons on long-range weapons.

  • epsilon given||

    We can't -- and don't -- rely on soldiers much anymore. This is good, because we haven't won a war in 75 years. Increasingly, when we really need to get something done, we rely on surrogates and mercenaries rather what you get with a volunteer force. The military personnel who are worth something tend to design weapons or push buttons on long-range weapons.

    And this is the military that you insist will absolutely, under no uncertain terms, be able to womp a civilian uprising? Sigh, you liberals make no sense whatsoever.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.

    Um, OK. I thought that for most leftists that was the only necessary selling point.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • sarcasmic||

    Cars kill more people than guns.

    Ban cars!

  • sarcasmic||

    I know the typical response is that cars are not made for the express purpose of killing people, and guns are.

    The fact that I own a half a dozen or so guns, none of which have killed anyone, kinda takes the air out of that balloon.

    They are good for putting holes in paper, in varmints, and ex wives. (that last part was a joke of course)

    Later this year I hope to find a hunting buddy so I can put Bambi's meat in the freezer and liver in the skillet.

    Mmmmmm. Bambi.......

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Hunting partner? You mean dead body coyote bait. *backs slowly away*

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Your ex wife's name is Bambi too?

  • sarcasmic||

    No way would I eat her liver. I know where it's been.

  • Ron||

    Everyone I know who has a car has been in a car accident, everyone. Of all the people I know who own guns there has been only one minor gun accident. there have been several cases of self defense.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates it when his bullshit is called out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is how you know its not about related deaths but controlling people.

    Getting rid of guns is essential to completely controlling a populace.

  • sarcasmic||

    Leftists are people who use government to unjustly impose their will upon their neighbors. Armed neighbors makes this difficult. So of course they want their neighbors to be disarmed.

  • Eric||

    And conservatives are all apple pie and ice cream! Yay team!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You forgot guns. Yay!

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, sure. That's exactly what I said.

  • Eric||

    Reading between the lines can be difficult, but not impossible Sarc.

  • sarcasmic||

    Only when you are focused on a false dichotomy.

    Saying A does X is not saying B does Y.

    I won't defend your assertions because I did not make them.

  • Eric||

    You call out A constantly, but almost never say a peep about B. In your world, and most of the right leaning libertarians here B > A, so you greatly prefer B. To me B = A, there is no difference.

  • sarcasmic||

    Get back to me after you take a rudimentary course on basic logic.

  • TLBD||

    To me B = A, there is no difference.

    Well, there is your problem. You're obviously stupid.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's funny, Eric; in point of fact, you spend all your time here complaining about conservatives; that suggests, by your own logic, that you must think B > A, or that progressives are all sunshine and apple pie.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Eric||

    When are you conservatives going to finally rise up and throw of the yoke of this oppressive government? Or do you only bleat like that when a Democrat is in office?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The yoke is pretty big. Plus, every Democrat in office is fighting it.

    It might take some time.

  • Eric||

    The most impressive part will be you bravely facing off the drone strike with your mighty AR-15 with a stock, a compass and this thing that tells time.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    I find it interesting how gun control advocates like to imagine such 'insurrections' as some kind of set-piece battles between the insurrectionists and the full force of the US military, in the style of First Bull Run (Oh, wait, the government didn't win that one). Just how much political support will there be for drone strikes (or other military actions)against US citizens in pursuance of controversial domestic laws? In any case, the insurrectionists will likely be focussing on the infrastructure that serve high population areas. Have fun guarding those power lines and aqueducts with your drones.

  • Eric||

    Who says I'm a gun control advocate. Not all of us fetishize firearms or get our evening wear from Cabelas.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Not all of us fetishize firearms or get our evening wear from Cabelas.

    Well sure, soyboys tend to migrate towards adult footy pajamas.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's the part they don't really want to think about: That their power center is in cities that are only a few days away from food riots, and a few weeks away from mass starvation. Within weeks of a civil war starting, the urban centers they get most of their votes from would be charnel pits.

    It would be horribly ugly, but there's really no question at all who would win a civil war in America. It wouldn't even be close.

    America wouldn't be a major power again for decades, but it wouldn't be a country where the left was competitive again for a century.

    That's why they don't really want a civil war, it's just a bloody fantasy on their part. They really just want to regulate us into extinction. Force everybody to move into the urban centers by economically destroying everywhere else, make not being a liberal so starkly unpleasant that the next generation would submit just to get along.

    They're not going to start a civil war with gun confiscation. Maybe end one, but if they really do start a civil war, it will be economic and information war, not a shooting war. At least not until the very end.

  • Ron||

    some of us know where the drones are flown from and the people who fly them. They live in our neighborhoods with their wife and kids. so unless they want to take their families behind the fences, and if they do then we will know whats up.

    much like the police they have to go home at night

  • FlameCCT||

    So you are saying that the government will violate Posse Comitatus Act and use drones to strike?

  • Eric||

    Doesn't matter what I think. Ask Trump at his next rally, maybe.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The most impressive part will be you bravely facing off the drone strike with your mighty AR-15 with a stock, a compass and this thing that tells time.

    Progressives always love to bring up MUH DRONE STRIKES as if they think that's all a war is fought with these days.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They like the idea of drone strikes because drones don't have those pesky consciences, you tell one to blow up somebody's house, it just blows up somebody's house.

  • TX_Teacher||

    I like how people on both sides imagine that open fighting with small arms would play a large role in a hypothetical insurrection.

    It'll be bombs. It'll be murdering the other team's family. It'll be assassinations. Infrastructure attacks.

    Nobody will win, even after one side calls itself the victor.

  • Ron||

    quit possible multiple independent states would form up since many states in the interior will not want to waste blood in California, they will just cut it off. then California will have fighting between the north and the south with elements from both Mexico and Russia lending a hand. Remember Cali was once part of Russia

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That was Alaska. I'd hardly call Fort Ross, a single outpost, California being part of Russia.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • TxJack 112||

    A dedicated for with small arms can easily defeat an opposing force with advanced weapons. Go talk to one of the history teachers in your school and ask them about Vietnam. You assume the US military would turn on the people and I would argue the number who would refuse to obey that order is much larger than those who would not. Remember, they would be asked to kill their family, friends and neighbors and that is something I dont think the US military will ever do

  • RabbitHead||

    I'm thinking that there will be a lot less "murdering of the families" of the team that maintains individual ownership of effective firearms.

    That's kind of the point.

  • TxJack 112||

    Who do you plan to strike? How will you find them? Drones are fine if you know where to strike you assume people will be sitting in locations know to the government. Besides remember drone strikes can go both ways ans IEDs are more effective and easier to build and use than drones. They also have a much greater impact on demoralizing the opposing force. Look what they did to us in Iraq? IEDs hastened our exit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As you say TxJack, infrastructure will be destroyed outside the cities isolating them. The lefties will have to endure, no water, limited food, all the exit roads blocked by armed patriots or bridges blown.

  • KevinP||

    Are you referring to the oppressive government in California?

    The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

    9 Women Describe Horrific Treatment at the Hands of Their Jailers


    Quote:
    Women imprisoned at California's Santa Rita Jail say they're being housed in filthy conditions, denied basic hygiene products, pressured to have abortions, subjected to incessant strip searches, and forced to endure many other manners of cruel and inhumane treatment from guards and staff at the progressive Alameda County facility.
  • epsilon given||

    Really? I have some homework for you to do, then, to prove this: go through the headlines of sexual harassment reveals in the past year. Make a list of those people in the headlines, and determine whether they are Republican or Democrat. Tally the results.

    Put the list here, and show us, under no uncertain terms, that Republicans really are the worst offenders here.

    (Based on my recollections of the news, I'm 99% certain it's going to come out Democrat. Surprise me, and prove me wrong: but do it with solid data.)

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conservatives are too busy getting their asses kicked -- a half-century of liberal-libertarian progress shoved down their throats and up their butts, a process destined to accelerate as America's electorate improves and the backwaters continue to be hollowed out by bright flight and education disparities -- to do much of anything other than pine for good old days that never existed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur V. Shitlib thinks he'll be saved by Operation "Get Behind the Darkies" when the Day of the Rope comes.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Society's can't-keep-up, left-behind losers fantasizing about vanquishing their betters.

    I guess it's that or a handful of street pills to get through another shambling day for a poorly educated, socially inept, bigoted, superstitious yahoo stuck in America's depleted backwaters.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ace_m82||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Society's can't-keep-up, left-behind losers fantasizing about vanquishing their betters

    Society's limp-wristed soyboys fantasizing that the police state and their pets will save them.

    Carry on, GRIDS-lad.

  • ace_m82||

    Spamming the same thing over and over because you've lost the argument. Classy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Mock-star||

    Hmm, a good article, only a few comments, so its probably not Hihnfected. Well fuck.

  • ace_m82||

    Still spamming, I see.

  • epsilon given||

    Is there anything else you want to tell us about the tactics you like to use? It looks like you left out a lot of them.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The strategy of the gun control movement was to make gun ownership just a huge hassle with "reasonable" regulations, with the idea that in another generation or two the number of gun owners would decline to the point where every one of them voting single issue would no longer be enough to decide elections.

    And then the real pogrom would start.

    Fortunately we were able to counter that just in time, and gun ownership started trending up again. And now it seems they're losing on the PR front, too.

    But the suggested approach isn't new. It's merely failed.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties blame Trump for most everything but the reality is that Americans are just fighting back on multiple lefty agenda items at the same time.

    Fighting PC, fighting gun control, and ignoring the media are really setting lefties back decades.

  • Eric||

    Needs MOAR lefty.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties to make fun of?

  • Eric||

    No there are plenty of those. I just need to you to focus more on those dastardly lefties LC. You've been giving them a pass lately.

  • ace_m82||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • KevinP||

    Correct. Polls find the evil NRA fairly well aligned with public opinion:

    Gallup Poll: More Than Six in 10 Americans Say Guns Make Homes Safer


    Quote:
    The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this.

    Although there is a gender gap in the results for this question, majorities of both men (67%) and women (58%) believe having a gun improves home safety.

    About two-thirds of whites and Southerners endorse having a gun to improve home safety, as do majorities of nonwhites (56%) and residents of the other three regions.
  • TxJack 112||

    My daughter who is a high school teacher was asked if you were safer with a home security system or a gun. She laughed and said a home security system only tells when you need to go get your gun.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    She laughed and said a home security system only tells when you need to go get your gun.

    To be fair, there's nothing wrong with defense in depth, especially in our vibrant urban enclaves.

  • TxJack 112||

    No the strategy of the movement is to label them reasonalblr so when they do not work they can push for more draconian restrictions.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Eric||

    "the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence... I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them."

    It's so odd hearing from people with actual principles and integrity today.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "I think we have to cleanse our culture of this false idea that guns are cool,"

    Do you know who else wanted a cultural cleansing?

  • Eric||

    You?

  • Rat on a train||

    Jamie Lee Curtis?

  • Rebel Scum||

    "owners associate the right to own guns with their own personal sense of freedom"

    "There is no freedom without gunpowder."

  • Rebel Scum||

    New elections loom, but nobody expects them to resolve much of anything.

    I propose that we end the defenseless-victim zone policy.

  • Moridin||

    Any reasonable mind with a little knowledge of history can see that firearms have been the great equalizer in the struggle of the common people vs. their oppressors (in whatever form of government it may be). The fact that leftists want to take that equalizer away exposes what their true motives are, regardless of supposed "good intentions" and alleged sympathy for the children.

  • Kroneborge||

    The book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross lays out a much more likely scenario. It's available as a free PDF download and is excellent

  • Kroneborge||

    Also of course gun deaths have been dropping for 20 years while the number of guns have been increasing
    http://www.aei.org/publication.....-and-2013/

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • Kroneborge||

    And actually there are a number of other countries with MUCH stricter gun laws with more mass shootings (per capita)

    I would post the link but it won't let me

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Good thing, too, paper copies have gotten pretty expensive. Good book, somewhat embarrassing cover. I had no idea Lady Liberty was so stacked...

    You can get it here.

  • TxJack 112||

    Many of us load our own ammo making ammunition restrictons a moot point. I do not load it to avoid the "government" but to improve the accuracy. In addition in addition to 3D printers, there are a number of companies selling 80% lower recievers. The lower is the only part of a tactical rifle with a serial number. However it is legal to finish a 80% reciever and build a rifle for yourself, you just cant sell it. These are the "ghost guns" you have heard mentioned. The simple reality is there is someone smart enough to come up with a solution to circumvent any law made by policitians who are short of facts and long on rhetorical nonsense.

  • ||

    Good article lending still more evidence about how nuanced the subject is despite the howling from the emotional left.

    Also.

    Is Hihn on drugs?

  • ace_m82||

    You didn't answer the question.

  • Chip Woodier||

    Does anyone know any libertarians that don't have a well stocked armory?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I don't, and I just as an FYI, I don't live anywhere near the place you might think to come mass shoot me.

  • Hank Phillips||

    If I were advising a looter kleptocracy on how to continue to advocate the initiation of force without seeming like murderous goons, I would point to the only party that is growing and shriek: RIGHT-WING GUN NUTS! Subsidized ads would remind Republicans that the Libertarians wrote the plank that framed the Roe v Wade decision a month after the electoral votes were counted. Other ads would tell Dems that Ayn Rand wrote the Non-Aggression Principle in 1947, and later said bad things about communist propaganda movies in hearings. Both parties continue to force taxpayers to subsidize their electioneering (and not the LPs), so "bipartisan support" is already a done deal, right?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Too bad the comment section to an interesting article got messed up by Hihn.

  • Verbum Vincet||

    Damn straight! When I see every other comment is his BOLD FACED DIARRHEA-SCREED, I go out of my way to not read his voluminous verbal vomitus. Hihn is clearly mentally unbalanced, but he should know that trying to derail every thread with inane scribblings is definitely not the way to win friends and influence people! Quite the contrary. Maybe if more of us ignored him, he'd give up and go away?

  • ace_m82||

    See, Hihn, you keep accusing me of these things, but I'm never anything but civil, unless you mean that I respond to your logical inconsistencies with your own quotes.

    Just on this page, Hihn, you've called me:
    Goober,
    Stalker,
    Dumbfuck,
    Retard,
    Homer Simpson,
    and Slaver.

    So, Hihn, who is using Ad Hominems, Verbal Aggressiveness, Verbal Hostility, Cyberbullying, and acting like a psychopath?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano screeching like a crybaby bitch, only proves he's a dumbfuck waste of carbon molecules.

  • ace_m82||

    THAT is aggression

    I am not attacking you, Hihn. I am showing you that you are wrong, with your own words!

    As I thought, Hihn's definition of "aggression" is "disagreeing with Hihn". What a narcissist!

    Your "argument" is an Appeal to Authority. Here's a list of fallacies; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

    Cyberbullying: The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    An example: Hihn Cyberbullies all people who dare disagree with him at Reason.com.

    Stalker: A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    An example: Hihn Stalks all people who dare disagree with him at Reason.com. He especially stalks all people with the surname "Paul".

    Regardless of your obvious narcissism:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • zombietimeshare||

    So the military, police, and the state should be the only ones with guns.

    What could possibly go wrong in a military police state?

  • ace_m82||

    You didn't answer this question, either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_eYSuPKP3Y

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • m.EK||

    Point 1) The absence of LAW is what allows this real scenario and the "projection". Law is essentially "do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property". If Law were upheld in the court system and the court system was BASED on this perspective, most if not all criminalizations of personal activity could not exist. Legislation could not overrule Law. With the recognition of PERSONS, most if not all rules called "laws" that allow the many to harm the few or the few to harm the many could simply not be enforced.

    Point 2) The Oath of Office is a legal and binding contract. If our happy "officials" were held to honoring their Oaths on the penalty of a civil crime (with the civil penalties of tort Law), most of the legislation that happens now could not exist. The price for harming the citizens would simply be too high. Also, since the first 10 Amendments are what the federal government can NOT legislate, decree, or "rule" on, most of the crap/legislation that comes from Congress could simply NOT exist. They clearly have NO authority to legislate away Constitutional Limits on their authority.

  • Flinch||

    A quick thought crossed my mind: democrats seem to love chaos, and the power it bestows upon them as citizens scream "do something!" in need of relief from the very problems brought on their heads by the malfeasant hiding in government. To that end, the attempt at starting a civil war using BLM failed last year, so they are moving for more mayhem. And, the greater the imbalance between criminals and honest citizens, the more atrocities will happen. Todays left is nothing but flat out dangerous.
    You and I both know that if capitol hill received the same treatment as teachers, there would be shootings every year. Give just one "resource officer" for the house and one for the senate, then tell security to get out of the building, arrest any congressman providing for their own self defense... the rest would take care of itself. Not that I wish that on them, but if they thought about it in those terms, they would have mercy on our schools and the staff besieged with bad law, and let them defend themselves to restore equal application of the law. Most shootings are over in two minutes, which is about how long it takes police to respond in the absolute best of circumstances.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    If the Congress ever bans semi-automatic rifles just follow the game plan in the movie "The Wind That Shakes the Barley".

  • Flinch||

    And... how does that stack up against Idiocracy?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Maybe you watch the movie.

  • MaleMatters||

    To me, when it comes to mass killings, whether by the distraught or by ISIS-type terrorists, the endless debates on what to do about guns are wasteful and distracting.

    Stop thinking mass "shooter." See what I mean in:

    "Gun Control and Mass Killers"
    https://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/
    2016/06/30/rush-draft-why-gun-control
    -fails-against-mass-killers/

  • ace_m82||

    Why do you keep posting the same Red Herrings/Non Sequiturs? Is it that you can't argue?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • ghostbandit||

    I have only one to say, in reference to (school) shootings.
    What is wrong with you Americans? Why do you insist on standing alone in the world; as if on a separate planet?

    Thank God I am a Canadian citizen!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Can we send our vibrant gang members up to your country (Refugees Welcome!)? That should drop our violent crime rate down to white-bread Canada levels.

  • ace_m82||

    Calling yourself a libertarian is a violent act against the English language. You have to say that the popular elections in 1933 Germany means that the Nazis couldn't have violated anyone's "rights"!

    See above or this link:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_7145698

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Is it who comments LAST in a thread, or who posts FACTS in a thread?

    For Dumbfuck Hihnsano, the answer is "neither".

  • TxJack 112||

    If they succeed in banning AR type rifles, the next target will be semi-auto handguns and then semi-auto shotguns. In numerous online debates, the most common reason for banning guns from the gun control crowd is "you having a gun does not make me feel safe." The reality is most of the arguments then use are based on flawed data, inaccurate information and in man cases, flat out lies. When you have to lie to gather support, it only proves your position is weak.

  • shawn_dude||

    Your slippery slope has a gaping hole in it...

    A semi-auto isn't an issue if the clip is limited in size, which is the sort of thing you see in California.

    I'd feel safer if gun buyers had to go through a similar process as they do to get a drivers license. Background checks, medical waivers, training, regular testing, etc. And a car isn't even designed to kill people like guns are. I'd feel safer if people who do things that make them a risk lose their license to have guns until they are able to prove they can safely handle them, just like we do with drivers licenses. Background checks, training, and licensing doesn't keep responsible drivers from driving and it won't keep responsible gun-owners from having their gun.

    The data is pretty clear: Americans with guns kill far more of each other than they do in any other country, even countries like Canada that also have guns.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'd feel safer if gun buyers had to go through a similar process as they do to get a drivers license.

    Oh, I LOVE when proglydytes bring this up. Yes, let's treat buying a gun EXACTLY like we do cars. I'll happily get an operator's license, registration and insurance for my firearms, just like we do for cars. That also means the following:

    --The license renewal consists of NOTHING more than a simple vision test---just like cars.
    --I can buy any gun I want, with no background checks, including across state lines--just like cars.

    Deal?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hates this part of Scalia's ruling:
    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby! (skips away tittering)

  • shawn_dude||

    Came here expecting to see a sh!t show blend of conspiracy theories and slippery slope arguments in favor of guns. Wasn't disappointed.

    Remember, Trump stopped Medicare/Medicaid from reporting people with certain forms of mental illness to the background check database because the gun lobby doesn't support background checks.

    But let's hear about all those "thoughts and prayers" from conservatives as yet another classroom gets shot up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Remember, Trump stopped Medicare/Medicaid from reporting people with certain forms of mental illness to the background check database because the gun lobby doesn't support background checks.

    It was more than the "gun lobby," (scare quotes definitely required here) but like most left-wingers, you're too dishonest to bring that up or too ignorant to even know it.

    But let's hear about all those "thoughts and prayers" from conservatives as yet another classroom gets shot up.

    Funny how progtards only give a crap when it's a school and not our vibrant urban enclaves.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • dbs5347||

    Trust me: When you are awakened from your sleep by the sound of shattering glass at 3 am and 911 gives you a recorded message, guns are cool.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Last time I called 911, I got a recorded message saying the call center hadn't been set up yet. Turned out they were saving the fees from the phone bills up to build a fancy building, instead of running it immediately out of an available office.

    Fortunately I managed to get help from the phone company operator before I passed out; I was getting kind of stupid from the shock at that point.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I realize that Reason doesn't have an ignore feature, but surely by now somebody must have created a "don't display any comment by Hihn" browser extension...

  • Poshboy||

    Mr. Tuccille is too kind when writing about the citizens "on the receiving end of raids." He knows LEOs would not be targeted except in reactionary outcomes. Who would be on the receiving end of the citizen's ire are the lawmakers who were stupid enough to enact and pass such a ban. That's what his piece left out, but I understand why.

    I remember reading in 2014 about the Connecticut state legislators having to get enhanced state police protection because someone posted all their names and home addresses online with the usual hints of retribution. They were afraid angry citizens would simply go to their houses, set them on fire, and shoot them as they tried to escape the flames. And would work their way down the list of "aye" votes. Thankfully, such incidents did not occur, but neither did enforcement of their new semi-auto registration law, which was ignored by 85% of owners in the state. The stand-off remains intact today in Connecticut.

    Matt Bracken's 2012 excellent think-piece, "What I Saw At The Coup," is also another interesting one to read about post-law enforcement and reaction to these kinds of legislative / governmental overreaches. I commend readers to take a look and think about its conclusions: http://ow.ly/Px6a30iyKos

  • ace_m82||

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?

    Rights (the one right to do anything but initiate force) cannot come into conflict.

    They CANNOT accept the conflict without either
    1) Admitting gun rights CANNOT be absolute over any other fundamental rights
    2) Unalienable rights are NOT absolute

    We all know you don't think "rights" are absolute, except the "right" to vote in your dictators.

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    So, Hihn, the winners of the 1933 German elections mustn't have violated rights, right?

    Right?

  • ace_m82||

    WHERE DID I SAY HUMANS ARE INFALLIBLE?

    Where did I say the word "infallible"?

    DEATH PENALTY FOR TAX EVASION!

    Where did I say that?

    But .... he's NOT a psycho, driven by hysteria!

    Glass houses, Hihn.

    Ayn Rand ,Thomas Jefferson and EVERY classical liberal philosopher are ... SLAVERS!

    Jefferson was literally a "slaver". Ayn Rand was wrong, and so were many classical liberal philosophers. This is an "Appeal to Authority", and a fallacy. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    I am not an anarchist, ESPECIALLY a Rothbardian nutjob

    Yes, only "nutjobs" refuse to initiate force.

    NOW WILL YOU STOP STALKING ME FOR OVER A YEAR

    I don't. I respond to all kinds of people who make logical errors. You just make more than most, and are one of the few that made me realize that recording the stupid things they've said for posterity's sake would be useful.

    Now, if elections get us "the will of the people", and that's how you protect rights, then the elections in 1933 in Germany must have protected rights, right?

    It's a simple question!

  • ace_m82||

    It's fucking stupid, Same strawman.

    Not a strawman, a reasonable question given your ridiculous concept of what "rights" are, and how elections "protect" them (see your own quotes). Now answer it.

    You DENY the right to even have an election

    No, have your election. Regardless of who wins, they still have no authority to violate "rights" (the one right to do anything other than initiate force). See: Germany in 1933. And the US in 1932 (National Recovery Act, and FDR confiscating gold). And the US in 1940-1944 (Japanese "Internment" Camps).

    And you lie about what I've said.

    Do pray tell, oh Grand Liar, what I lied about. I didn't know a direct quote could be a "lie". Must be some Common Core English right there.

    But, regardless of your logical inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and lies:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still desperately trying to get in the last word.

  • Makarov||

    This very well thought-out and well-written article just demonstrates that the only logical solution to the "gun control" issue is freedom. Allow those who wish to take the chance of being victimized and possibly put their lives (as well as the lives of their families) in the hands of often inept or simply not present persons make up their own minds and take their chances. Let those who aren't inclined to allow evil people to determine the outcome of their future, or that of their family, make the decisions necessary to allow them to accomplish those ends. The only thing that really makes this a contentious issue is the fact that liberals are the annoying (and dangerous to individual liberty) type of people who want others to conform to everything they want and believe, and Constitutional conservatives and libertarians (real libertarians, not the recent socialist infiltrators) want people to make their own decisions, be responsible for their own actions and live their lives free from the interference of others. And, before anyone brings up something as silly as abortion--besides letting them pay for their own and don't involve everyone else in your poor decisions--should be a state (not federal) issue. This original tenet of our Founding Fathers should also be applied to almost every other silly argument that leftists bring into similar discussions.

  • GeoClarke||

    If guns are the "new cigarettes: then 3D printing must be the new vaping

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online