How is it, then, that “assault weapons” magically transform into “counter-assault weapons” when handled by the police? And how do they revert to “deadly assault weapons” when handled by everyone else?

The fact that people believe that law enforcement may use these weapons demonstrates, of course, that people understand that the weapons have obvious and legitimate utility for defense of home, community and nation. This one fact shows that the guns are not evil of themselves, and do not whisper to their owners, taunting them to shoot children playing at recess or innocent bystanders in drive-by shootings.

This one fact shows that people understand that the responsible use of firearms depends foremost on the purpose and character of the person who wields the weapon. And because we know these things, this discrepancy between how we view police holds the key to understanding what the assault weapon ban is really about.

Jeff Snyder
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
The Washington Times, Aug. 25, 1994, page A19
See also, Nation of Cowards 2001 page 64
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Even a man who is bed-ridden and within months of his death can contribute to the feeding and defense of his family if he has a firearm.

Joe Mama
July 19, 2018
A story collected from elder-care
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

It is especially inappropriate for the majority opinion here to apply intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny to D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. No court of appeals decision since Heller has applied intermediate scrutiny to a ban on a class of arms that have not traditionally been banned an “incidental” regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech. Such restrictions on core enumerated constitutional protections are not subjected to mere intermediate scrutiny review. The majority opinion here is in uncharted territory in suggesting that intermediate scrutiny can apply to an outright ban on possession of a class of weapons that have not traditionally been banned.

…

Gun bans and gun regulations that are longstanding—or, put another way, sufficiently rooted intext, history, and tradition—are consistent with the Second Amendment individual right. Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history,and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh
October 4, 2011
HELLER, et al., Appellants v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees.No. 10–7036.
[Sounds solid to me. I just want to hear that in a majority opinion from SCOTUS.—Joe]

When you’re at work and you see someone coming into that school and they’re ready to hurt or kill one of our kids or teachers, I want you to shoot them graveyard dead. And if you can’t shoot them graveyard dead, then we don’t want you in this program and the door’s over there, and this job is not for you.

Andrew Pollack
July 14, 2018
(Update: Pollack was quoting the Polk County sheriff and may have misunderstood the exact words used.)
5 months after Parkland: What are activists doing to protect students?
[Last February, Pollack’s daughter was murdered at Parkland. Since then (plagiarizing from the article) Pollack advocated for the passage of a bill that requires every school in Florida to appoint law enforcement officers or armed “guardians.” Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in early March.

While I understand the sentiment expressed and give him a pass for his special circumstances that attitude may get someone into trouble. Example, the perp sees the LEO or guardian and drops his gun and is in the process of surrendering. The LEO or guardian should not proceed to “shoot them graveyard dead”. Even if they needed a piece or two of hot lead to reconsider their morning activities once they are no longer a threat you should stop shooting. You can’t walk up to a perp who is curled up in a fetal position, whimpering, and crying then put a couple rounds into his head.

You may shoot until they are no longer a threat then you must stop shooting.

That said, it’s really great Pollack and others got this bill passed and the LEOs and guardians are now being trained for dealing with active shooters. It’s an important part of what should be a multilayer security plan for any place where there a large groups of soft targets.—Joe]

The GUN GRABBERS spent more than $80 million in 2016 to elect Hillary Clinton president and a Senate that would confirm her Supreme Court nominees. They failed.
Then it spent at least $3 million in 2017 to defeat Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. They failed.

Now the President has nominated another pro-gun rights person to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, and there’s no doubt the gun grabbers are going to spend millions of dollars trying to derail another justice who will NOT fall in line with their extremist gun ban agenda.

They cannot afford another defeat.

Alan Gottlieb
July 9, 2018
Via email.
[See also Kavanaugh Has a Record on Guns.

SCOTUS nominations are why I and millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. We now need to follow through and get good judges actually onto the SCOTUS bench.

Please consider donating to organizations who will use the money to help get Judge Brett Kavanaugh nomination confirmed.—Joe]

As stated by CA DOJ in their “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations, AR-15 style firearms with the upper and lower receivers completely detached from one another are not considered “semiautomatic” for the purposes of California’s “assault weapon” laws.2 What’s more, semiautomatic firearms lacking a crucial part (such as a firing pin, bolt carrier, or gas tube) are also not considered “semiautomatic.”

Michel & Associates
July 2018
BULLETIN FOR GUN OWNERS WHO DID NOT REGISTER THEIR FIREARMS AS “ASSAULT WEAPONS”
[Interesting.

I wonder how long that will last. Will it last long enough for a new Supreme court to slap down the state of California for those who prefer not to escape to relative freedom someplace else?—Joe]

Constitutional-law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman — who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit and maintains chambers in Pittsburgh — holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Emma Brown
July 6, 2018
Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
[I’m reminded of something attributed to Barry Goldwater:

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

But that leaves the claim of “extremism” unchallenged. Adhering to the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution cannot legitimately be considered extremist. Those who advocate for the departure from the letter and intent of the Constitution are the extremists.

And a final note, Supreme Court appointees who adhere to the letter and intent of the Constitution is one of the primary reasons why I and tens of millions of other gun owners voted against Hillary Clinton. If this is who President Trump nominates to fill Kennedys seat, then thank you President Trump.—Joe]

Snyder’s arguments are compelling: they hinge on several easy-to-swallow propositions.

First, he asserts that we have rights, and first amongst those is our right to life. From that right, he infers a right to self defense, without which the right to life is rendered meaningless. Thus, with a right to self defense, one has the right to posess the means with which to render such defense effective – ergo, the right to own and use a firearm.
Second, he asserts that classical liberal theories of government hinge on the notion of “government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.” Sound familiar? This is the idea of government by consent set forth in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. Snyder argues that consent is meaningless without the ability to object, and to enforce such a negative vote. Thus, firearms allow the citizenry to collectively enforce their will on their subject, and any infringement upon their rights (already established above) to own and use them violates the principle of consensual government.

The arguments hardly stop there – Snyder continues to logically follow the arguments of gun control to their conclusions, thus demonstrating the grounds on which he calls them self-contradictory and immoral.

Amongst other topics, Snyder launches attacks against irresponsibility, instrumentalism (denier of will), and utilitarianism (the destroyer of rights). While many of the same arguments are repeated throughout the text, one must remember that the chapters are merely a collection of columns, speeches, and articles written throughout the years. While this does detract from the cogency of the text as a whole, it is undeniably admirable as a purely ethical defense of arms-bearing.

If there’s only one book you buy about gun control, make it this one.

T. Piatek
July 26, 2002
Amazon review of Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control
[I concur.—Joe]