Journal pudge's Journal: Woke Up This Morning, Got Myself a Gun 76
I thought maybe he would feel better in the morning. Nope. I am still bothered by the many liberties to be lost under an Obama presidency and liberal Democratic Congress.
Starting January 20, I am going to keep a list of liberties lost. I'll probably seed a list of liberties likely to lose. Perhaps in all the excitement yesterday you missed the news that Chuck Schumer said he wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
As those of us following along with actual issues are aware, Obama is going to be the most anti-gun President in history, if he follows through on his stated views, his voting history, and so on.
He supported the DC gun ban, which he admits was unconstitutional. He said the expiration of the so-called "assault weapons" ban was a "tragedy." He supports banning a lot of ammo, and making a lot more prohibitively expensive.
Despite his claim of supporting an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, it's obvious his definition of "right" means the government can restrict that "right" into oblivion.
And his friends in the Congress, like the aforementioned Schumer, will go along with any gun restriction they can get their hands on. That he came out on Election Day and talked about restricting the First Amendment tells you that these people are not afraid of anything right now.
So, it's time to stock up, while we still can. I am thinking M-4 carbine, a bunch of large clips, and as much inexpensive ammo as I can get my hands on.
Now Playing: Matisyahu - King Without A Crown
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Fairness Doctrine (Score:2)
NPR would have to hire a lot of people - lay some off I guess too - to balance it out.
Liberty? (Score:2)
What's "liberty" [kuro5hin.org]? The only two differences between the Rs and Ds is 1. which corporations pay for their elections and write their laws for them and 2. which rights they want to take away first. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
Don't blame me, I voted for Barr.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Re: (Score:2)
The writing itself may be lame, but the fact that we are no longer the freest nation on Earth is certainly not yawn inducing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your rhetoric about this IS yawn-inducing and outside of the words you use I have no interest in what is being said.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, I voted for Barr.
Great. The lesser of three evils. You're so principled.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he is.
He followed his principles, I follow mine, you follow yours.
Re: (Score:2)
There were six candidates on my ballot. I voted for the one whose party doesn't want me in prison.
Not a lot of liberty in prison.
M-4?? (Score:2)
That's a serious weapon.
Me? I have my
The only change I'll make? Getting ammo. I usually only get ammo if I'm going out to shoot... keep none in the house, no fears about the kids doing something stupid (even though they can't get to the weapons, and if they could, they have trigger locks). Now I
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet hell, are you planning on starting a militia (which is also constitutional)? Are you going to war?
I am buying something I may want or need in the future, based on the realization that I may not be able to buy it in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was pretty obvious pudge was talking about an M4gery. An AR-15 type carbine, with a flattop upper, M4 feed cuts, 16" M4 profile barrel, bayonet mount on the gas block, telestock, etc. In fact, the carbine of that description made by Colt for the civilian market is actually called an M4.
Examples:
http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/MTM4.asp [coltsmfg.com]
http://www.dpmsinc.com/firearms/firearm.aspx?id=36 [dpmsinc.com]
http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_xm15_PCWA3X_14M4IZ.asp [bushmaster.com]
Every one of those carbines would have been illegal under th
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused, squigglesquash. M-4 is perfectly legal as long as it is not auto. There's many of them available.
Maybe you would say "those aren't real A4s if they have no burst or auto," but the market calls them A4s, and there's a lot of them available legally, from Bushmaster and other makers [bushmaster.com], and to most people, it's obvious that this is what I am referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know your .30-06 produces more than twice the muzzle energy [remington.com] of the round fired by the M4(and M16, AR-15, Mini-14, etc.)?
Did you know that the .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO round is generally considered less than adequate for game over the size of coyotes, and is in fact illegal in many locales for hunting deer sized game because of its small diameter and relatively low power?
Did you know Obama voted to ban ammunition which may be used in a handgun (presumably including the TC Encore) capable of penetr [senate.gov]
Don't forget the new VP-elect, (Score:3, Insightful)
the author of the original Assault Weapons Ban.
I'd love to ask anyone who laments the expiration of that ban just what good they thought it did.
As for guns, look at the DPMS Sportical [dpmsinc.com]. I hear good things about DPMS and that carbine has some nice features at an excellent price. You'll need to add some iron sights or an optical sight though.
Get yourself some Magpul Pmag magazines, very high quality mags that are well priced.
Buy everything you want ASAP, things are already getting backordered and it wouldn't be too surprising if there was a new AWB in effect by April or May 2009.
Liberties lost (Score:2)
We've got an unwritten mental list of things we're worried about, some serious, some not as serious. I'm going to be watching really closely the first ninety days to get an idea which way the winds are blowing.
I mean, are we facing Bill Clinton again (who thankfully didn't accomplish much)? Or someone more like FDR? Or an out and out Stalin? Will we be able to homeschool when it's all said and done? Will we be able to take our kids to church? Will the Fairness Doctrine impact the Internet?
Or will we j
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not reasonably anticipating that as a possibility. I'm just ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other for rhetorical purposes. In other words, I'm saying, "How bad is this going to be? Surely not this bad, right?"
investment (Score:1)
I've made more (theoretically, I do not sell or give away any of it, just use it) on my investments into ammo during the clinton years then I have with other sorts of precious metals. It's already way late to get any deals on ammo, but considering they will in fact institute draconian taxes on ammo or ban some, right off the bat any normal military surplus because it is full metal jacket and they will call that "cop killer armor piercing", ya, seems prudent if one doesn't have any or not much. Bolt action d
Keep a list of promises broken, too. (Score:1)
On the M4 - buy enough ammo such that you also have enough to fire at a range and become real comfortable with it.
You might need it sooner than you realize.
As far as me - I went ahead and bought that shotgun I was looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll let you keep that list. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
You know, my Grandfather escaped and fought against Nazi Germany. He fought the Third Reich.
I will fight the Fourth Reich. Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box - in that order.
Re: (Score:2)
I love you, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Just checking.
Are you saying that we are entering the Fourth Reich with an Obama presidency?
Re: (Score:2)
The first three fascist regimes were Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.
Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg, and you'll understand why I state that.
Re: (Score:2)
He changed the text on his web site about requiring involuntary servitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. I came here to ask if you were going to practice civil disobedience on this by any chance, and if you knew whether or not it was going to apply to homeschoolers, and I come back with this good news. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Need it for what? Seriously. Can you give some details and just what you are realistically going to be "needing" this stuff for?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know why the Japanese never invaded after Pearl Harbor? Because Hirohito knew there would be "a rifle under every blade of grass".
I don't think the current leadership in Russia, Iran, or North Korea are as smart as Hirohito was, and I also think that the governments of those countries see the American population to be as weak as some elected Democrats are.
Furthermore
Ronald Reagan (Score:1)
Was the first and best friend that gun control ever had in the US [keepandbeararms.com].
He disarmed the Panthers, then he came for you.
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that Regan was far from perfect with regard to gun control, I think the FDR deserves the title of "first and best friend that gun control ever had in the US."
The National Firearms Act of 1934 [wikipedia.org], passed by Roosevelt, was the first national gun control policy adopted by the US and a careful reading of Miller [wikipedia.org] and Heller [wikipedia.org] shows that the NFA restricted exactly the weapons that were intended to be protect by the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution (military arms and those in common use). In addition
Re: (Score:2)
An attempted assassination will do that to a guy.
It's the "oh shit complete whacko's can get a hold of these and wreak havoc with them" response.
That's not to say that all gun owners are such (quite the contrary). Just an observation about gun control under Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
So Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967 in response to John Hinkley's assasination attempt in 1981?
Re: (Score:1)
Process this:
John Hinckley Jr. was the son of business associates and large-scale contributors to George Herbert Walker Bush, Vice President and former Director of the CIA.
This is only the most cursory and nearly skeptical view of that connection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley#Bush-Hinckley_family_connections [wikipedia.org]
But, conspiracy theorists are all crazy. Coincidences explain everything, from the creation of the universe, to the rise of human intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
A complete wacko I work with told me this week he had a number of unregistered guns.
I thanked him. He made me slightly uneasy, but not near as uneasy as the new President-elect. I'd rather have this guy out there making me AND potentially the new administration uneasy, than not have him at all.
Besides, he's a complete wacko because he got sent off to fight in a government war when he was young. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I defy you to describe how it's crazy.
You can't, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
I defy you to describe how it's not crazy.
You can't, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
jdavidb says "on balance, the guy with unregistered guns is good, because he may scare the President more than he scares me."
I defy you to describe how it's not crazy.
As you refuse to back up your claims and refuse to abide by simple standards of logic, you may not post on my journal anymore. You're either very stupid or a troll, and either way, you're not worth anyone's time.
We don't see eye to eye on a lot politically but.. (Score:1)
I'll tell you this much, speaking as a central Pennsylvanian moderate who voted Obama.
I own, at this moment: .30-06
A Mossberg 500 12-ga. shotgun
A Winchester
A full-auto Airsoft BB gun that looks a hell of a lot like a AKS74
I also plan in the near future to get a good-quality midsize 9mm pistol as I'm interested in the concept of tactical pistol shooting (hijacking my own post here to ask for suggestions from the gallery for what kind of semiauto pistol a large guy with big hands should be looking at)
If my ri
Re:We don't see eye to eye on a lot politically bu (Score:2)
I haven't heard any noises from the Obama camp concerning long arms
If an AR-15 is long arms, then he wants them banned. And he wants to ban any ammo that can be used in a handgun that could "kill cops," which is a lot of rifle ammo.
while I am opposed to bans on handguns, municipality-level controls on them isn't a deal-breaker for me.
It's a true slippery slope. That Obama thinks city bans on handguns are constitutional should concern you a great deal.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have in the past made the tenor of the legal situation surrounding guns so hostile that any moves toward reasonableness (or, indeed, almost any regulation at all) by EITHER party will be seen as fig leaves covering an anti-gun agenda.
That's just not true. The NRA supports most "reasonable" regulation, including modest waiting periods and licensing fees, background checks, and so on.
Re: (Score:1)
If an AR-15 is long arms, then he wants them banned. And he wants to ban any ammo that can be used in a handgun that could "kill cops," which is a lot of rifle ammo.
I'll admit I'm less moved by the cosmetic bans, as much as I think they're pointless, since I'm rather of the opinion that my uncle's semi-auto Garand carbine--which was not, as far as I was aware, covered by any band, is essentially the same amount of firepower in a slightly different shell.
It's a true slippery slope. That Obama thinks city ban
Re: (Score:2)
We can agree to disagree on the slipperiness of the slope--all the more so because I've already said if the slope DOES touch me I'm dropping Obama support.
I guess my point is that gun-banners tend to always want to ban more and more guns, and he has said he would ban most rifle ammo.
Yes, and the typical guys I talk to about this at the shooting range I go to are opposed to all these things on slippery slope or "they want to register all of us so they can take 'em away later" grounds.
I get that, but the NRA is the gun rights group, and they support these things, which is why we have many of these things and politicians seldom fear losing politically by backing them.
That said, I am against mandatory training or licensing to own a gun for a simple reason: it's a Constitutional right, and we should not have to pass a test or seek permission to exercise our rights
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't support any licensing that wasn't shall-issue after a test with objective and clear criteria. I would support mandatory safety testing for long arms and standard handguns, along the lines of what was in the nice NRA pamphlet I got with my Mossberg--here's how you clean, store safely, and use safely your firearm. I would further support expanded licensing with more stringent skills-based tests for currently-banned arms--something similar to (and the requirement wholly fulfilled by, if applicable
Re: (Score:2)
I would support mandatory safety testing for long arms and standard handguns, along the lines of what was in the nice NRA pamphlet I got with my Mossberg--here's how you clean, store safely, and use safely your firearm.
Here's the problem: government has no legitimate interest in stopping you from driving a car. Well, some people in government do, but there's no way they could get away with failing lots of people on a driver's test just because they were against cars.
But with guns many people in government feel they have every incentive to prevent you from having a gun, and people WILL fail you arbitrarily, and will do whatever they can to prevent you from having a gun. This has happened before and it will happen again.
M
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is where a lot of our policy differences boil down to the same thing--I'm more inclined to give government exactly the power I believe it needs, and then watch it like a hawk (I've had words with, well, exactly one county sheriff who didn't want to "shall issue" me my CCW, but he wisely relented after I made a few calls to my state senator), whereas you and many who post here are worried enough about the slippery slopes (with potentially good reason, admittedly) that you'd rather have no regula
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is where a lot of our policy differences boil down to the same thing--I'm more inclined to give government exactly the power I believe it needs, and then watch it like a hawk (I've had words with, well, exactly one county sheriff who didn't want to "shall issue" me my CCW, but he wisely relented after I made a few calls to my state senator), whereas you and many who post here are worried enough about the slippery slopes (with potentially good reason, admittedly)
Not just potentially. Your example here proves it: a public official tried to take away your right. You got to exercise it anyway, but many may not have gotten that chance in your shoes. The very fact that he tried to violate your rights WAS a violation of your rights.
that you'd rather have no regulation than mild regulation, even if mild is better, to avoid the risk of de-facto heavy regulation
No, I'd rather that regulations cannot be abused due to subjective interpretation of the public officials involved. And that means no mandatory tests of any kind, because then the public officials can use that as an opportunity to fail you
Re: (Score:1)
Is there any way, in your opinion, to design a legal or regulatory test (similar in scope to a driver's test) without generating an unacceptably high risk of a public official unfairly failing a participant?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any test be needed?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Should psychopaths be able to buy all the guns they want?
What does that have to do with testing? (Pssst: nothing.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, YOU don't get it.
First, we were talking about safety tests. You're not. So what you say is irrelevant.
Second, what you say it insanely stupid: you want government to determine whether a person is "fit" to exercise their RIGHTS. By that standard, you would have to prove you were fit to exercise your right free speech, and you'd surely fail.
Re: (Score:1)
I can think of a few reasons, some of which I know you do not agree with:
* The "well-regulated" clause can be read as permitting regulation as to the ownership of firearms--whether or not one believes that's the case, with the present supreme court and popular feeling on the issue it's wisest to work within that framework to make any regulations sensible, fair, and as loosely restrictive of the actual right to own man-portable arms as possible.
* As I stated above, anecdotal surveys of lefties I hang out wit
Re: (Score:2)
The "well-regulated" clause can be read as permitting regulation as to the ownership of firearms
Again, the topic here is requiring a test to exercise your rights. Whether the "well-regulated" clause can be interpreted as you say -- and it can't be, though that's beside the point I am making, as it would defy the recent Supreme Court ruling in Heller, but I'll still concede that SOME regulation is obviously warranted, just as it is for the First Amendment -- "regulation" does not amount to "proving adequacy through government testing."
If you have a right, you have a right. Period. Just like you can'
Re: (Score:1)
Fair enough, and your point is well-made. I'm not sure I agree with it, at least as far as all the provisions of Heller.
One hopes that either your or my interpretation wins out, I think, since the alternative is the ridiculous position of broad bans on firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
To say that the government can enforce "well-regulated" as a requirement, since it is in the Amendment, is to say that it can enforce "well-regulated militia" as a requirement. Heller explicitly rejected this.
Re: (Score:2)
"What good is a phone call, if you can't speak?" How do you watch government like a hawk, if they took your guns away?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, know a gunsmith? I'm in a better position on that than most, unless the government makes machine shops illegal at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a true slippery slope. That Obama thinks city bans on handguns are constitutional should concern you a great deal.
We can agree to disagree on the slipperiness of the slope--all the more so because I've already said if the slope DOES touch me I'm dropping Obama support.
As someone who doesn't own guns (though supports the 2nd and believes I'm safer/more free because others do) I was just going to sit back & read. But the part about Obama that troubles me the most is that he was a constitutional law instructor and has said unequivocally that he believes it is an individual right [go.com] yet he says the DC handgun ban is constitutional. Has he ever voted no to a firearm restriction? It's not so much the position he takes - I have no direct stake and there are plenty of politici
Re: (Score:2)
But the part about Obama that troubles me the most is that he was a constitutional law instructor and has said unequivocally that he believes it is an individual right [go.com] yet he says the DC handgun ban is constitutional.
Exactly.
Has he ever voted no to a firearm restriction?
I could only find one and I don't know if he voted no to a restriction, or voted yes to an easing, but it was something about off-duty or retired law enforcement and their right to a gun. (Which I could argue on the one hand is good that he supported it, but on the other hand is a bit fascist, allowing some law-enforcement citizens have guns, even when not acting as cops, but not everyone else.)
it's that he's able to get away with using rhetoric so completely counter to his actual voting record
In February (and several times earlier) he said he believed the DC gun ban was constitutional. In June h
Re: (Score:1)
I need to re-read his position statements on the DC handgun ban, personally. I've had a bad case of sound-byte-itis with regard to everyone involved in this election and I no longer trust my memory of what anyone said about anything without a full transcript.
Re: (Score:2)
That Obama thinks city bans on handguns are constitutional should concern you a great deal.
My personal understanding is that the intent of the Constitution was not to prohibit the states from establishing state religions, regulating free speech, or regulating firearms. Hard to believe I might actually think similarly to Obama. But I'll doubt he comes at it from any position that includes the words "Constitution" or "intent" in the same sentence.
Not saying that I think states or municipalities should ban handguns; just that I thought the intent of the 10th amendment was that such issues become s
Re: (Score:2)
My personal understanding is that the intent of the Constitution was not to prohibit the states from establishing state religions, regulating free speech, or regulating firearms.
That changed with the 14th Amendment [wikipedia.org], which disallowed states from abridging the rights of U.S citizens.
Indeed, the man who introduced the 14th Amendment to the Senate, Senator Howard, said at the time that, when describing what "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means, said:
Re: (Score:2)
I also plan in the near future to get a good-quality midsize 9mm pistol as I'm interested in the concept of tactical pistol shooting (hijacking my own post here to ask for suggestions from the gallery for what kind of semiauto pistol a large guy with big hands should be looking at)
The obvious choice for a 9mm for someone with big hands is a Beretta 92. There are a lot of other options too though. CZ is highly regarded and well priced. Taurus has some models that are heavily derived from the Beretta line, with better prices and a safety location that I prefer.
You're best bet is to go to a range that will let you rent a variety of models.
I really wish that someone would get themselves into a position to propose what I consider sensible firearms regulation (tough but fair testing, licensing and registration, similar to the way automobiles are handled now, with levels in stringency based on firepower--make a basic revolver or hunting arm as easy and convenient as registering a car and getting a driver's license, all the way up to formal mandated schooling and re-testing for fully automatic weapons similar to a high-end commercial driver's license--but in either case, registration costing perhaps $50 a year at most) without people having a legitimate fear of that list of registered guns and owners being used later in a "take 'em all away" crusade.
So how do you figure that's not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights or is going to do anything to reduce crime? It sounds like yet more gove
Re: (Score:1)
Basically, I don't see it as a problem for the following reasons:
1) I don't consider my driver's license and auto registration to be problematic.
2) In my area of the country, the biggest gun problem, over and above crime, continues to be drunken idiots with hunting gear doing stupid crap.
Then again, if we get into a situation where the government is systematically taking people's guns, IMHO I personally am not going to be making it easy for them to do so whether I'm on a list of gun owners or not.
Re: (Score:2)
My counter points:
1) A)Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected, god-given right. I truly believe that the right to own weapons is the right to be free.
B)I've got 30+ guns (a significant portion inherited and rarely fired), if there's to be a yearly registration fee it's likely to be per gun and I likely couldn't afford it.
C)Criminals are unlikely to bother with registration or licensing.
2) Far more people are killed by drunk drivers every year than by accidents with f
Re: (Score:1)
Your point two does, of course, go without saying. As for your point one:
A) I feel like, in this day and age, free travel is or should be considered as fundamental a right as self-defense--and in this country, that certainly means a car. Which is why I use the driver's license analogy.
B) That's a fair point that I hadn't stopped to consider. I wonder if the right way to do this would be similar to how one could handle automobile collections in theory--the serial numbers and such are on record, and the on
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get back to basics here.
Your plan is asking me to give up a lot of rights, time, and money; all without much effect on crime or accidental injuries.
The only thing I get in return is the right to own machineguns (which are really already legal, you just need to pay the $200 NFA tax stamp and pass the background check. The big problem is that no new machineguns have been allowed to the civilian NFA registry since 1986 and the fixed supply has driven prices through the roof).
The only justification you of
Re: (Score:1)
In my anecdotal experience, the compromise I outlined removes the desire of 75%+ of left-wingers I know in real life to further regulate firearms, which is why I advocate it--most of them are less paranoid about CCW and criminals and more paranoid about kids getting parents' guns.
Additionally I'm operating under the impression that such a licensing regime will repeal the new-machinegun ban and also allow select-fire weapons--this, to me, is an acceptable compromise because it re-legalizes the production of
Re: (Score:1)
While I'm thinking about it, does the fact I'm looking for a gun for tactical courses change what I should be looking for in a handgun? (the 18" spare barrel for the Mossberg is more than enough home defense for anything the baseball bat can't handle) Also, what's the used market like? I can't imagine spending $700+ on a recreational firearm, but likewise I can't imagine being pennywise/pound-foolish by buying an inferior or shoddy pistol.
Re: (Score:2)
Tactical courses shouldn't really change the picture much. A full size pistol is probably preferable over a compact or sub-compact. You'll obviously want something strong and durable, and easy availability of extra magazines is a big plus.
The used market varies widely depending on your location. There are often good deals to be had on police trade-ins, especially Berettas, S&Ws, Sigs, and Glocks. One of my local dealers tends to get a lot of volume of that sort of thing and they do a pretty brisk trade
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks! All of my local gun shops are focused on the hunting thing and almost no one stocks any semi-auto pistols (great mid-to-high caliber revolver selection, though) so I was planning on buying online anyway.
Price gouging (Score:3, Funny)
I heard that gun prices have risen by as much as $200 due to the increased demand.
Do you think that the new Democratic regime will pass anti-price gouging measures to protect us from this?