The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Phoebe Maltz Bovy has written an article for The Atlantic and doesn't like guns.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/ ... s-yes-them

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

de mes mains froid de mortes

Third one.

Oh, boo-hoo. These folks that are coming out, as it were, think they're going to make some big impact on 'gun control' (or whatever the du jour name is).
And for those aspiring to office, it appears that Bill Clinton's seminal lecture on the folly of trivializing (or attacking) America's gun culture continues to go unheeded, at great peril.

Like most utopian ideals, it will need totalitarian enforcement because it will only work if there is no dissent.

SwampGrouch wrote:Like most utopian ideals, it will need totalitarian enforcement because it will only work if there is no dissent.

You mean like the 'gun behind every blade of grass" thing? Even a measly 20 million blades of grass is still a lot of grass.

Ah, she writes from Canada. This allows her to NOT believe, somehow, that banning guns merely disarms the law-abiding.

That she did not address the strongest piece of opposition to banning guns, that only criminals would be armed, would get her a D on this paper in my class. D is passing, but it's an insult. It's better to get an F. So I'd give her a D because she ignored the strongest and cleanest opposition to her thesis, which is banning guns makes us safer. Nah. Banning guns makes it safer to be an armed criminal.

Canada, OK? Where lazy journalists go to write against guns. Not America.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:Ah, she writes from Canada. This allows her to NOT believe, somehow, that banning guns merely disarms the law-abiding.

That she did not address the strongest piece of opposition to banning guns, that only criminals would be armed, would get her a D on this paper in my class. D is passing, but it's an insult. It's better to get an F. So I'd give her a D because she ignored the strongest and cleanest opposition to her thesis, which is banning guns makes us safer. Nah. Banning guns makes it safer to be an armed criminal.

Canada, OK? Where lazy journalists go to write against guns. Not America.

CDFingers

It's easy for people from other countries to dismiss the second amendment. They never had it and never will. When a gun is just a sporting tool it can be deemed not necessary. It's what is going on in some EU countries right now thanks to France's leadership. I hope that effort fails; but it should serve as a clear warning to all here that ultimately giving rights and responsibilities from the individual to the state will result ultimately in loosing more rights. It's not just the second that's under threat it's all the others as well. Privacy and freedom of speech are just as much under attack in the EU as the ownership of sporting guns. I don't believe all people want guns taken away, but some do. I don't care much for the opinion of foreign writers, bloggers and anti-gun activist on our second amendment rights or their perceptions of our problems. Many here already know the issues and the actual root causes which most foreigners totally miss.

That's strange, she comes from Canada, which does have a somewhat active gun culture (of course, nothing compared to the US), yet she didn't call for the US to go to Canada-level gun restrictions, she went the full gun-grabber.

I applaud that more full-ban antis are coming out of the woodwork and telling us how they really feel. Drops all pretenses and we can start debating less about magazine capacity and more about what the next civil war will look like.

And finally...

DispositionMatrix wrote:Phoebe Maltz Bovy has written an article for The Atlantic and doesn't like guns.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/ ... s-yes-them

New Republic, not Atlantic (of which formerly was a writer for). Hahha, sorry I couldn't resist

To clarify, she's an American living in Canada.

beaurrr wrote:To clarify, she's an American living in Canada.

Good for her. She's just one of our own home grown gun abolishionists. I too am glad at least some people will come out with their real intent. Without it we can't have an honest debate.

The gun grab in Canada-the one that many Canadians ignored. Canada has a lot of guns. The evil black plastic got banned and a registry was set up. It made no difference in crime. You live outside a city in Canada, you hunt. You can have handguns.
Canadians were the ones who wanted to be British. They want to follow the rules. Many ignored the ban, a few politicians got new jobs, money was wasted on the registry that it was eliminated, except for the illicit copies held by the police. There are about 31 guns per 100 population in Canada, so they are a long way from disarmed. They resisted the gun grab strongly and pushed back hard. She may be disappointed when she realizes the truth.

But, okay. Abracadabra. All the guns are gone.

Except for mine and the criminals and the terrorists and the drug dealers and the enemy nations and the gun runners and the people making AKs in their little machine shops and the kid on the corner selling the stolen military or police weapons or the guy living back in the woods hunting food, but he can use a bow and arrow because nobody ever got hurt with an arrow.

In the US, the armed citizen is a symbol of power to the people, that the govt is supposed to be subservient( a nice fiction). Europeans like a nanny govt. We are heading that way kicking and screaming.

As noble an idea as getting rid of all guns sounds it doesn't answer some issues I have. Like who gaurantees my personal safety. Who disarms those who do not abide by laws. Who will stop all wars. Will I have universal health care at the end. Will poverty end. Will education be for all. Will I still be allowed to vote. Will I have the first amendment or any of the other amendments. And lastly but not finally will the one percent in charge give a damn at that point!

BTW I don't clump all European nation in the "nanny" state category. I saw the pre 1996 Finnish government as a consensus based. I draw a distinction between nanny and consensus.

My opinion will be that one of someone who recently became interested in the topic but has studied it.

I believe the author is in a dream world. When I asked veterans that were my extended family and their friends many say that they will not even enforce an order to take away "tactical rifles" from civilian ownership. It is the same with a sergeant that was the uncle of the guy I am dating. He said that him and fellow deputies will not enforce such an order nor will the Sheriff request an order to be enforced.

If even "assault weapons" were needed to be surrendered I believe we have 6 million of them in peaceful hands. I have no doubt that around half (assaults AR15 owners tend to be more devoted to the 2A) will refuse to comply with 5% willing to use violent resistance.

This brings forth the while Ruby Ridge scenario but magnified. I have a fuzzy memory of Ruby Ridge but a federal agent killed the son and that resulted in a standoff leading to the militia movement in the 90s.

Looking at the "ethically incorrect" situation at Bundy Ranch and the sheer number of persons that supported that man I shudder to think what a confiscation scheme will result in.

Perhaps they get the first few million hold outs with little to no force but some old grandpa has his AR and decides to drive off instead of handing it over. An agent panics and shoot at the truck killing the old man AND his nine year old grand daughter.

While I believe that agents are well trained, similar incidents have happened and it is not unrealistic that something similar will happen.

So after the grandfather and daughter are killed, it hits the right wing media and a it results in persons that were practicing civil disobedience to join the 5% violent resistance movement with the normal 2A persons making the total opposition around 750,000.

With that many person should there are not enough federal agents or gun confiscation cops avaliable. Using social media and tech, I highly suspect that at least a few raids will be harassed or ambushed by gun supporters. Which now results in the army being brought in.

At that point it's going to be civil war and the military being mainly moderate to conservative will split along with several states willing to succeed from the US and using "loyal" national guard troops.

I am guessing AT LEAST 40,000 lives lost in an assault weapons confiscation probably at least 500,000 in a while scale confiscation.

That's not even unlikely. The Government isn't stupid. A new Assult Weapon Ban will not be retroactive but neither will you be legally able to sell or transfer them either. They'll make it a felony if you do then you lose all your guns. That's if they enact a ban. I don't think even that is likely. They'll attempt to make continued ownership more onerous if anything.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:That's not even unlikely. The Government isn't stupid. A new Assult Weapon Ban will not be retroactive but neither will you be legally able to sell or transfer them either. They'll make it a felony if you do then you lose all your guns. That's if they enact a ban. I don't think even that is likely. They'll attempt to make continued ownership more onerous if anything.

Was there not a SCOTUS case about assault Weapons this week where they let stand the ban on mere possession? I wonder what Newsom will do if he is elected.

pdoggeth wrote: And finally...

DispositionMatrix wrote:Phoebe Maltz Bovy has written an article for The Atlantic and doesn't like guns.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/ ... s-yes-them

New Republic, not Atlantic (of which formerly was a writer for). Hahha, sorry I couldn't resist

I figured the link would give away that it was a New Republic article. She has written for The Atlantic, which I figured would be more familiar to most posters.

LGBTGunner wrote:Was there not a SCOTUS case about assault Weapons this week where they let stand the ban on mere possession? I wonder what Newsom will do if he is elected.

They declined the case, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand.

Newsom will go hog wild. Modern sporting rifles (MSRs) probably will be going away altogether in California, regardless of who has the governorship. The most effective way to do that would be to ban all semi-automatic rifles. California leads the way.

DispositionMatrix wrote:Phoebe Maltz Bovy has written an article for The Atlantic and doesn't like guns.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/ ... s-yes-them

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

LGBTGunner wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:That's not even unlikely. The Government isn't stupid. A new Assult Weapon Ban will not be retroactive but neither will you be legally able to sell or transfer them either. They'll make it a felony if you do then you lose all your guns. That's if they enact a ban. I don't think even that is likely. They'll attempt to make continued ownership more onerous if anything.

Was there not a SCOTUS case about assault Weapons this week where they let stand the ban on mere possession? I wonder what Newsom will do if he is elected.

Newsom would codify a tax deduction for mistresses.

We should also ban racism. And everyone should have a pet unicorn.

How the hell did this ever get published? Are there no editors left in the world?

There would be A LOT of boating accidents...

senorgrand wrote:How the hell did this ever get published? Are there no editors left in the world?

CDFingers

senorgrand wrote:We should also ban racism. And everyone should have a pet unicorn.

How the hell did this ever get published? Are there no editors left in the world?

You don't have a pet unicorn?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk