No one wants to confiscate your guns…

Except when they do. Even things like a tube-magazine bolt-action 22, because it can hold more than 5 rounds. NYC at it’s stupidest. The 113 year old 1911 .45 ACP has a standard seven round magazine, so you need to get rid of your old magazines and buy… er, I don’t know of any makers of 5-round 1911 magazines. Maybe they exist, but I’ve never seen one.


22 thoughts on “No one wants to confiscate your guns…

  1. (Former Lou Gagliardi. this is the name I prefer)

    well, I can tell you right now. I do not want to confiscate your guns.

    I see no reason to take them away, it’s your constitutional right to have them after all.

    • “I see no reason to take them away, it’s your constitutional right to have them after all.”

      Well, you’re getting closer. It is in fact my right (to keep and bear arms) independent of the constitution. What the constitution does is *explicitly* tell the government to keep their hand off of said right.

      • Yes, but what matters is that Lisa no longer wants to take them away. Trust me, this is a huge step for her, and one that was not taken lightly.

      • I don’t know that I’d go so far to say independent of the Bill of Rights.

        After all, without the 2A, the government could confiscate your guns and there is really nothing you could do about it–after all, there’d be no legal precedent that says “it is legal for you to have them” unless your state had a similar amendment because local < county < state < federal.

        I will agree with you, though, on what the 2A does say. I will, however, disagree on legal grounds what is independent of said laws.

        • No, Lisa, the Federal government at least has zero authority to take my arms even without the 2nd amendment. The reason is Article 1 Section 8, which lists the things the Federal government is allowed to do. That list does not include anything at all like taking people’s weapons.
          This is why, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there was significant objection of the form “we should not approve this because those amendments are all redundant”.
          Now, if you were talking about the states, that’s different. In that case, you’d have to look at the state constitutions. Most of those protect the right to arms — even those of benighted states like California. The question is whether the government pays any attention to the various constitutions. The usual answer is “no”. There are a few exceptions. For example, the reason there is “Vermont Carry” (now called “Constitutional Carry” i.e., no permit required) is that the Vermont supreme court realized that the state constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms meant that the state could not limit it, and a permit process was a limitation so it was held unconstitutional.

        • Right there you have hit upon a fundamental philosophical difference between opponents in the “culture war.” One side believes that rights are granted by governments, and it can include things like “right to healthcare” which must be provided by someone else. The other side believes that basic human rights (speech, religion, self-defense, etc) are natural rights, that is they exist independent of government, and all governments can do is recognize them and protect them, or infringe upon them. Our Bill of Rights and its authors fall into the later camp.It is a basic, foundation-level dispute about the nature of mankind and government, and all the rest are mere details.
          When you see that, and decide which side you are on, then where you fall on most “left vs right” sorts of things come automatically. People get uncomfortable and conflicted when they come down on both sides, because they start with feelings and pick things that have opposing supporting principles. If your underlying principles conflict, then you have none, and being amoral suddenly is a lot more attractive because you don’t have to worry about such annoying details.

          • I don’t know…

            Self-defense? Absolutely a natural right. Gun ownership? Not so much in my opinion. While I cannot and will agree with a complete ban or the taking of guns, I will not sit and agree that it is a ‘natural’ right to own one.

            I am staunchly a social liberal. I believe that the government is better than the church at marriage, for example. I believe that, having grown up with a single mother who left an abusive marriage, that welfare and other programs do help.

            Will I sit and say they aren’t abused? Hell no. But they do help.

            That’s the extent of government involvement, to me, to use those examples of my liberalism.

            Back on topic, as best as I can…I am all for self-defense. I took Karate classes when I was 8 (broke a kid’s nose, and i didn’t go back.) I, however, will not sit here and agree that guns are natural. Good for defense? Sure. you won’t hear me disagree on that.

          • Another way to look at it is “I have the right to defend myself with the most effective and efficient means possible.” I’m 5’3ish, so most males have about a foot in height and 50-100 pounds in weight on me. There is *no way* I am getting into hand-to-hand combat with one of those.

            Or how about a rabid dog? Do I need to use a knife to defend myself against that?

            I say no. I say that the right to self-defense means I don’t have to needlessly endanger myself. Hence, I carry.

          • Does welfare, et all, help? Yes. But at what cost? That is a critical question, because anything the government “gives” it must first take, and entitlement is corrosive to utility. Govt is “better than the church at marriages” doesn’t quite parse. Government contract law seems to cover interpersonal legal things like power of attorney, child support, and such; church is for the moral aspects.
            The right to self defense without the tool is useless. The “right to welfare” means you have a right to take from others. The right to gun ownership doesn’t mean you have no responsibility for learning to use it safely, or are free from consequence for using it improperly. I might well be able to defend myself OK without a gun, having some martial arts skill, and being a reasonably healthy male in the 200 pound range. But defend myself AND family? Much harder w/o a gun. If guns are not a right, and legally and readily available to the law-abiding, they fall prey to packs of aggressive young males. Every time, everywhere. Some of the thugs are free-lance. Some are organized. Some carry badges.

          • Another way to look at it – saying you have a right to self defense but not a right to gun ownership (that is, it’s subject to government approval), is just like:
            You have the right to free speech, but only on government approved printing presses, blogs, and news outlets.
            You have a right to freely practice your religion, as long as it uses government-approved books, meeting places, and symbols.
            You have a right to travel freely, as long as you use government-approved methods, routes, and destinations.
            You have a right to free association, as long as you only associate with unauthorized people in pre-screened and monitored locations.

            Does that make any sort of sense?

          • I’m sorry Rolf, but with your attitude towards welfare and the church (i certainly disagree on ‘moral’ and church being in the same sentence given the pedophilia cases), you’re probably going to be the worst person to try to convince me of anything.

            Just being honest.

    • Yup. I means all those “six shooters” are illegal. Of course, that 5-shot .454 Casull is still kosher, so it’s all better, right?

  2. How can a 1911 be a 113 years old in 2013? Last time I checked that would make it 11 years older than the actual design…..

    • D’oh! Fat fingers or muddled mental manipulation. adopted 102 years ago. IIRC, I was thinking 103 because it was designed at least a year before it was adopted by the US military. How about I just say “a century old design.” Been around longer than any living relative of mine, in any case. Not some newfangled high-tech whiz-bang tacti-cool death-dealer.

  3. Lisa, how can you say you recognize the natural right to self defense but not the natural right to own the tools needed for self defense?
    Yes, karate is a fine way to stay fit. It’s even a fine way for self defense, IF you’re fit and mobile and fairly young and not too small, and IF the attacker is armed at most with a knife or club. What if you’re in a wheelchair? What if you’re 80? What if the bad guy has a gun, or there are three bad guys?

    • What if the “good” guy becomes a “bad” guy?

      There’s too many what-ifs there to answer.

      • That’s easy. The difference between a good guy and a bad guy is that a bad guy attacks, while a good guy defends. Or to use the fancy words, “initiation of force”. If you initiate force against someone, that makes you a bad guy. If you use force to defend against initiation of force, you’re a good guy exercising your natural right of self defense.
        If I walk down the street minding my own business, I’m a good guy. If I walk down the street shoving other people onto the pavement (or into the road), I’m a bad guy.
        The reality is that it is VERY easy in the real world to tell a good guy from a bad guy, especially in self defense scenarios. That’s why civilians (as opposed to cops) extremely rarely get this wrong in the real world.

        • That didn’t answer the question at all.

          The supposed good guy can quickly become the bad.

          I, personally, would rather not see situations like that.

          • The problem, Lisa, is that what YOU would rather not see is irrelevant. You have no control over the actions of others, and your preferences do not affect the real world in any meaningful way. And the same is true for me. All too often, the “right” person (that is, a person granted authority, such as a pol, cop, or priest) is corrupted by that power, and because they have been deemed “special” they are more likely to change from white-hat to black-hat. The average guy on the street, who is given no special status or favors, is less likely to have such a transformation. The only check on the “armed and chosen few” from becoming the oppressors is to have them be so greatly outnumbered by “average-off-white-hats” they fear abusing their authority more than they lust for the power and control it would give them.
            You paint with a broad brush; to say all priest are pedophiles is just as stupid as saying all gays are pedophiles, or that anyone that isn’t a totally straight and “obvious” male or female can’t ever be trusted around kids. There are bad actors in every group, but that doesn’t mean everyone in every group must be bad.

      • And yet the anti-gunners DO try to answer all the “what-ifs,” by saying “trust no-one that isn’t a government agent, or government certified!” in spite of the fact that government agents have proven themselves untrustworthy time and again.

Comments are closed.