"Universal" means "All." Re-published 3 March 2018

 

The Democrats and their corporate media friends are obviously determined to exploit the media driven frenzy that has emerged since the Orlando massacre.    After many efforts to de-rail Trump's campaign they feel sure that THIS TIME they've got him.   He, of course, assists them every time he opens his mouth off script.   

The ghosts of Sandy Hook hover over the present scene and are cited by the Democrats as arguments.   Well, pilgrims, the crazy kid at Sandy Hook did not buy any guns or ammunition.  His mother bought all that and then gave him unrestricted access to the ordnance with which he killed her in her sleep and then proceeded in his madness to the school.  His mother had legally bought the instruments of her own destruction from a licensed gun dealer who ran the required on-line background checks on her.  She passed the checks easily.  She had no criminal record.  She had no mental illness record.  She had local residence.  Therefore, she passed.  Conclusion - The system worked and then this silly woman gave lethal weapons to her insane son.

The phrase "universal background checks" is heard everywhere in the media and in Congress.  Let us be honest and not hide behind semantic trickery.  UNIVERSAL background checks would require any transfer of a firearm to be approved by the federal government.  This inevitably and perhaps incrementally would be extended to all private transfers.  That is what UNIVERSAL means.  The professional gun control people and their politician allies tell you that the "reasonable"  restrictions on gun ownership and purchases that they are pushing for are very modest things that will have only a minor effect on "ordinary" Americans.  They lie.  Their ultimate goal is the reduction of Americans to the status of wards of the state, protected like farm animals by their keepers.  This "protected" status would supposedly safeguard all the fearful from their enemies.  Gun control laws in Europe are very tight but their protective effect was noticeably absent at the Bataclan.

Read Federalist # 46.  Take the time to read it.   

A disarmed America would be just another stockyard feed pen.  pl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

Comments

[no one]

I'm thinking the gun control push ties in with the immigrant push (legal/refugee/illegal) into a bad economy- resulting in welfare dependence as a dilution of the base that still remembers what America is supposed to be. Gun control in indeed another prong of the same plan of attack on the American people to turn us into dependent sheep.

The elitists appear to be throwing everything they got into the fray at this time.

[Freudenschade]

When was the last date where civilians had the capability to "repell" the armed forces? 1865? Earlier? Certainly by the time of the First World War, lightly armed U.S. civilians had no chance. What prevents a military takeover of the U.S. is certainly not the second amendment.

[turcopolier]

Freudenschade

You utterly miss the point because you want to miss the point. Your ridiculous image of an army of citizens fighting the US armed forces is completely beside the point. What matters is the understanding of police and other potential local tyrants that they may face an armed man if they act in too imperious a manner. Where I live the city police act like an occupying army immune to citizen outrage and almost universally resident outside the community that they police. How much more ambitious for power would they be if we were all disarmed as you wish us to be? pl

[turcopolier]

Freudenschade

I thought the "tag" was supposed to be "Schadenfreude." Ah, I looked it up. "Envious," eh? Of what? I notice you do not dispute my assertion that the ultimate goal of "gun control" is the disarming of the American people. pl

[William R. Cumming]

Not perhaps a correct answer but largely factual:: The U.S. military today cannot fight without its tech reps, contractors, and a privatized logistics and mobilization system. And yes fighting with a come as you are military is still unproven as a "war" winner. IMO of course.

[turcopolier]

Freudenschade

Your military ignorance is appalling. 1. an 18th Century battlefield was a lethal place. What you faced on the field were multi-barreled weapons systems called regiments and brigades (look it up) firing by volley so that what came at you were hundreds of musket balls all at once. The framers knew all about that, having experienced the effect themselves. They nevertheless believed in the effect of an armed citizenry on potential centralized tyranny. 2- You seem to have missed the lessons of the last century in which it has repeatedly been demonstrated that lightly armed but determined men can tie a heavily armed enemy in knots by forcing that enemy to defend everywhere, every road, every village, etc. There is a highly developed literature on the subject but you have probably never bothered to inform yourself. You know what you want. pl

[LondonBob]

Tracking Trump's favourables on Reuters etc. he is right back to where he was before HRC won California and the media attacks intensified, in other words they failed, so far. Sure there have been some very odd polls published recently where they haven't weighted down the D respondents leading to some large Clinton leads, but the reality is the electorate doesn't have ten per cent more Democrats than Republicans. The PPP polls that show Trump down a couple of points in Iowa and Virginia are more accurate.

My idle musings are that after securing the nomination they wanted to see whether Trump will play ball and they have received a firm no, hence the increasing attacks from both sides. Indeed I saw an interview with Ben Carson on Trump's VP pick where Carson suggested it now wouldn't be an establishment politician, rather it would be an outsider who shares his policy positions. Speaking of which there was an interview with Trump in the Sunday Times here in London today where he reiterated his desire for friendly relations with Russia, that he is happy to talk to Kim and the North Koreans, and that he would oppose more Ground Troops in the Middle East.

[Fred]

Freudenschade,

The First World War, by which you mean the first time we American's had to save Europe from themselves.

[no one]

Sir, Hopefully not deviating too far off topic or into silliness, but a lightly armed US populace fighting a guerrilla campaign of the type you refer to could inflict disproportionate damage in by interfering with the production and delivery of food to the major cities, which happen to also be the seats of power of the government. Food is produced in the country. Cities have maybe 3 days to a week worth of reserves, after which the urban population begins to starve, riot, etc.

Also, a goodly amount of the troops in combat arms come from the rural areas. If the issues were serious enough to fight over, then many of thee troops would be with the insurgents, not firing on them. You understand this latter point, I'm sure.

[Daniel Nicolas]

Madison argues:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

I argue that such a militia of the people will readily be organized, and the individuals already possess the means and motivation to never be conquered, by an national government or a foreign invading force it matters not.

Perhaps they will occupy our cities or burn them to the ground, for a moment, but that does not constitute a conquering.

Forbes reported on a conservatively estimated 1 million in non-compliance with the
"NY SAFE" act. That is NY alone, with CT adding another 300k or more. The US military armed forces total including reserve forces is ~2 million. The state and local police are perhaps 1.5 million more. 3.5 Million against how many? Estimates based on surveys conclude that that 40-50% of the households in the population has at least 1 gun and the average number of guns a gun owner has is 8. The numbers tell the whole story. Can 3.5 million defeat 120-150 million? No doubt there would be a great number of casualties on the side of the people. Russia lost tens of millions yet they are here and Nazi Germany is not.

And yet this is absurd to even think that we should ever reach such a moment in our future.

First, Look to NY or CT, where non-compliance for their gun bans with registration requirements is the default, and the people have the support of the local governments in resisting such tyranny.

"52 of New York's 62 counties passed official resolutions in direct opposition of the NY SAFE Act and some counties directed their law enforcement officials to not enforce the SAFE Act within their jurisdictions."

Second, they are at an impasse. They want everyone to submit, yet they do not wish to risk their own lives to do it. As we currently posses the means to defend our individual persons and refuse to comply with their laws, this impasse continues. They are furious at our righteous defiance yet have no teeth because they are not willing to risk life as we are to protect our liberty.

There is an image being floated with the Gadsden flag that has "Don't tread on me" replaced with "Shoot Back". That is what prevents the evil that sits in the seat of our national and state governments from slaughtering us. They know we will shoot back.

[steve]

There are some on the left who want to get rid of all guns, but I don't think the ultimate goal of most gun control advocates is to get rid of all guns. Lots of us on the left have guns too. We have over 300 million guns in the country and they aren't going away. Guns are a part of our culture. I think it is just a matter of being wrong, and there is no conspiracy. In every major Universal background check that I can remember, there has been an exemption for sales (gifts) to family, friends and neighbors. Back when gun laws were tighter, and before the NRA turned into a political organization no one tried to take away all the guns. It won't happen now. There is no support for it. OTOH, fear of all the guns being taken away keeps pushing up the cost of ammunition and guns. Since I don't shoot so much anymore i guess I shouldn't care.

Steve

[turcopolier]

steve

IMO you are just kidding yourself. pl

[b]

1. The current U.S. interpretation of the 2nd amendment only goes back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which Scalia and other nuts held 5:4 that there is an (absolute) individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to the service in a militia.
Such a wide interpretation did not exist prior to that decision. I for one regard that very wide interpretation as wrong.

2. IMHO AR-15s and other (semi-)automatic weapons, except maybe pistols with up to six shots, should fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Like machineguns these arms would have to be registered, dealing with them would be restricted and the owner would have to have a license for them.

3. I find it crazy to believe someday Tyranny would come to the U.S. and people would need such weapons to defend themselves against it. Tyranny does not come or stay anywhere because the citizens' lack of weapons.

[turcopolier]

Daniel Nocolas

Further complicating the federal government's problem would be the loyalty or the lack of it of both RA and ARNG forces when required to oppress working class Americans. pl

[John Minnerath]

The ultimate goal of the big players in the gun control movement is repeal of the 2nd Amendment and ban of any firearms among the civilian population. Nothing less.
When they say that isn't what they want, they lie.

[turcopolier]

b

"I for one regard that very wide interpretation as wrong." On this subject we don't care what you and all the other farm animals think in Europe, Canada, Ruritania, or wherever. You have an opinion on whether or not SCOTUS decided something wrongly? How laughable! Deal with your own problems. You Germans should be very afraid of what is happening to your country. pl

[Tyler]

B,

1) because the leftist judiciary had tied themselves into knots arguing how abortion was a civil right but apparently the 2nd AMD refers to muskets. So SCOTUS settled it. The concept that free men have a right to arms has a bit more historic cachet than the inane decisions regarding Obamacare, homo marriage, or the right of a woman to murder her child.

2) cry baby histronics. Let's play your game to the hilt and assume the 1 Amd only regards Christianity and printing presses.

3) The Left literally writes pieces declaring that violence against Trump supporters is okay cause Trump is Hitler. So either they believe this or they don't. Furthermore one only has to look at the actions of the government to realize tyranny is here. Refuse to bake a gay couple a cake and see what happens to you.

[Tyler]

Sir,

When b is dragged out from under his bed by a mob of Mohammedeans his last words will be "at least I wasn't racist" as he and his progeny are savaged to death.

[The Twisted Genius]

If I was running the gun control crowd, I would drop the universal background check fixation and concentrate on a solution similar to the NFA of 1934 to include semiautomatic weapons. I would up the $200 tax stamp to $5,000. Admittedly that would include a lot of weapons that are dear to a lot of people. But I can think of a lot of weapons regulated by the NFA that are also dear to a lot of people. Weapons not regulated would be exempt from all registration and background check requirements. There will still be plenty of gun deaths, but mass shooters would have to rely on bolt action or lever action rifles or revolvers. Yes, I would also let double action pistols be exempt from regulation.

If I was running the full bore 2d Amendment crowd, I'd be pushing for the lifting of restrictions on automatic weapons and destructive devices. Why can't law abiding citizens become hobbyist bomb makers and pursue their hobby on demo ranges regulated only for safety reasons? Laws prohibiting hobby bomb making in apartment buildings or similar places would make sense even to a hobbyist bomb maker. An IED capable citizenry would definitely be a check on an over reaching government.

[turcopolier]

TTG

Your "gun control crowd" recommendation would impose a $5,000 tax on Americans for the privilege of owning an auto-loading shotgun, or that KELTEC .22 of mine that you enjoyed shooting. How about my WW2 .30 carbine? pl

[Freudenschade]

Col.,

Respectfully, I read Federalist #46 as addressing the question of the relationship between the federal and state governments. The only Federalist paper that I'm aware of that addresses the question of police powers is #17. For what it's worth, I share your concern about the behavior of municipal police.

[John Minnerath]

TTG

Did your boat spring a leak?

[turcopolier]

Envious

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties." Are you pulling my leg? You missed the part about "near half a million citizens with arms in their hands..." Are you a lawyer or just a gun control activist? Remember Madison wrote this seeking to calm the apprehension of Americans about accepting the present constitution. pl

[Freudenschade]

Col.,

1. I accept your judgement of my military ignorance. Having studied the service and surgeons records of the Union army, I'm only familiar with the lethality of battlefields of one 19th century conflict. 2. I made the mistake of reading James Madison's words as a battle plan, i.e. an overwhelming force of armed citizens opposing a much smaller force of federal troops. Clearly that's not how things would shake out, and it's more the principle of armed resistance against tyranny that Madison is proposing.

[Freudenschade]

Col.,

I think we are in agreement here. "These" refers to a federal army of some 20,000 to 30,000 troops.