« Habakkuk on the origins of American political and strategic thought | Main | No gas in Syria except in Michael Gordon's story. »

16 January 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mark Logan

They are really closing things down in my neck of the woods, John. Too many ya-hoo's cropping up in the last few years. There are gunsmiths with their own TV shows now.

I'm beginning to suspect the worst thing that can happen to the widespread ability to exercise the right may be a widespread exercising of it!

Edward Amame

What really matters in this matter is how many people in Congress will fear you rather than us.

Andrew Cuomo's recent move on guns has been described as very political. As in, if he seriously wants to make a bid to run in Democratic primaries for president, that is now considered a necessary move. That should give you pause. The game has changed. The NRA made a stupid, stupid move when it threw in with one party.

turcopolier

Edward Amame

you insist on not understanding that the NRA is nothing and 150 million American gun owners are everything politically. the NRA is a 4 million member political lobby that lobbies on behalf of the 150 million. just as AARP does not include all older people in its membership but still lobbies for them, so does NRA lobby for the universe of US gun owmers. You live on a "fantasy island' in the NY City area where you tell each other that you are a moral and sohisticated majority and that the rural buffoons who hold different views than you can be kicked to the curb. In fact legislators in areas where the "buffoons" predominate know that they will be be punished for voting against their constituents. That applies in both parties. Even in NY State, dominated by "your fantasy island" in the Big Apple, Cuomo found it necessary to exempt family transfer of firearms from the requirement for background checks. We shall see. pl

John Minnerath

I don't quite understand where you're going with this. When it comes to "Public" land, there is Federal, State, and Municipally owned land.
There may be portions of any of them closed to shooting for a variety of reasons. It's up to you to find out which is open and which isn't.
Both TX and LA are pretty gun friendly states and would have a lot of areas where it's perfectly legal to shoot.
When I lived in south Louisiana almost 50 years ago we went shooting and hunting all over the place. Some of them probably closed now, maybe even housing developments.But, a blanket law making shooting illegal just because it's public land?, no.

Yahoos displaying poor shooting practices? Everywhere has them. If they're engaged in dangerous or destructive practice as a responsible sportsman you should be reporting them to bring such activity to an end.

Edward Amame

We may find out soon enough. A week or so ago, a bill got filed in Massachusetts that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance to be used when their gun injures someone.

turcopolier

Edward Amame

One of our people suggests that liability insurance for use might be acceptable. I agree. But, once again a bill passed in Massachusetts will not necessarily pass in New Hampshire or Vermont. pl

Edward Amame

I understand the power that the NRA currently has, Col Lang! My point was that by throwing in with the GOP exclusively, NRA's future prospects for the future may be dimmer as Dem politicians realize that they now have nothing to lose by challenging that power. BTW, the family exemption is typical Cuomo. He is very cagey that way and not trusted by anyone in Albany on either side of the aisle.

I don't know about NYC being "Fantasy Island." Opinions here are probably more varied than you think. A lot of NYers, my wife and I included, arrived here as young adults from somewhere else -- including the American south.

turcopolier

Edward Amame

"as Dem politicians realize that they now have nothing to lose by challenging that power" Once again it is the voting power of gun owners, not the NRA that politicians should fear. We will see how many Democrats vote for and against Obama's gun legislation. pl

John Minnerath

Bill Clinton has warned the Dems about that.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html?hp=t1_3

Edward Amame

The problem, as I see it, is that BOTH sides are guilty of trivializing the concerns of the other side.

Edward Amame

"Nothing to lose" was a bad choice of words. Obama's gun proposals will make things dicey for Dem legislators in certain districts/states. But in general, numbers indicate that Obama's gun proposals were not suicidal. Polls indicate that gun regulation is a clearly partisan issue -- Dems and GOPers are divided by a 45-point margin on the issue, and independents favor gun regs by 47-42%. So hardcore gun regulation opponents generally appear to be mostly voters that Obama and Dems have already lost to the GOP. Advancing proposals that appeal to the various demographic groups that are expanding the Dem base is good politics, especially when just about everything Obama advances, even relatively innocuous nominations for cabinet positions, elicits howls of outrage from the GOP.

turcopolier

EA

Your insistence on your view of the political climate makes me think you are a Democratic Party activist. pl

Rider

That's what I don't understand. The U.S. Army was est. in 1784, which was prior to the second amendment. Was it smaller than the average state militia?

turcopolier

rider

The US Army in 1784 was a tiny force outnumbered by the individual and collective militias of the several states. It was the "bastard" child of a congress that did not want it. pl

Kevin

He wants to disarm returning veterans. He knows we swore and non expireable oath to the constitution and have the fresh sharpened tools to effectively shoot back. The VA has already been screening any and all OIF/OEF veterans by asking how many and what type of guns we own. They have been goading us into PTSD treatment by offering up to $3200/month disability claim compensation. I am glad I never fell for that one. Obama better hope his federalized jack booted SWAT teams bring their A game. You are going to have to kill me first.

Kevin

Pat,
You edited my commen. Please correct.

turcopolier

kevin
Sorry, I thought it was a typo. Send it again in its original form. I guess your thing is a book-end response for Edward Amame. pl

turcopolier

kevin

OK. I fixed it. pl

Rider

Not exactly. I believe the situation with regard to keeping guns in the home for defensive purposes is analogous to the situation we found ourselves in when the links between smoking and lung cancer became obvious. Leave the second amendment alone. You can buy cigarettes. You can buy guns. But let the government, particularly HHS and CDC, get fully behind a gun safety campaign analogous to the anti-smoking campaign as a counter to the misinformation and disinformation the NRA pours out in its efforts to push guns. At a minimum, everyone contemplating keeping firearms (I am one, obviously) needs to do a Risk-Benefit analysis, particularly if there are risk factors present: small children, depressed or suicidal people, marital strife, drugs/alcohol abuse. The chances are far greater that a gun will be involved in a suicide, accident, or domestic shooting than in home defense. There is the whole issue of gun safes. The gun is useless if unloaded and locked. And if it is not, the risks escalate. Then there is the issue of gun theft, gun safe and all. If the arsenal includes semiauto tactical guns, they may turn up at the next mass shooting as they are sought after by mass shooters. The NRA to my knowledge informs no one of these risks, just as cigarette makers told no one of the risks of emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer. I believe the federal government should require the NRA and gun makers to provide full disclosure in promoting guns for home defense, including putting a stop to the nonsense of suggesting they can be lawfully used for armed insurrection. I believe this might do more good than an outright ban. Realize there are risks and benefits. Inform the public and let each person decide. As it is, there is not full disclosure.

turcopolier

rider

"I believe the federal government should require the NRA and gun makers to provide full disclosure in promoting guns for home defense, including putting a stop to the nonsense of suggesting they can be lawfully used for armed insurrection" Are you American? come clean. How do you think the federal government can manage the suppression of free speech and political activity that you advocate? pl

Rider

Touché. I misstated that. I would like the federal government to require gun makers and other advertizers (not the NRA) to include a disclaimer about armed insurrection in their advertizing in the way that cigarette makers are required to include health warnings in their advertizing (which is not protected speech where public health is concerned).

Despite my misstatement, I would not advocate suppressing free speech by the NRA or any other group, but would like to see HHS and CDC counter disinformation by gun advocacy groups by publishing and announcing the gun violence epidemiological data and vital information about the risks of guns in the home that the NRA works hard to hide from the public. I see the whole thing as analogous to the government's anti-smoking campaign, which countered cigarette advertizing by exposing health risks that had been hidden by tobacco companies. Get the information out there, and let people decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the risks. This does not touch the second amendment in any way.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

Personal disclaimer: I do have guns, for plinking only; none used for home defense. My guns are unloaded, locked up, and all ammo is used before returning home, none kept in the house ever.

Fred

Are you serious? Cigarette companies purposely added nicotine back into their product to make them more chemically addictive. How does manufacturing of a gun make ownership addictive or owners more likely to shoot human beings? Will you also require the CDC and HHS to provide the data on violence with other weapons than can be lawfully obtained?

Tyler

Feinstein is really going for all the guns. Don't think it'll go anywhere, but I'll be happy when this country stops jumping to the various paranoias of the elite in the DC/LA/NYC axis.

John Minnerath

BHO has suddenly revealed he is a long time skeet shooter. Using the range Eisenhower had built at Camp David.
Uh huh.
Does he really believe the gun owning public will now think he's their friend?
He's expressed anti gun sentiment during his entire public life.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

November 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by Typepad