HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 32 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 11,888

Journal Archives

That's totally fine.

It's when you want to force other citizens to live by your own choices that we have a disagreement.

Actually, the fundamentalists did hold social drinkers as responsible for drunk driving

and the ~50,000-100,000 alcohol related deaths annually. Just read the writings and speech transcripts of Carrie Nation, or Billy Sunday, or whoever.

The fundies were wrong, but that's the mentality people have when they get on a self-righteous moral crusade against what they deem sinful.

There is a huge amount of overlap between the rhetoric of the alcohol prohibition movement and the gun prohibition movement, in terms of rhetoric, hatred for responsible partakers of the "sin" in question, legislative goals, and apathy toward negative second-order effects of their proposed legislation. The alcohol prohibitionists viewed social drinkers who were blinded or killed by methanol-spiked alcohol as acceptable collateral damage, and sometimes praised as a lesson to "those people"; the extreme violence created by the "War on Alcohol" was viewed similarly. Much of that rhetoric and tactics carried over to the War on Drugs, the War on Contraception (remember the Comstock Laws?), and the War on Guns.

The only difference is that gun owners are a lot more organized and politically active than social drinkers were, which is why we have been quite a bit more successful even though alcohol prohibition and gun prohibition draw about the same level of popular support. It also helps that gun ownership and carrying is a specifically enumerated constitutional right, whereas alcohol consumption wasn't specifically listed because no one seriously thought it would ever be questioned.

A couple of years ago, I'd have been "meh" about it.

I have always felt that shall-issue CCW licensure is a compromise I could live with, satisfying both RKBA and the concerns of non-gun-owners.

Then, I went to renew my NC CHL again, that I've had since I moved here from Florida in 2003-2004, and found out that the state is now taking in excess of four months to issue your new permit, even though the background check requirements take only a few weeks and going past the already-excessive 120-day limit is illegal. At least in my county, NC is routinely violating that legal time limit, because the mental health records check that takes literally 5 minutes on an NC mental health records system wasn't being done because the agency doing them doesn't give a shit about legal requirements. And that to get an NC permit, you may end up paying upwards of $200 for the class and fees and losing a couple days of work to complete the process, pricing the working class right out of the picture. This directly targets the lawful and responsible members of the working class, while not addressing misuse at all. And the only way to carry during the illegally extended waiting period was to open carry, which I prefer not to do.

And then the Attorney General of Virginia announced he was unilaterally revoking the VA-NC reciprocity agreement, even though NC's training and licensure requirements are stricter than VA's, apparently as a personal favor to Bloomberg. Again, directly targeting the licensed, lawful, and responsible, and requiring open carry as the only legal alternative whenever I visit Virginia.

Meanwhile, criminals in NC *already* have permitless carry. If they want to carry a concealed gun today, they stuff it in their waistband and carry it. They don't care; why should they?

So, now? Yes, I'm all for "constitutional carry". Maybe it will help the gun control lobby stop setting its agenda based on hatemongering against gun owners, and pull them back toward the common ground that shall-issue carry licensure represents. If we have "constitutional carry", then prompt licensure easily accessible to the working class and based on reasonable de minimis requirements doesn't look so bad, does it?

300 million is a lowball estimate now,

and I'd estimate 99%+ are owned by people who can legally own guns under Federal law.

In the few states that require registration of protruding rifle handgrips or restrict post-Civil-War magazine capacities, or in a few jurisdictions where it is easier to get a gun on the black market rather than through legal channels, I'm sure the fraction of noncompliant ownership is higher. I'm not sure I'd lump an accountant with a 15-round Beretta in the same category as an armed robber or violent felon, though, even if you don't see a difference.

I know you want to make that percentage as close to 0% as you can get it, of course...

So you believe that income is strictly correlated with moral character, I take it?

And there should be an income test before you are allowed to own a gun? The working class need not apply?

FWIW, I used to live in a trailer park, the first year after I graduated from college and while my then-wife was still in school. I suppose we wouldn't have been considered "your kind" then; not enough green in our pockets.

You mean the same Maryland...

where the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes are now banned?

Yeah, all those calls to ban popular guns, curtail the ability of ordinary citizens to get carry licenses, and heavily restrict magazines and ammo are just NRA blather. No one *really* wants to ban "assault weapons" or over-10-round magazines, or guns without arbitrary feature X, no not at all...

Here's a suppressor on a hunting rifle in Europe. Still damn loud.

Just not "blast snow off the roof of the shooting range" loud. First shot without suppressor, second shot with suppressor; it's still so loud that you can hear the echo off nearby structures.

A suppressed .308 in gun-control paradise, England; he starts using the suppressor at 1:04.

The only guns that can get anywhere near as quiet as a "Hollywood movie silencer" are bolt actions shooting very slow subsonic bullets out of full-length rifle barrels, which are fairly quiet even unsuppressed; out of a shorter barrel, suppressed pistol rounds sound more like an unsuppressed .22 shooting subsonics. Here's a New Zealand resident shooting a reproduction De Lisle carbine (Lee Enfield bolt-action rechambered for .45 ACP, shooting fat subsonic rounds from a long barrel at maybe 850 ft/sec):

A Remington 700 in .300 Blackout (probably in the USA):

I'd like to own one, but financially I doubt I'd be able to unless prices come down. Under the current rules, the tax alone is $200, plus the considerable cost of the suppressor.

So your position is that parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their kids to shoot?

Or is it that teaching kids to shoot "riot guns" and "sniper rifles" and "assault weapons" is OK, but not pistols?

Question: What states in the USA *don't* allow parents to take their 14-year-old to the range and shoot a pistol under their direct supervision?

Oh, come on. If they killed 200 a year, you'd still be trying to ban them. (n/t)

Well, portraying the *least* powerful rifles as the *most* powerful...

is kind of a big screwup, if it were actually a screwup.

I would say that it's a deliberate misrepresentation when the gun control lobby does it, but that's just me. An AR-15 isn't just "not high powered"; it's one of the least powerful rifles on the market, and one of the least misused of all weapons.

You do know that twice as many people are killed by bicycles as are murdered using rifles, right? Even shoes and fists kill more people than rifles do, per the FBI.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 32 Next »