How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[Bob Blaylock]

The rich can always afford to hire protection even with strict gun control, it is the poor who must protect themselves, and taking away their ability to do so is not wise, admirable, noble, progressive, or liberal. It is elitist, discriminatory, authoritarian, and foolish.

Two prominent examples that come immediately to mind are Rosie O'Donnell, and Dianne “I don't care if it's unconstitutional; I still think it's a good law.” Feinstein.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

In 1986 there were approximately 400,000 legally tranferable guns. Today, there are still those same 400,000 guns in the "Pool". No new production guns or conversions can ever be added to that pool. So, there is a finite number of guns, and the prices have gone through the roof since 1986.

Nitpick on the bolded part - unless the law is changed or that section repealed.

 

[Ocelot]

Apparently all 9 justices thought it was sufficiently clear that it protects an individual right, not a collective right.

Are you saying that you think the vote was unanimous because I have to ask, are you sure? I don't know where I got the impression that it was a narrow 5 to 4 vote, but if you think there were no dissenting opinions I guess I must be wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that you think the vote was unanimous

No. It was split regarding whether or not the DC ban infringed the 2nd ammendment right, but both the decision and the dissent agreed that the right in question was an individual right. They were therefore unanimous on that point.

 

[robeeb]

Nitpick on the bolded part - unless the law is changed or that section repealed.

Ah, thank you. Very true. That would be a dream come true for collectors of class III weapons, myself included.

 

[robeeb]

Agreed. I was just curious.

An interesting side note to your question regarding carrying an UZI smg. In the early 1980's the US Secret Service started using the UZI. Agents on presidential detail carried them in a specially designed shoulder rig. Quite a feat considering the relative size, and weight of the full size 9mm version of the gun. If you look at the footage of the attempted assasination of President Reagan, you'll see one of the agents with an UZI he was concealing under his suit coat.

 

[IXP]

Accepting that premise doesn't mean we can discard what was written. If we are to be a nation of laws, we must abide by the constitution or change it - simply ignoring it out of convenience is no solution.

That is what I am advocating, changing the constitution.

Apparently all 9 justices thought it was sufficiently clear that it protects an individual right, not a collective right.

Howerver, 4 of the 5 thought this right was not absolute and could be overridden by the greater common good. This is the ambiguity.

Some people do need a gun to protect themselves. Blacks in the south in the pre-civil rights era were a case in point (as I already mentioned, the KKK was pro-gun control for rather obvious reasons), but even today, if you live in a high-crime area, it is no help to you for guns to be outlawed. If someone is in the process of breaking into your home, the police are of little help, ESPECIALLY in poor neighborhoods where response times are frequently not rapid. The rich can always afford to hire protection even with strict gun control, it is the poor who must protect themselves, and taking away their ability to do so is not wise, admirable, noble, progressive, or liberal. It is eletist, discriminatory, authoritarian, and foolish.

Funny, those poor people you are trying to protect by giving them guns are exactly the ones who would benefit most if we could eliminate all the guns, since they are most often the victims.

IXP

 

[Cicero]

Well, I haven't bought a gun. I don't know if I ever will.
This doesn't stop somebody else from shooting me, though.

What are you referring to here?
I didn't say that ALL anti-gun arguments were logical; just that most were.

Most of the pro-gun arguments I hear are
3. "I need my gun for self-defense" (I don't have any statistics, but I'm betting this is pretty rare! How often does a gun owner use his/her gun for self defense? Really?)

You are hoisted on your petard. You say you do not own a firearm, and never will, yet you believe you are a target by someone brandishing a firearm, yet you then claim that firearms are hardly used for self-defense.

1) Who is this person trying to shoot you? Would they be criminals who have illegally purchased their firearms? How would stricter gun laws prevent this person from obtaining their illegal firearms?

2) You say you fear being shot because you are an easy target. Why? Could it be that your assailant knows you do not carry a weapon because large U.S. cities prohibit citizens from carrying handguns legally?

3) If firearm owners "rarely" use their weapons for self-defense as you claim, exactly what is the frequency of criminals shooting at you so far in your life? Would zero be an accurate assessment?

 

[robeeb]

That is what I am advocating, changing the constitution.

Howerver, 4 of the 5 thought this right was not absolute and could be overridden by the greater common good. This is the ambiguity.

Funny, those poor people you are trying to protect by giving them guns are exactly the ones who would benefit most if we could eliminate all the guns, since they are most often the victims.

IXP

IXP,

I have to ask, respectfully, if you read my comments on self defense on page two. If all guns had been eliminated at the time of my assault by two convicted felons, they would have still

had the knife and baseball bat they brandished that night. They would have attacked me, and today I would be maimed and permanently disabled, or dead and buried for 8 years now. To

take responsibility for ones own personal security, and to have access to the most effective means of defending one's self is one of the most important individual rights a person can have.

 

[Cicero]

GreyICE is correct. In 1986 there was an omnibus crime bill passed that prevents any new automatic weapons from being transfered to qualified individuals after the date the bill was passed. It also prevents having a gunsmith or knowledgeable citizen from converting an existing semi auto to full auto. It was legal to get a tax stamp and permission from the BATF in order to convert a weapon to full auto.

In 1986 there were approximately 400,000 legally tranferable guns. Today, there are still those same 400,000 guns in the "Pool". No new production guns or conversions can ever be added to that pool. So, there is a finite number of guns, and the prices have gone through the roof since 1986.

The prices of NFA weapons did not skyrocket immediately after the 1986 law. In fact, a dozen years past before their prices escalated mostly due to the internet which attracted the speculators.

The NRA didn't challenge Reagan on the 1986 ban at all. The NRA has mostly thrown Class III owners under the Greyhound.

Since the ATF moved, turnaround times for Forms 3/4/10 etc are no longer "six to nine months," but can be as short as a week from the time they cash your check.

 

[dudalb]

In the same manner as government putting restrictions on the composition of newsprint, keyboards or megaphones in order to prevent their use as designed, this would be an infringement of rights.

The idea that a right should be taken away because it might be abused means that all rights will eventually be taken away because every right is eventually misused.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is what I am advocating, changing the constitution.

Good for you. Until that happens (good luck), we abide by the constitution as written.

Funny, those poor people you are trying to protect by giving them guns are exactly the ones who would benefit most if we could eliminate all the guns, since they are most often the victims.

First off, we cannot eliminate all the guns, even with a total nationwide ban on them. And second, no, many of them likely would not benefit. If you are, say, and elderly lady living alone, and some 20-year old punk breaks into your house, it's of little comfort to tell her that the intruder doesn't have a gun if she can't have one either. A knife or a club can leave you just as dead, and it favors the physically strong (which the criminal class tends to be, since it's largely young men). And with guns outlawed, the criminals would have confidence that the home they are breaking into will not contain an armed homeowner, so they won't mind not having guns themselves since they will know they can overpower that little old lady quite easily without them. So you are twice deluded in thinking that you can remove all the guns and thinking that it would provide any real benefit to do so.

 

[robeeb]

The prices of NFA weapons did not skyrocket immediately after the 1986 law. In fact, a dozen years past before their prices escalated mostly due to the internet which attracted the speculators.

The NRA didn't challenge Reagan on the 1986 ban at all. The NRA has mostly thrown Class III owners under the Greyhound.

I've never really tracked, in detail, the upward swing of prices on class III weapons. I didn't realize that internet speculation was the main trigger. But looking back now, it was indeed sometime around 1998-99 when the prices took a drastic upward swing. Thanks for the clarification. As far as the NRA is concerned, they have never been the friend of class III owners.

 

[Drudgewire]

Funny, those poor people you are trying to protect by giving them guns are exactly the ones who would benefit most if we could eliminate all the guns, since they are most often the victims.

IXP

I tend to take George Carlin's overall ideology when it comes to guns:

I have no interest in how [things] 'ought to be.' And I certainly have no interest in fixing them. I sincerely believe that if you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem.

Guns are out there, and nothing is going to be done to take them out of the hands of criminals. There is no utopian answer. What there IS are criminals looking to hurt or intimidate innocent people with guns. All I want is an even playing field.

 

[senorpogo]

An interesting side note to your question regarding carrying an UZI smg. In the early 1980's the US Secret Service started using the UZI. Agents on presidential detail carried them in a specially designed shoulder rig. Quite a feat considering the relative size, and weight of the full size 9mm version of the gun. If you look at the footage of the attempted assasination of President Reagan, you'll see one of the agents with an UZI he was concealing under his suit coat.

Very cool.

http://www.machinegundealer.com/uzirigs.html

 

[senorpogo]

To take responsibility for ones own personal security, and to have access to the most effective means of defending one's self is one of the most important individual rights a person can have.

This general point is what turned me into a staunch advocate of firearms. I believe it is foolish and naive to believe that you will always be safe or that the police will always be able to protect you. Bad things happen and, if and when they do, I hope I am armed so I can ensure that I (and whomever I'm with) am able to walk away unharmed.

 

[Cicero]

An interesting side note to your question regarding carrying an UZI smg. In the early 1980's the US Secret Service started using the UZI. Agents on presidential detail carried them in a specially designed shoulder rig. Quite a feat considering the relative size, and weight of the full size 9mm version of the gun. If you look at the footage of the attempted assasination of President Reagan, you'll see one of the agents with an UZI he was concealing under his suit coat.

Actually, in the famous photo of the attempted assassination of Reagan, the secret service agent brandishing the IMI UZI retrieved it from a special briefcase. You can see the open case to the far right of the agent in this photo.

http://manofroma.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/reagan_assassination_attempt.jpg

 

[robeeb]

Very cool.


Yes, that's the one. I was thinking it was Bianchi that made the rig, but it was DeSantis. Great link too, thanks!

Edit/Correction-Cicero provided a link to a photo of the attempted assasination of Reagan showing that the Secret Service Agent retrieved the UZI from a briefcase, and not the shoulder rig that I talked about.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I like the Chris Rock plan better. Anyone should be allowed to have a gun. Just make the bullets really expensive...

Chris Rock: Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. $#@!, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I would blow your $#@! head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'

 

[robeeb]

Actually, in the famous photo of the attempted assassination of Reagan, the secret service agent brandishing the IMI UZI retrieved it from a special briefcase. You can see the open case to the far right of the agent in this photo.


Cicero, I have to say that you are a wealth of information. I must have seen that picture a couple dozen times, but I never noticed the briefcase. The case is right there on the pavement, wow. I may be wrong on the shoulder rig then, although I'm positive I read from a couple of different sources that they did use them. Right before I retired I had a class III dealer bring a dealer sample MP5K operational briefcase to my shop for refinishing of the gun, the claw mount, and the trigger/drawbar mechanism inside the case. He mentioned that the Secret Service has purchased a number of them and have them in inventory. Is there any truth to that?