Weinstein defines “reasonable”

A few days ago I posted about a blogger that anticipated great changes in this countries gun laws with the incoming Obama administration.


He noticed the traffic from my blog to his and “clarified” his position on my blog saying he respected the Second Amendment only wanted “reasonable” changes in our gun laws.


Today he tells us what he thinks are reasonable changes:



    1. Ban assault weapons from private possession


    1. Ban .50 caliber (armor piercing) weapons from private possession


    1. Allow local communities to determine what is appropriate for their circumstances. If cities such as Philadelphia and Washington D.C. feel that stricter gun control laws are needed than state or federal law provides, they should be allowed to govern their particular situation. The view (and conditions) from Idaho can be significantly different from major urban centers such as Chicago, LA, and NYC.


    1. Improve oversight of corrupt gun dealers


    1. Limit the number of guns an individual can purchase in a month. This will reduce the number of guns purchased with the intent to sell them illegally on the street, also known as straw purchases.


  1. Mandate that sales at gun shows include criminal background checks. This is a major loophole in current law.


Yes. His ignorance is showing. Please play nice as you introduce him to the realities of guns and gun law. His comments are open. Here is my first lesson:



    1. The definition of “assault weapon” is so ill defined and nearly always is based merely on cosmetic features, not function, that any such ban boils down to bans on guns that someone thought looked “evil” or “ugly”. Beyond that the percent of crimes committed with guns that met the definition of “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 Federal ban was so small that the weapons “feet” and “hands” are used to commit more murders each year than the banned firearms. Even if the criminal intent on using such a gun in a crime failed to find a substitute weapon and did not commit the crime that would have been enabled had they had such a weapon the drop in the crime rate would have been less than 1%. Hence any claim for an “assault weapon” ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?


    1. To the best of my knowledge only one .50 BMG gun has been used in the commission of a crime in the last 30 years. Hence any claim for a .50 caliber ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?


    1. You appear to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. I presume you also support the 13th Amendment. It then would appear the two amendments should be treated in a similar manner in their application. Hence I must conclude that you would also advocate the states and cities determine what is appropriate for their circumstances in regards application of the 13th Amendment. If I am in error on this point please correct my misunderstanding. Once we are clear on this point then I can better respond to your “reasonable” suggestion.


    1. I wasn’t aware there was a list of corrupt gun dealers that were lacking in oversight. If some gun dealers are known to be corrupt then they must already be in violation of some law or rule. It would seem to me that prosecution, pulling their license, or fines for violations would be more appropriate rather than “oversight”. But no matter, I am skeptical there is some large problem with gun dealers in this country. What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate I am wrong?


    1. Straw purchases are already illegal. How would this help? This type of law has been passed in numerous jurisdictions. Can you demonstrate any reduction in the crime rate from these restrictions?


    1. Sales at gun shows are no different than sales at gun dealers. Background checks are always required when you purchase from license dealers. There is no loophole. The Brady Campaign has been telling this lie for years to the point most people believe it. It is not true.


  1. In my first post I suggested you study and answer Just One Question before proposing more restrictions on a specific enumerated right. You do not appear to have done this. Please do so. I think the answer will dramatically affect your response.

13 thoughts on “Weinstein defines “reasonable”

  1. Individuals who are uneducated, inexperienced or use hearsay to base their arguments on a subject are in a word, fools.

    If I in my engineering consulting business, based my failure analysis work on incomplete, unproven, totally inaccutate, physically impossible assumptions, I’d be without work.

    These liberal ‘gun’ haters are in a word—-fools. Most of them cannot grab their ass with both hands without falling on their faces.

  2. As usual, very good job with the fisking. I will be interested to see if your counterpart deigns to respond, or just sweeps the matter under the rug and pretends it never happened.

  3. Whenever I hear the phrase “reasonable gun control” or “common sense gun laws” it ALWAYS comes from someone who is totally ignorant of the subject. Just hearing those types of phrases is practically a touchstone for uninformed gun grabbers.

  4. Joe,
    your response is well written. i followed this over from Snowflakes in Hell. i sent the ritual invite to a local range (we both live in the greater Philadelphia area) and was suprised have an email from him later with his phone number and a tenative yes. we spoke for about an hour this morning (saturday). he is polite and genuinely surprised at the volume of mail and comments he has received. some not so polite, but many well written and helpful responses. i am convinced that what this guy wants is not gun control per se, but the results he believes that gun control will give him. he wants the same things we want, fewer Philly cops shot by criminals, less violence, and basically peace and flowers. so my problem with it is that the gun control he wants will not achieve any of those things, so we need another way. he seems very open to that.

    Guns aren’t his main blog thing, and he says that he doesn’t want them to become his main thing. i will be hosting him next year at a range with a large selection weapons running the gamut from hunting to EBRs, and more pistols than i’ve seen anywhere else. with time and with reasoned arguments, like the one you have started us all out with, we may at least get him to understand us. maybe not join us, but at least explain to his progressive friends what our arguments are. in the end the only way we will prevail is to innoculate enough people in society with the truth that when they hear bad arguments they can respond intelligently to them.

    thanks for the good start.

  5. i wonder what would happen if all gun owners lived in the same state, like a designated “gun owner only” state..

    i bet every single criminal in the world would never step foot across the border.

  6. Caleb,

    We sort of had that situation in the old west, and there were still criminals!

    My Dad told me once that there would always be criminals anywhere there were good people, because the criminal always wants something for nothing, and the only way to get it is to steal it from the good people who worked for it!

  7. yes.. when it comes down to it, the bad will always be there.. and hopfully we will be equally equiped

  8. Hi Joe – Below is the blog entry I posted today at: http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/.

    * A follow up to recent conversations about gun control and gun rights:

    Today I took the suggestion of someone critical of my comments about reasonable gun control. I grabbed my ass with both hands but, contrary to his prediction, I did not fall on my face. What did crash to the ground were my suggestions for reasonable gun control. I am sincerely impressed with the knowledge and passion that readers at blog.joehuffman.org and snowflakesinhell.com have exhibited. Almost 300 people from these two sites have visited this blog. Many have offered comments and I recommend that anyone interested in “gun rights” and “gun control” read them. One of the responses came from a gentleman named Sean who lives in my area and has invited me to visit a range and learn more about this subject. We spoke on the telephone for about an hour and will continue the conversation when we visit a range in the near future.

    In addition to learning more about guns and gun control than I would have imagined I have come to see that it is important in any debate to be more knowledgeable not only about one’s position but also the position of others. Until now most of my information has come from those interested in reducing the level of violence by individuals with guns that harm both innocent bystanders and police officers in my and other communities. It is a most sincere and serious objective by people of good will. As I originally commented, we debate to the extremes and this calcifies our thinking. A good example is my calling for a ban on assault weapons – something I have come to learn I could not even define. Joe Huffman has provided two comprehensive dictionaries about guns that I found educational: gun dictionary and scary words glossary.

    I have also concluded that even seemingly subtle differences can get us off track. Gun control advocates often say that guns kill people. Gun rights advocates say that people kill people. I can understand both points of view but also realize that by saying that guns kill people there is an implied stigma that taints responsible gun owners and builds a wall to substantive discourse. It is also important to note that by solely concentrating on the gun in the commission of a crime we lose sight of the criminal. Dealing with causes and acts of crime is certainly a priority for our society.

    Another blog that added to my education is sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com. However, I do take exception to the statement that the restrictions that The Brady Campaign fights for are not for the protection of society but to attrit the number of gun owners until a full ban becomes plausible. I can understand the emotional element of this statement. I can understand the perceived “threat” that gun control advocates pose to gun owners. I do not think it fair to ignore the legitimate concerns that are at the heart of such organizations.

    This past week has been very interesting. The most important lesson for me is to question the premises of issues that I support as well as the stances of people and organizations that are “on my side” while continuing to question “the other side.” In a season of miracles there may be a time when, on at least some issues, we can meet in the middle side.

    I want to again express my appreciation to the many people who shared their knowledge and opinions.

  9. “In a season of miracles there may be a time when, on at least some issues, we can meet in the middle side.”

    That’s a very “reasonable” statement on its face, but understand that we who support this enumerated, unalienable human right have been “meeting in the middle” over and over and over, for many decades, and still we’re confronted with calls for more and more “meeting in the middle”. Every time we “meet in the middle” we find that this “middle” is still not nearly enough for the antis. At some point, the “middle” position becomes largely indistinguishable from a total ban, as has already been seen in DC and other places.

    If we go back to 1933 (with regard to the national firearms act of 1934) and look at the “middle ground” between the first federal gun law proposal (this was FDR’s effective ban on full-automatics by way of taxing them to death– which was in effect an end-run around the second amendment, calling it a “revenue raising measure” rather than a ban) we would have seen something like a 100-dollar tax instead of a 200-dollar tax on automatics, with some lesser registration requirements. There’s your original “middle ground” at the federal level, and of course we have seen some 20,000+ new “middle grounds” established since, with no end in sight. (in 1933 gun dealers and manufacturers were not licensed—you could buy any gun, including anti-tank rifles and machineguns, through the mail, or at your local hardware store)

    Next I’d like you to imagine the creation, nationwide, of several organizations dedicated solely to the erosion of the first amendment. How would you, as a blogger, take their continued demands, year after year, decade after decade, after they got 20,000 laws restricting your first amendment rights, for you to “be reasonable” and strive for the “middle ground”? That is exactly what we have been enduring with regard to the second amendment, and we’re quite frankly fed up with it, especially since we’ve seen the outright counter-productivity of so-called “gun control” in its effects on violent crime. Many of us view the situation as beyond insane, to say nothing of its being unconstitutional.

    Now we’ll have to look at those who have lost their livelihoods, their freedom, and even their lives because of some trivial technical violation of a gun law, or some clerical error at a gun store. There are many of these people. Lives destroyed, and for what– so some politician or gun fearing bigot can have some satisfaction, or gain political points, or climb their local social ladder?

Comments are closed.