Who Needs More Than 10, and For What?

Appreciate your response. Sorry for the long post. You sometimes can’t

help yourself when it is in your core and flows easily. Will try to curb this

response, but it probably won’t happen. ha. And by the way, yes, I am a

musician of sorts..self taught guitar, 45 years ago, keyboard, song writing

and singing for all who can stand it…interesting you asked. How or why

did you ask? Anyway, I would be interested in your ideas on my law

proposals for criminals, when you get a chance to process the long

comment. Oh, how did you decide to use name gravitysailor?

Interesting. Here are just a few thoughts…

!. In regards to the “hidden and diabolic” agenda idea, I am concerned

only in the context of my cursory study of history and how people who

have been disarmed, are trying to defend themselves with shovels, rakes

and sticks, etc..and the accepted 100million murders in the last 100

years by totalitarian regimes…Plus, just reading our own founders

reasoning about tyranny concerns. If you remember, the revolutionary

war started in earnest on April 19, 1775 when the British tried to disarm

the colonists who would not obey the edicts of King George, leading to

the shot heard around the world. I do not think anyone in power

currently even thinks that way, just like Germany, Italy citizens didn’t think

that way early on. Power has a way of corrupting people, well

documented in history. Evil is insidious and hidden from most people.

The majority of people are good people who are uninformed. The reason

i used the term hidden is because most people involved in the political

arena are followers, believing in their leaders and given our human

nature, attribute them with well meaning agendas. However, corrupt, evil

minded, or even just different minded people can and do mislead people

to support them. Knowing if their true agenda was publicly known, they

would lose support. A common idea attributed to Lenin, but probably

wasn’t him is…..” In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for

people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not

understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western

countries. The implication was that, although the people in question

naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were

actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the

term in political discourse has since been extended to other

propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a

malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.”

History is abound with examples. All of the great horrific oppressive

regimes in history have all started in similar ways, concentration of

power, hyper regulation, marginalizing and silencing the opposition and

doing things for the “greater good” of the masses; giving up freedom,

inch by inch. While I am not a prepper who thinks like Alex Jones on this

subject, or like the far right militia groups, I am aware of a few situations

that might require the ability to defend oneself and one’s community. I

have never, by the way, entertained the idea of having to defend myself

against my own government. I am a patriot who believes we are a good

country that has done a few bad things in our history. An imperfect

nation. With science predicting solar flares, asteroids, natural disasters

such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornado’s and pundits and

government officials discussing the possibility of EMP’s, nuclear attack,

other terrorist attacks, contamination of food and water supplies, cyber

attacks, electrical grid problems, union strikes that could paralyze the

nation, criminal/gang activity, desperate drug user situations, witness the

violence in Europe now just because of the austerity cuts the

governments are making, the collapse of our currency chaos, and the

list goes on and on…..what do you think happens in any of these

situations when civilization becomes a type of anarchy and law and

order become impossible. Or budgets get cut, and there is a decrease of

law officers…or, can’t even imagine this, but we are invaded by foreign

power…Do know, emperor Tito, said he didn’t invade the United States

because he knew their was a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Ha..Anyway, you don’t have to look far to find examples of societal

breakdown…, Katrina, Sandy, LA riots, chicago riots,… just to name the

most prominently remembered. An idea I have heard all my life and most

recently was quoted by Donald Rumsfeld was, ” There are things you

know, and things you don’t know, and then there are things you don’t

know you don’t know”. Sounds convoluted but is very astute. I also

believe, given that thought process,” it is better to have something and

not need it, than to need it and not have it.” Certainly, a way to protect

oneself falls into that category, just like wearing a seat belt. If and when

those times happen, I want to be able to protect myself, my family and

my community. Take that responsibility very seriously. So, to put it more

to the point, I am concerned about people who after a few days or

weeks of a broken society, become desperate, criminals become

opportunistic, and morals and mores are gone. A real survival of the

fittest concept. It is almost impossible for me to imagine, but it would be

foolish to ignore possibilities and even probabilities on some instances.

On kind of a side note, to clear any possible misperceptions that

commonly are thrown around about anyone who has any issues with our

current president……I do not agree with alot of what President Obama

does or plans because I have studied in detail his history, mentors and

ideology and simply don’t agree with it and it’s basic premise of social

justice and wealth redistribution. I know he is not a socialist or

communist, but the direct and tenets of belief certainly are leaning that

way. In a football analogy, the ball is being moved down the field

towards those goalposts. I reject the notion that if I don’t agree with

someone’s plan, that I must be against all things that might correct a

problem. Or if I disagree with Him, I am a racist. I am probably the least

racist person in the world. I have had an anesthesia practice for over 30

years and take care of all people regardless of any issue, much less

financial capability, color of skin, ethnicity, personal culpability or other

such foolishness. I aspire to what Martin Luther King said, “I have a

dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they

will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their

character. I have a dream today!”

3. I agree with your position of Citizens United and never liked Mccain-

Feingold. Thought it was unconstitutional. I think the scotus over

stepped and misjudged. But, it is the law. I accept it.

4. Agree with the amendments being able to be changed, it just is a high

bar. Could happen, but people are as sensitive about the 1st amendment

as they are 2nd amendment. And that’s probably a good thing. Slippery

slope is a real thing.

5. I agree with you about the societal breakdown and moral issues in

this country. The problems we are having in our country today are

directly related to the changes in family structure and values, breakdown

in basic morals that Includes out of wedlock babies, no father in the

home…changes in sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia, marriage

commitment vs living together, lose of interest in religious, spiritual

beliefs… science vs bible, creationism vs evolution…maybe, there could

be conjoined truth. And the list goes on.

6. I don’t believe in a national registry for anything, much less for non-

crime lists that pertain to “rights” or health issues. Too much possibility

and probability of abuse and misuse. Our founders believed ” It is far

better to have 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.” That is the

reason we have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. It is

proper and correct to have lists or registries for criminals, including sex

offenders. They have committed crimes and should, for the safety of the

people, be on a registry. That is were the registry for the mentally ill or

one for lawful gun owners is different. They have not committed any

crime, just have a mental issue and legally own firearms, respectively.

You seem well read, but just in case you aren’t familiar with Fabian

Society and the influence on our political system, check it out. There has

been a conscious effort by a certain few to help the breakdown of our

society. Watch “Agenda,grinding down America.” I have a book written

in 1949 discussing the plans to infiltrate America and influence politics.

7. I want laws enforced and new ones passed that apply to criminals.

Therefore, I am against laws that only impact people who obey laws.

According to interviews of prisoners, less than 2% of illegal firearms are

bought at gun shows. Can’t verify but as someone who attends a lot of

gun shows, I find very few people that would fit the picture of criminals

and gangsters. With the murders by handguns at over 11.000 and

murders by all types of rifles are under 400, the emphasis is wrongly

placed. Hence my suggestion and agreement on the concealed carry for

people who want that responsibility with proper training and secure

schools by structural safety features plus armed security. Besides, there

are countless sound bites from the far left anti gun people, where they

clearly state they think no citizen should have guns. Only military and

police should have that right according to them. No “Gun Free Zones.”

The standard of “if it will save just 1 life” is a red herring. Are you really

ready to give up your freedom, in the possibility or theory, that it might

work. Also, remember, there is a big difference between a right and a

privilege. Let’s do something we KNOW will work. Like my suggestion

of mandatory sentences, etc..enforcing and prosecuting the 9000 laws

already on the books. We accept every day, there are things that

happen that will cause death and suffering. But, weighed against the

freedoms, rights and privileges, we accept them. Drinking, comes to

mind as an obvious one, or the new laws that allow marijuana use, or the

mandatory/voluntary use of seat belts, helmets,etc.also ladders,

swimming pools, hammers, boating adventures, the list goes on and on.

Corey Booker, mayor of Newark NJ, said that of all the murders in his city

the last two years, not one was committed by a law abiding citizen. All

of the horrific, tragic shootings of innocents were done by known

mentally ill people. The mother of Lanza at Newtown was negligent in

allowing her mentally ill son to have access to guns. Not a responsible

gun owner. As a former deputy sheriff, tactically trained, you can change

a magazine in literally 1 to 2 seconds and easily not miss a beat or shot.

While in theory, there may have been an opportunity to “rush” someone

while they are changing magazines, trust me, a trained shooter would

time that magazine change and no one would be able to interfere. They

would pace their shooting and allow space for protection from someone

trying to stop them. And none of the shooters only have one weapon

anyway. They plan to shoot till they are empty, picking that point in time,

draw a 2nd weapon or make the 1+ second change at an opportune

time. We practiced changing magazines in training under duress and

limited time and it never was a hindrance. So, in theory, a novice might,

fumble and mess up, but someone bent on killing people has many

backup plans. They all have been crazy, but they are not stupid. In fact,

most have been highly intelligent. The one thing they count on is having

no one there to stop them at the point of attack for at least a certain time

frame. All they want is a “gun free zone” for the time it takes them to

gain their infamy needed because of their mental illness.

Anyway, that covers a lot of territory. If and when you read this new

book of mine, would welcome thoughts. Hopefully it helps explain my

thoughts in the healthy debate and sharing of ideas. Wish our

government would try it sometime. ha.

I copied something I had seen before, but thought it was well written, so will re-post it here..I did not write and would like to give credit to someone but don’t have their name any longer..

…. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964-1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1997, Australia made it almost impossible to own a firearm. Since then, accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate. The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban. Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate. From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent.

In 1998, The UK made it almost impossible to own a firearm. Over the next 10 years, gun crimes increased 89%, resulting in police carrying guns for the first time in history in some areas.

So, you can see that gun control has no effect on crime, other than making it increase exponentially because the criminals who follow no laws to begin with know that there are no armed people to stop them…Of course gun control works fantastically if you are a dictator hell-bent on murdering millions of people. In that case, gun control is a necessity for gaining power. The founders understood this, and that is why the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment.2.

In response to the primary question of your post, large-capacity magazines serve a very useful, perhaps even critical, self-defence purpose. Don’t believe me? When Cuomo enacted the knee-jerk gun control law hastily written and approved by New York’s legislature neither he nor the law’s writers realized they had forgotten to exclude active and retired police officers from the restrictions. When it dawned on the state’s law enforcement agencies that officers (and retired officers) would be prohibited from carrying weapons with more than seven rounds those officers complained loudly and bitterly. They said such a restriction would place officers’ (and retired officers’) lives in danger. If a retired police officer’s life might be endangered by limiting magazine size, then why not an ordinary citizen? I realize that police officers deal with scum, but so do ordinary citizens. I have a very good friend who owns a scrapyard located in the very worst part of town. Why should his safety be any less important than a retired police officer?

In answer to the points you made in this specific comment:

1) What if someone having a large-capacity magazine made the difference between surviving or dying at the hands of a criminal (or more than one criminal)? This is only a possibility, but one life saved (mainly mine, a member of my family or a friend) is sufficient for me to oppose limits on magazine size.

2) The national debate regarding the meaning of the 2nd amendment would end if a clarifying amendment were ratified. I personally have no problem with people pushing for another constitutional amendment if they believe one is warranted. Given the almost total lack of trust the majority of Americans have in their goverment, good luck with that. In the mean time, our government should abide the current rules.

3) Your decision to invest in (and remain a shareholder of) a company that engages in the political arena IS your vote. If you don’t like what a corporation is doing sell your shares and invest in one the behaves in ways you agree with.

4) Do some research about the efficacy of the national sex offender database. It does far more harm than good. You might start here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830165016.htm

5) The evidence that politicians are more interested in disarming the populace than so-called “common sense” gun control measures is an inference based on the duplicity of politicians. In his State of the Union speech, President Obama talked about Hadia Pendleton, a teen involved in his inauguration party who was subsequently gunned down on the streets of Chicago:

“One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.

“Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. They deserve a vote. (Applause.) Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. (Applause.) The families of Newtown deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Aurora deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence—they deserve a simple vote. (Applause.) They deserve a simple vote.”

While moving, the President (nor anyone else) has never provided evidence–evidence, not hopes or assumptions–that the gun control proposals he wants congress to vote on would prevent the kind of incidents he cited. How would 100% background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines have prevented Hadiya’s tragic death? The fact is they wouldn’t, because gang bangers like the one who shot Hadiya Pendleton will never submit to a background check, and the gun he used to kill her with was a six-shot revolver, which is neither an assault weapons nor uses a high-capacity magazine.

Further, Feinstein’s assault weapons ban is a total mishmash. For example, it lists 157 specific models of rifle by name that would be banned. It then goes on to describe in detail the kinds of features and accoutrements (pistol grip, detachable magazine, barrel shroud, yadda, yadda) that would make any rifle ban-worthy. It seems to me all of the 157 rifles listed by name will have one or more of these accoutrements, so why list them specifically? If they don’t have any of the accoutrements, then why are they on the list? It’s like she MEANT to make it confusing.

Further, the proposal lists “more than 2,200 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles by specific make and model” that will NOT be affected by the ban. Again, none of these will have any of the features that make a rifle ban-worthy, so why the need to list them?

Such seemingly intentional confusion leads one to ask question, like: Does Feinstein think anything not listed should be banned? Does she think “hunting and sporting” are the only legitimate uses for a rifle? If so, why do police agencies issue them?

Like the previous assault weapons ban, Feinstein’s current proposal also includes a “grandfather clause” that would exempt all rifles sold before the ban. That means millions of dangerous assault weapons which are already “on the streets” will remain there. Guns are not perishable; they’re typically made of high-quality steel or other durable materials. I own guns that are almost as old as me that function exactly as they did when new. Clearly, millions of the kind of guns Feinstein wants to ban will remain available for many decades, so how exactly does Feinstein’s ban meet its goal of reducing or eliminating mass shootings? Are we supposed to think our legislators are unable to plan beyond the next election for anything other than guns?

The timing of and words used by Feinstein and Obama to push their current proposals make it clear they are in response to the tragedy of Newtown and similar incidents. When one realizes the proposals wont be effective in preventing tragedies like Newtown one begins to wonder what the real agenda is. When politicians use examples of criminal activity as justification for meaningless restrictions on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, is it any wonder people begin to see the shadows of tyrants?

@GravitySailor  @greghsmith 
The ‘militia’ is, of course, a term of art well defined in history, to include all able-bodied males in a certain age range.  This means ‘everybody’.  The second amendment has an explanatory clause, which is not a limiting clause except by special pleading from those who wish to ban guns.  Were this sort of logic used on the first, fourth, fifth or fourteenth amendments, where would we be?
 
‘A well-ordered militia’ does not mean the same today as it did then.  We think of a militia that is well-disciplined, whereas the framers thought of a militia able to muster with its own arms and ammunition, which was expected to be provided by the militia member.  Remember, as per above, the militia is every able-bodied male.  Every.  This is the construction underpinning Heller and is absolutely correct from any rational position.
 
We have literally acres of dead trees on the subject, exhorting the country to avoid a standing army and develop a citizen soldiery the more to protect against tyranny.  One of the primary framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, repeatedly insisted that the only way to freedom is through rebellion and that all governments tend towards tyranny and blood must be shed to regain freedom by throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical government.
 
While you are not afraid of the feds, I, as a person who holds my second amendment rights dear, am.  It is not that alone; it is the wanton spending of our future, the terrible wars abroad and the constant trampling of very real rights at home.  When the populace surrenders their weapons, they become governed, and this nation was about the people governing themselves.
 
Also, please note that, for a long time now, all the national guards are essentially integrated into the national chain of command and thus do not constitute an independent militia.
 
Anyway, were all the above not true, please consider the fact that the second amendment contains, by far, the strongest language in the constitution, to wit that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.  Were the first clause a limiting clause, as is claimed, then why is the acting clause so strong?  In the first amendment, it reads ‘congress shall make no law’, specifically limiting the power of that amendment, since incorporated over the states by special pleading of the 14th.
 
No, the history of the United States teaches us that armed rebellion is sometimes necessary, as that is how this nation got its start, and that rebellion was only possible through the availability of citizen-owned arms, which thought was foremost in the minds of the framers of the constitution.  Concerned that the second amendment may be softened with time, they insisted in the explanatory clause that the arms that were not to be infringed would be such that would be useful to a militia.  This is the decision of Heller.  By the way, Heller is a very well researched document and well worth reading in its own right.
 
I have also read both dissenting opinions and find them riddled with special pleading, seeming, to me, to descend to ‘we think guns are bad and should be illegal so the second amendment agrees with us and besides the founders never thought of modern guns and the constitution should not limit the powers of the people to move forward on important causes’.  Well, to fix an ancient battle cry, ‘the constitution *IS* a suicide pact!’  It can be changed, but by due process.  Otherwise, the words govern this land, and, at the moment, the interpretation, valid in Heller, would seem to run counter to any attempt to ban carbines or high-capacity handguns, although the protection of selective incorporation in MacDonald is much stronger for handguns.
 
All of this is, really, beside the point.  Are you aware there was a mass shooting in England some time ago, long after they essentially banned any form of useful weapon, and instituted a policy of prosecuting those who dared defend themselves?  12 killed and 11 injured in 2010 in England, which has as strict a gun control as could be possible, given that it is an island.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
 
Gun control does not work.  That is the biggest complaint against it.  I defy anyone to provide real proof that gun control, in time series data, has ever been correlated with lower crime.