Saturday, March 23, 2013

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.)

You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken).

But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective:

Let's run that by again:

Elliot Jacobson says,
This instance is not a case of a father bonding with his son through hunting but rather a father indoctrinating his son to believe as he does, that he has a citizen's right to bear arms ... .  This debate over the ownership and use of weapons is a dangerous one ... .  And as Chief Justice Burger once said the 2nd amendment argument defending each individuals right to bear arms is fraudulent.
Debbie Ganassi says,
Should have put that boy is [in] foster care. 
Idiots.

The sad part here (aside from the obvious failure on the part of our two commenters to even grasp how the US Constitution and laws of this country work) is that Mr. Jacobson is actually right about the US Department of Justice's position on the 2nd Amendment, as evidenced by the Supreme Court arguments presented in US v Emerson (2000):
Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"
Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"
Meteja: "Exactly."
Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.
Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"
Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard." 
The reality is that there ARE a significant number of people in Delaware who view HB 35 and all its cousins as necessary precursors to universal gun registration and, ultimately, confiscation.

Nor is arguing that this is the case unmerited paranoia, since there is a perfect case study in California of this already happening on a large scale. 

And it is germane to revisit the quotation from that story about what has made it all possible:

As many as 200,000 people nationwide may no longer be qualified to own firearms, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at theUniversity of California, Davis. Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.
“Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” said Wintemute, who helped set up the program.
Yes, Elliott Jacobsen, Debbie Ganassi, and a lot of the folks in Delaware supporting this legislation DO NOT believe in a citizen's right to bear arms, DO NOT believe in due process or a government of laws, and ARE being given cover by those folks who are piously maintaining that they would NEVER support universal gun registration or confiscation.

12 comments:

Scott Gesty said...

Some people are a special kind of stupid.

delacrat said...

So a kid who is too young for a drivers license is old enough for a gun ?

Steve Newton said...

Absolutely, with proper training and supervision. Much less dangerous than an unsupervised teen driver.

Scott Gesty said...

I started hunting when I was 10. And, I haven't killed one human being yet. Go figure.

Mike W. said...

I work with one of those commenters you quoted....

kavips said...

I don't see how registration directly implies mandatory confiscation. Every auto I've bought has been registered, and sometimes, particularly with a Lemon, I've begged to have it confiscated so I could collect the insurance on it... But to no avail.

The fear of registration is a hang-up. If guns are legal, why should anyone be afraid of registering them? As if, the NSA doesn't already know who has and who doesn't have guns already... Just from "legally" reading your mail.

Guns can never be confiscated... Trying to imagine that possibility, is insane to even try? How would you go about it? Where in America could you find enough people willing to do so? We couldn't even get rid of alcohol!

There is a small fringe of people who fear registration. They is also a small fringe of people who will truck bomb a government building in Oklahoma City irregardless of children there. They often are many similarities between the fears held by the two...

The best way to stop the madness is to make guns so much a normal part of life, like cars without secrecy, where one registers them for accountability reasons only,... then trusts the American People. Not government. The American People.

If they ever do come for all your guns, let me know, and I'll give my life right there beside you. (just make sure I don't run out of ammo)

delacrat said...

"So a kid who is too young for a drivers license is old enough for a gun ?" - delacrat


"Absolutely, with proper training and supervision. Much less dangerous than an unsupervised teen driver." - Steve Newton

That you concede the need for proper supervision implies that a 10 year old has not the maturity to possess a gun.

It's a lot to ask of a community to trust that a 10 year with gun access has "proper training and supervision", 24/7/365.

Steve Newton said...

That you concede the need for proper supervision implies that a 10 year old has not the maturity to possess a gun.

Actually, no such thing.

There are many aspects of children's lives that call for supervision and training. You don't teach them to use knives without supervision until such time as they demonstrate the maturity to use it correctly. You don't let them surf the net without supervision until you are sure they understand what's happening.

It's a lot to ask of a community to trust that a 10 year with gun access has "proper training and supervision", 24/7/365.

Among other things, delacrat, proper supervision of a 10 year old with a firearm means that he doesn't have access to it without adult permission. If you read the article about the NJ boy and the follow-ups posted around the internet, you will discover that when the 22 is not in use with his father or another trusted adult it is locked in a gun safe.

I grew up in communities like this, and contrary to all that you might think, there are thousands of them still in existence today.

Mike W. said...

"Guns can never be confiscated... "

Tell that to NY gun owners right now....or owners of SKS rifles in CA in the 80's, or heck, gun owners in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Delaware Watch said...

One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice.

tom said...

Perhaps I was wrong about you.

Apparently you will resort to bald assertions and deliberate distortions while waiting for the people on the other side of the debate to do your research work for you and post data that supports your position.

Well don't hold your breath, because if such data existed and we were aware of it, we would probably not be arguing against you.

Mike W. said...

"The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA."

What facts Dana? Please provide hard data.

Violent crime is down and has been going down steadily, despite record firearms sales, CCW etc. etc.

Here's CA. gun sales up, gun deaths and gun injuries down.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html

CDC data shows that unintentional gun deaths fell steadily from 0.25 per 100,000 to 0.20 per 100,000 people from 1999 through 2007.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

If we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents, then why are gun violence and accidental death by gun falling?