“We Aren’t Comming For Your Guns”

Found this article…from who else, Joan Peterson, who links it on her twitter feed!

A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something….I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them….I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

There you have it. “I’m a judge, so respect my authority! We don’t need a debate! Just round up all those guns!”

Of course Joan loves this…you see she isn’t out to take our guns away either! Except when she is.

This is why nothing will come from this. Its obvious that the President doesn’t care a wit. He let his lackluster toady “take charge”! And mostly he’s talking about the “Fiscal Cliff”, so chatter about gun bans is EXACTLY what he wants as cover for his incompetence as a leader.

Also another thing to think about. Since the majority of people in America own guns, and the vast majority of them own at least one item this jackboot is thinking about confiscating, we have a good situation for a civil war here.

If gun owners fight back against door-to-door confiscation, who will actually fight for the other side? Police? Military? ATF? These are all American gun owners too, are they going to happily turn in their personal gear, then pick up the same government issued gear to go attack lawful citizens who simply want to hold onto their property?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to “We Aren’t Comming For Your Guns”

  1. Eck! says:

    Weerd,

    The only reason to talk about Japete is to laugh at her. Her would have gone from the initial can we have a conversation to I’m right and your wrong.. and banned.

    She still doesn’t know, nor acknowledge, that CT has a AWB and did a year before the federal one and it sill in effect and has surrounding states with one as well. That automatically makes her argument null and void.

    That and where does this notion that the .223 [5.56] poodle shooter cartridge is a
    ” certain particularly deadly guns”. Oh right, its a military cartridge it must be
    really bad. Dummy its a intermediate cartridge and smaller so the GIs can carry
    more. If it were so dangerous why did the ground troops bring back the M14 for
    more firepower? Because the 5.56 is a varmint and small game round! A refresher
    is that the military went to it for more round on the GI and that it tends to injure
    more than kill and an injured opposing combatant is a liability to the other side as
    it consumes resources and people to transport and care for the wounded. Their goal
    is to take the combatants out of the fight.

    When someone refuses to be educated it makes them willfully stupid. When they
    do it for years in the light of people willing to educate them its a socially aggressive
    act and indicates something that is questionable about their personality.

    Eck!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      To be fair, the “5.56×45 is meant to wound rather than kill” is mostly and urban legend. It was adopted because lower recoil made it more controllable in full-auto fire, and troops could carry vastly more ammo.

      Have a read at McThag’s about various issues with 5.56×45 NATO loads and the M16 rifle for where those myths may have come from.
      http://mcthag.blogspot.com/search?q=5.56+wound

      As for talking about Joan Peterson, she’s a Brady Campaign board member, and a director at a Joyce Foundation anti-gun group. She’s not acting alone, there are handlers above her who read and are aware of what she’s saying, and they continue to keep her on the payroll.

      They haven’t given her the Zumbo treatment, because she represents their views, her ideas are not unreasonable to them. This is how they see the world. ALL OF THEM!

      She’s just dumb enough to run her mouth while they hold their tongues.

  2. Eck! says:

    Weerd,

    The quoted source is the LA times and the author and writer is not japete. Though it does sound like a clone of her.

    Eck!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Maybe I wasn’t clear, this is a story I got from Joan’s twitter feed. I was just pointing out that this pick is all about confiscating lawfully held guns from law-abiding citizens just because he says so, and Joan is right there in the choir.

  3. Wraith says:

    If gun owners fight back against door-to-door confiscation, who will actually fight for the other side? Police? Military? ATF? These are all American gun owners too, are they going to happily turn in their personal gear, then pick up the same government issued gear to go attack lawful citizens who simply want to hold onto their property?
    One word: Katrina. The police will definitely try it. They’ve already done so.

    • McThag says:

      Of note in Katrina is that most of the confiscating officers were guys brought in from outside the area.

      LAPD in particular.

      In a ban confiscation I doubt we’d get the non-local cops situation. That helps us because those guys are our neighbors.

  4. Eck! says:

    Thanks guys, never owned or shot anything in that caliber so it was a useful education.

    Eck!

  5. Pingback: They Aren’t Comming For Your Guns | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>