Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.

Violence Policy Center
Bullet Hoses
2003
[Who would have thought? They would rather we had fully automatic firearms rather than those deadly semi-auto ones. It would follow they would rather we owned cheap, inaccurate, handguns (aka “Saturday Night Specials”). But that would require they think logically about the issues. People with Mental Problems have difficulty doing that so don’t expect it anytime soon.–Joe]

[M]ost of the time our security runs on intuition and not on explicit thought.

Bruce Schneier
October 30, 2007
Security by Letterhead
[It’s the same sort of thing with gun control. Intuitively it is appealing and “common sense” that if you can reduce the availability of the tools used by criminals you will reduce crime. We are at a disadvantage because to win the argument we need to get people to explicitly think about the issue. That’s seldom easy.–Joe]

…what we actually have before us is a confusion about the nature of rights. The NRA always couches its argument as a defense of our American rights as opposed to governmental control. But it is a reason why highways are engineered as well as they can be. The driver has the right to travel as safely as possible. Citizens of America should have as much of a right to safety from gun violence as possible. But they probably will not understand the issue until the talk takes up more space in our political life.

Stanley Crouch
October 29, 2007
Here’s a bold proposal: Let’s talk about gun control
[It’s possible his first sentence is correct. As for the rest I think the chances are about 75% he is mistaken. The other 25% chance is that he really understands what a right is and is trying to confusion everyone else. Rights are not something granted or created by the government. If something is granted or created by the government then they are more properly called privileges. A right is something that preexists government. The only thing governments can do in regard to rights is protect them or infringe them. I would have made that 95% and 5% but he makes reference to “safety from gun violence”. That indicates to me he might actually understand that reducing the availability of firearms doesn’t reduce the total violence even if it sometimes does reduce the amount of violence committed with firearms. Further suspicion falls on him because he doesn’t distinguish between criminal violence and justified and/or praiseworthy violence. The bottom line is Crouch should successfully answer Just One Question before he writes opinions about restricting the right to keep and bear arms.–Joe]

Once it is understood that gun control does not reduce crime, accidents, or suicide, it is easier to accept the philosophical core of the gun rights movement which states that even if gun control laws actually did reduce crime, they would still not be justified and should be opposed. Defense of oneself and ones family is a sacred right and it may not be discarded in the name of crime control. If rights could be so easily dismissed, then we know we could dramatically reduce crime tomorrow by simply ignoring Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and doing away with habeas corpus, and due process. But no amount of crime reduction can justify revoking fundamental rights.

Every gun owner needs to clearly understand these truths and effectively share them with everyone they know or we will continue to see our rights gradually but inevitably turned into privileges.

Jeff Knox
October 10, 2007
Back to Basics
[There is another philosophical principle in his post that important to understand too. A license to carry a concealed weapon converts a right into a privilege and we need to consider the recent progress we have made in concealed carry laws as merely a step on a muddy path. The path may have been the best and perhaps only way to get where we wanted to be but we did get soiled by walking in the mud. We must quickly traverse this path before the mud turns to concrete around our feet.–Joe]

The Supreme Court will consider two petitions growing out of the Second Amendment dispute over a District of Columbia ban on private possession of handguns at its Conference on Nov. 9, according to the Court’s electronic docket on Wednesday.

The two cases are the city’s appeal — District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) — challenging a D.C. Circuit Court ruling last March striking down the handgun ban under the Second Amendment, and a cross-petition by five city residents — Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335) — seeking to join in the case to add their own legal complaints about the city gun control law.

Because the two sides have framed the Second Amendment question in different ways in their papers in 07-290, it is conceivable that, should the Court grant review, it might choose to rephrase the issue itself.

The earliest that an order on the fate of the two cases would emerge is probably Tuesday, Nov. 13.  The case, if granted, would probably be heard in February or March.

Lyle Denniston
Reporter, SCOTUSblog
Justices to consider gun case Nov. 9
October 24, 2007, 12:04 PM
[Interesting. If the two cases are combined does this mean the decision might be much broader than we have sometimes speculated? If so then even more interesting times are ahead of us no matter which way the ruling goes.–Joe]

Because there’s no way in hell the two of you together can take Allen, if you give him the slightest chance.

I’m serious, Russell. Trust me on this, all right? Backshoot him, the second your sights bear, or I promise he will kill you for days. Longer days than you can possibly imagine.

Zudie, a character in Very Bad Deaths, page 175, by Spider Robinson
[It’s possible one can imagine taking the law into your own hands. Robinson sets up a situation. In this case a telepath gets knowledge of a brutal murder about to occur. It’s a true vigilante justice situation. It’s a good story.–Joe]

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley
12:15 AM/ET, October 04, 2007
A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
[We are winning. I hope to have some numbers and graphs ready for posting by tomorrow sometime.–Joe]

As we see it, the technology to implement the micro-stamping is flawed, there would be an increase in the potential for civil liability for law enforcement agencies that continue to use handguns which will be placed on the “unsafe” handgun list, there would be an increase in law enforcement training costs due to not being able to reuse spent cartridge casings, the technology could be easily defeated since the stamping is only 25 microns deep and the cost of the technology would be passed on to law enforcement agencies and citizens alike.

The North State Sheriffs’
Bill Analysis, Senate Rules Committee, Third Reading, Bill No: AB 1471
[I’m not sure why the reuse of shell casings would be affected. Any ideas?–Joe]