Gun Laws

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

These are some of the basics about Guns Laws that anyone should know before they should form an opinion on which are "Reasonable" or why some people are resistant to more laws of this kind.

Gun Laws

MyGadsden.jpg
There are a few late 20th century inventions in the war against civil liberties (and the 2nd), but few as virulent and wrongheaded as that the 2nd amendment was about "the militia" and the militia meant "National Guard" (something that wasn't invented until 1903). These assumptions fail at Logic, English, History, and Constitutional Law, and there were the founders words, Supreme Court rulings, and experts in language and history that all but unanimously disagree with them. Of course mere facts won't prevent the determined from demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect, but hopefully the evidence can deter a few of them from demonstrating their willful ignorance in the future.
ModernMusket.png
There’s a common argument (fallacy) that the Second Amendment didn't project changes in armament / technology, thus it couldn’t have been intended to apply to modern pistols and rifles (most of whose designs actually go back to the 1800’s or early 1900’s). This argument completely fails on the intent of the 2nd (which was about balancing power), but it even more strongly fails on understanding gun technology and history. At the founding of the country they had 8-shot revolvers, 9 shot "repeaters", 11-shot field artillery pieces, Jefferson even had a 22 shot repeating rifle. Not to mention "burst mode" automatics that fired up to 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger. And during the remainder of their lives, not one of the founding fathers came forward to complain that technology was advancing beyond the intent of the 1st or 2nd Amendments.
In 2016, California passed many gun-grabbers dream laws: phased in tyranny over the next couple years. If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
Concealed carry facts:
  • They commit fewer crimes than the population, or police
  • They have better records on shooting than the populace or police
  • The fallacy with more guns = more crime is disproven by the fact that states with the most conceal and carry permits, have lower crimes -- and the trends as C&C goes up, crime has not
In 1994 the federal government enacted a "Assault Weapon" ban, with a sunset clause to end by 2000. After 6 years it was shown that it had done absolutely nothing to curb crime, gun crime or mass shootings -- so it went away and there was absolutely no noticeable difference in either. California quickly enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state -- but because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, they grandfathered in old magazines. While the law was still technically unconstitutional, it wasn't clear how the Supreme's would rule, so the gun advocates took it, and could get around the law by claiming new magazines were pre-ban. Then in 2018 California figured fuck the Constitution they'd ban them all (without fair compensation). It was guaranteed to lose, but they could harass their citizens for years while it wound it's way through the court. Instead a judge quickly and brutally ruled against it, and made standard capacity magazines legal for a week: and over 1M of them were bought, showing how fraudulent and corrupt the ban was in the first place. If crime doesn't skyrocket, it proves that magazine bans aren't about public safety, but intolerance and people control.
Militia.png
Words change meaning over time. The militia means what it meant at the founding, not what the word evolved to mean today.

At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.

But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).

You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below
Some claim, "nobody wants to take your guns, we just want a few 'reasonable' controls on them". But if we pretend that gun control works (by ignoring facts and history), and we assume guns are the problem, then there is no such thing as gun-control: you need gun bans. "Controlling" semi-auto rifles means you have to control semi-auto-pistols... and then revolvers, and pump/lever action, then bolt action guns (which committed one of our worst mass shootings in American history) and the results are, there are no safe guns in the hands of crazies. Thus logic says they're lying, either to us, themselves or both. So I've yet to meet the gun-controller that will be satisfied with X, when that means their neighbors will still have guns.
Hillary2A.png
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda.
A good gun law? I'm pleasantly surprised. This law requires mandatory firearm knowledge before legislators can introduce firearm related legislation. What a novel idea!
Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.
Magazine limits have never been shown to have any impact on gun crime, crime, or casualties in mass shootings. Democrats demand low capacity magazines either knowing that (and not caring), or being ignorant of the topic they're trying to legislate. Persecuting someone knowing that your law can't help is kinda the definition of asshole.
Microstamping.jpg
Microstamping.jpg
Microstamping is a form of gun-control. California figures if you can't outlaw something, you can still put impossible regulations on it to illegally achieve the same ends: enter micro-stamping. Like their law passed in 2007 to put little engravings of serial numbers rounds that are fired, the technology doesn't exist, if it did it would be easy to defeat, and wouldn't be effective for 100 years. But common sense doesn't slow the left, they passed it anyways (A.B. 1471).
NoFly.png
The left demands that we close the “insane” loophole that allows people on the No Fly List to buy guns. Which begs the question, who gets on that list, and how do you get off it, if you're on it by mistake? What we know is there's thousands of people that shouldn't be on there, on it. No known way for them to get off it. And no mass shooter has ever been on it. Sounds like a good enough reason to assume your guilt and take away your rights, to a Democrat.
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.
Law.jpg
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more. If you want to be reasonable, you first need to be informed, and get the basics right. How can you reason with an ignoramus (well meaning or not)? So the first step to reasonable gun laws, is educating the gun controllers, on what guns are, how they work, and how bad the current laws are.
Law.jpg
There’s an oft repeated fallacy that “all we want it a few more ‘reasonable’ gun laws” but (insert either the NRA, evil republicans, gun-nuts), won’t be reasonable. So let's talk about "what's reasonable", and explain some of the complexities that the reasonable laws on the books already look like, to understand why some are so hesitant to ask for more.
Shotspotter.png
Shotspotter.png
Progressives are full of good ideas on how to spend other people's money, on ways to avoid blaming criminals for their actions. This one was by spending ≈$250,000/square mile (or about $60-90K/sq mi in yearly reoccurring costs), you could detect and send cops to scenes of shootings. And liberals who watch too much CSI pressed many cities to adopt the expensive systems. How are they working?
SmartGuns.png
"Smart guns" (sometimes called safe guns) were an idea invented by gun controllers to have a wedge issue to divide the nation. But there's nothing smart about them. Anyone with a basic clue of them, would laugh openly, if they weren't so fucking dangerous. But the whole issue is evidence of why we should tests to qualify people on topics, before allowing them to vote.


Laws : 2nd Amendment was about the militia2nd Amendment was for musketsCalifornia GunpocolypseConcealed carryDuncan v. BecerraGun Quotes : Militia MeaningGuns: Control or ban?Hillary Clinton: 2nd AmendmentIllinois SB0173Just Ban Assault RiflesMagazine LimitsMicrostampingNo Fly Lists for gun ownersPeruta v. San DiegoReasonable Gun LawsRifle, Pistol or SBRShotspotterSmart guns are a dumb idea