Thursday, September 4, 2008

The Assault Weapons Ban Strikes Back

Meanwhile, in Libertarian land, I'm starting to plan for a potentially disasterous Democratically controlled Congress and Executive. This involves buying a rifle before the end of the year. You know, one of those awful, nasty, baby killing, horse raping black rifles that like to sneak around at night killing poodles and generally being a nuisance.

The basic fact is that there is already a new Assault Weapons Ban in the works. While the first left a lot of wiggle room, this one is a lot more iron clad. If you are planning on buying any rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip in the near future, doing it by the end of the year would be a great idea. Picking up some standard capacity magazines for your firearms now would be an excellent thing to do as well. Be aware that this time, there may be no grandfathering of existing weapons falling under their arbitrary and capricious "features". If they start attempting confiscations, it could get interesting.

I'm hopeful that the nomination of Sara Palin will jump start Conservative support for McLame. While I really don't like the guy, I have to admit, Barr isn't really Libertarian (he has said himself he singlehandedly saved the Lautenberg Amendment that caused so many problems for gun owners) so I don't feel like I'm actually not supporting the party when I vote a Republican ticket for the Executive in November. With Obama's prior support of complete gun bans, and Marxist tendencies, a full ban on most guns wouldn't be a stretch. But don't worry, I'm sure they'll still allow revolvers.

Either way, I'd rather have a chance at leaving intact some of the small strides forward we've made in recent years by putting someone in office that has a chance of vetoing this sort of legislation - than someone guaranteed to sign it while dazzling the constiuants with his empty suit and false smile.

On the other hand, in the event that McCain can't continue the Presidency, I rather like the idea of Palin as President. She seems like she has her head screwed on right, and did a lot in Alaska to clean up corruption and stop earmarking and wasteful spending. The last I heard, she had an 82% approval rating as Governor, and that after losing 10% to media smears after she ensured that an officer that had made death threats against her and her family was fired. We could really use some fiscal responsibility in Washington.


Cheddar said...

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty.

Huh? Who gave what to whom?

triptyx said...

Hey there Cheddar. Reading the various correspondences amongst the Founding Fathers of this Country, you'll find that they wrote the Bill of Rights to enumerate rights already possessed by man. The Bill or Rights itself does not "grant" or "authorize" us to the rights it contains, but rather openly states that man already possesses those rights simply by being born into this world.

As such, most purists and Christians affirm that the Rights described in that document are granted to man by God.

Personally, while I do subscribe to Christian values, I'm actually more of a Buddhist than anything else. As such, I read the Bill of Rights as describing the basic rights that I have automatically by existing.

I'll also note, the quote that you displayed was actually written by Mike Vanderboegh, whose text was cited from this blog as feelings representative of a certain core group of gun owners. While I don't know for sure what I would do in a confiscation situation, be it active or passive resistance (I likely would not comply with such an unlawful order), I point to Mike as being someone who may be ready to pay the ultimate price in blood to affirm the rights he possesses, independent of the influence of anyone who would say otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Under the common clause in the Heller decision, it says you can't ban guns in common use for lawful purposes.

The AR-15 is the most popular center-fire rifle in the United States; mainly used for the lawful purpose of target-shooting by civilians. Other "assault weapons" like semi-automatic AK-47 Clones are everywhere.

So because assault weapons are so common, exactly how is a new assault weapon ban going to pass the new constitutional test? It doesn't seem like it can.

And on one other note, pretending that assault weapons are not common (which they are) and a ban does take place: There's no way the Democrats as a whole would allow the fanatics in their party to pass a ban that didn't have a grandfather clause. No freaking way would they confiscation and rebellion be laid at their doorstep. Any ban that didn't have a grandfather clause, would be amended to have one. The Democrats may be stupid, but they aren't suicidal.

triptyx said...

That's an excellent point, however, we have had "shall not be infringed" for centuries now and that hasn't stopped Congress from making laws in violation of that statement either.

The basic fact is that the people that write and pass these laws don't give a damn whether they're constitutional or not. Ultimately, it takes someone to fall afoul of the new law, and then thousands or millions of dollars in Lawyer fees and months and years of court challenges and appeals to finally (hopefully) overturn those laws.

For an example of this, take a look at what DC has done in the wake of Heller. They changed the rules a teeny bit, allowing the registration of revolvers, and continued to ban just about all pistols that had a magazine that loaded from the bottom as "machine guns", and still required all guns be stored locked up and or disassembled except in the face of immediate lethal threat. They only recently have opened up a few more of those rules after the House of Representatives began an attempt to establish new laws that were more along the lines of what just about every other state in the Union already have.

The basic gist of this is that modern politicians pass whatever the hell they want. They don't care if its Constitutional or not, they figure they'll just pass it anyways and maybe get lucky in court. Either way, there is a good, long period in which that law stands while it is being fought and challenged in the courts.

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

I'll also add that I do not believe Washington Politicians have any fear of the people any more.

Between the ideologues amongst the populace that believe anything that the far-left owned media says (look at how many people say that the NRA is lying when they point out Obama's well documented voting record as evidence that he is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment), to the well-funded lobbying organizations that further socialist doctrine and disarmament as the highest ideal, backed by an apathetic, Liberal trained populace (someone I respect recently told me it's ok to suspend the 4th Amendment if the authorities, in the absence of any other evidence, think someone might be molesting a child, and then chastised me as supporting child abuse when I said that was silly) - I think the modern Politician is an elitist that, deep down, thinks they can do whatever the hell they want, without consequences.

Pols can say anything in the media, regardless of the truth of their statement, they can break any laws they want and be let off (look at the more recent Kennedy's), and can pass any form of legislation that will give them greater advantage without any consequences whatsoever.

The worst part is - they're usually right.

It's past time to start weighing down the branches of the Tree of Liberty with the hanging bodies of those that break their oath to uphhold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Then and only then will Politicians begin to pay attention to the prohibitions under which they should be operating, and become true servants of the people they represent.

Anonymous said...

I understand what you are saying, but let's look at one more issue.

The first AWB was passed by a very small majority of votes; and that was back in 1994 when being against assault weapons was the thing to do.

What has happened since then? The Dems lost control of congress until 2006 because of it. Al Gore lost his own home state in 2000 because of gun control. John Kerry can blame his wanting to reinstate the AWB for a good portion of his loss (combined with his ridiculous photo op with a "politically correct-looking shotgun).

When the Democrats took over congress in 2006, they filled a lot of Republican seats with pro-gun Democrats. Dems now come in three kinds: 1) Pro-gun 2) Anti-gun but politcally savy enough to know that AWBs make them lose elections 3)Fanatically Ant-gun, such as Diane Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy.

While the Dems were stupid enough to put another AWB in their 2008 Party Platform,I think the reason for it was the fanatics in their party have some good pull. However, I question whether they could actually get the votes to pass another ban now that they are educated in that they know it makes them lose votes; when they barely got the votes in a time when it was the thing to do. And again, there's no way they'd get the votes on something that didn't have a grandfather clause.

Now I'm not saying I'm banking on that combined with the common clause, but it does give me hope regardless of whether or not Obama/Biden wins. I'm still doing my own stockpiling just in case. But I'm not in the same kind of panic as others are.

triptyx said...

To some degree you may be right, and our reality is also held in thrall by a group of people that feel it is in their best interest to ensure that the information we receive is heavily filtered and spun.

I do, however, feel that these Congress Critters (as Lawdog loves to put it) may become incredibly tyrannical should they end up with a House, Senate, and Presidency.

Does this mean panic and prepare for the end of the world? Probably not.

That possible eventuality does mean a lot of us are going to go through a lot of pain for at least 4 years.

I do sincerely hope some of the hard-won advances in liberty that have been made over the last few years hold, and that it doesn't take us another decade to see even the small amount of freedom left to us returned.

Current Quote

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson