Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ban the Guns, Eh?

The Reliably Lefty guy posts a comment which is, uh, puzzling, anent the Latin Kings shooter.

In the post, I proposed that the MPD pursue the individual(s) who sold him/gave him the gun. It HAD to be an illegal transaction.

Enter Capper:

But then again, if the gun was not available, regardless of the cause, would he have been able to use it?

He implies that handguns should be banned in the USA. There's no other way to implement his hypothetical question.

Hmmmmmm.

There are about 100 million handguns in the USA.

There are about 20 million illegal aliens in the USA.

The Left maintains that we "cannot possibly" grab-and-export 20 million people.

So how in Hell can we "grab and confiscate" 100 million handguns?

15 comments:

Other Side said...

Yes, but Vox Day, noted right-wing nut, thought illegals could be removed when he wrote this:

"... one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society."

So, your point is ...?

Calamity Jane said...

Constitution be damned, eh? Liberals seem to forget the reason for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Besides being for survival and protection it is for the defense against government tyranny.

What are ya gonna do when your family gets accosted by evildoers,or when the knock comes on your door in the middle of the night...poke 'em in the eye with your finger? Freakin' idiot liberals! How I loathe them.

Dad29 said...

No problem-o, OS.

First, you guys get all the illegals out.

THEN we'll talk about confiscating all the guns.

3rd way said...

I begrudgingly agree with you Daddio. Further restricting guns at this point would disarm the law abiding while leaving the scofflaws armed. With 100 million guns in the grips of citizens we can never start taking them away without endangering safety.

That does not mean that restrictions shouldn't have been in place. You need a special permit to buy a machine gun and you can't buy a bazooka. A sane government would have put severe restrictions on the manufacture and sale of hand guns generations ago.

We definitely have a right to own guns, but my reading of the constitution does not prevent restriction on ownership of weapons specifically designed to efficiently kill people.

Dad29 said...

3Way, given that the 2A specifically references 'militia,' which DOES use "weapons specifically designed to efficiently kill people," it's hard to understand your interpretation.

And both the 2nd and 5th Circuits agree with me (heh.)

Finally, (trust me on this) even if handguns WERE banned in the USA, AND if all of them disappeared as a result, we'd be back to 100 million handguns within 10 years.

Nobody's fool enough to be "law-abiding" at risk of their family's lives and welfare.

3rd way said...

How is it permissible to have tough restrictions on things like fully automatic weapons, but not hand guns?

There is no turning back from the gun culture we have. If the thin crust of civility in this nation ever breaks apart I definitely want the option of arming myself. God knows my crazy-ass neighbors will be armed. My point of bringing up restrictions is purely hypothetical.

I personally feel that we should stringently enforce the restrictions we have now and implement a law requiring all guns be secured with a trigger lock, then call a cease fire on the gun control debate.

Dad29 said...

Actually, there is NO "ban" on full-auto weapons. You must purchase a special license, but then you can buy one--if you can afford it.

...and tell me what good that trigger lock will do you when a goblin pulls a piece on you?

3rd way said...

"given that the 2A specifically references 'militia,' which DOES use "weapons specifically designed to efficiently kill people," it's hard to understand your interpretation.

And both the 2nd and 5th Circuits agree with me (heh.)"

We will see if SCOTUS agrees with me when they discuss it on March 18, 2008 (District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners
v.
Dick Anthony Heller)

3rd way said...

"...and tell me what good that trigger lock will do you when a goblin pulls a piece on you?"

Not a damn bit of good. But they might be able to prevent a goblin or two from getting their grubby little goblin grips on a gun.

Trigger locks would save a handful of lives if Goblins aren't allowed to steal them from people and use them in a crime (this is dependent on competent engineers making a trigger lock that would render the trigger useless if broken off). They would also prevent some of the gun accidents. It is like a seat belt law. Yeah yeah I know I am trying to be a nanny. But you can't deny that seat belt laws are a good thing.

Dad29 said...

As to SCOTUS on the DC/Heller case: if you want to bet a couple hours' range-time plus 100 rounds (9mm) on the outcome, I'll take concurrence with the 2nd Circuit's opinion.

Loser buys.

3rd Way said...

If the question in front of the court pertained to "restrictions" and not "bans" I would take you up on the bet. But since they are talking about bans I will have to pass.

I don't no anything about bustin' caps, I would change the terms of the bet to donations to the NRA or the DNC.

I don't think bans are right. Unfortunately they bans will give criminals an unfair advantage. I agree with your prediction SCOTUS is going to rule that they aren't constitutional either.

capper said...

Dad, congratulations on twisting my words.

Of course it would not be realistic to believe all handguns could be eliminated. That would be like trying to take all the nuts from a pack of rabid squirrels.

But one does wonder, with their restrictive policies, why isn't all of Europe in complete and utter chaos yet?

RAG said...

I'm not a fan of banning guns but I also want to make sure they aren't in the wrong hands.

The Brady bill was one of the biggest pieces of "feel good" legislation out there. The intent was noble but enforcement difficult.

First, private tranactions weren't covered (as if they could be). Second, FBI conviction information is so inaccurate and incomplete that sometimes even convicted murderers don't have those convictions on their rap sheets. If some clerk didn't send a disposition report to the FBI (or comparable state agaency), then there's no conviction entered on the rap sheet.

I've seen this hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

Hard to propose new legislation when what we have now doesn't work.

Dad29 said...

Hard to propose new legislation when what we have now doesn't work.

Oh, please. There are thousands of bills introduced every year across the USA which simply pile more crap on top of a more-than-smelly pile of existing crap.

That's what Leggies DO because they don't actually have a life.

Dad29 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.