Summations Only

Many gun nuts believe that they are your protection against tyranny from your own government, and in particular the federal government.

Not much time tonight - I'll try to get to more of your points and some of the others in the coming evenings, though there's really not much new substance there, and I'm thinking this thread could be closed by then. But I have another bit of nuttery for you that I'd like to see you and a few dozen others here get excited about;I realize this thread isn't about the 55 mph speed limit, so I'll keep my comments about that very brief, but I think it's important to compare it to what a future repeal of the second amendment could do. As I've mentioned here and in other threads, the (unconstitutional) 55 mph speed limit had unforseen consequences. Hollywood was all too happy to satisfy the public's brand new desire to see policemen portrayed as idiots in countless movies and televisions shows. Radar detector sales and CB radio sales went through the roof in the 1970's. Many people of all political persuasions didn't feel these were good things for a society. So what unforseen consequences could arise as a result of a second amendment repeal? Try this one on for size;"Silencers" for guns have long been around, most of us have seem them depicted in movies, used by the bad guys. They don't completely silence the gun of course, but they seem to muffle the sound quite a bit. They don't seem very desired or popular in real life, most people on either side of the gun control issue today don't seem to mind the bang. Gun nuts, they just like bangs because they're simple like that I guess, and control advocates like it because it's a pretty good indicator that bullets are flying, take cover, arrest that shooter, etc. All the people that currently enjoy target shooting and hunting know that the U.S. is loaded with wide open country where they suspect they could continue to enjoy their guns without getting caught. But what's the spoiler? THE BANG. That's what would bring the authorities down on them, it would pinpoint the time and location of their activities.What would make them happier than a 1975 Dukes of Hazard episode did for speeders of that era? New silencer technology. Finding new ways to make guns almost completely silent would become an overnight goldmine. A whole new world for shooters to break the law right under the noses of those passionate to stop them. Just think of the possibilities!You could be standing at a fuel island gassing up your car, or in a grocery parking lot putting your stuff in your trunk, and suddenly the person 10 feet away from you falls and starts kicking. As you and others check on him and learn that he's been shot, you didn't hear a thing. If you're still alive when the police show up 15 or 20 minutes later, you couldn't give them much information, could you?Think of the brand new possibilities there would be for insane people to invent new shooting galleries. Do you think guns that couldn't be heard more than, say 50 feet away, yet could kill within a half mile, are a technical impossibility? No matter how much money and effort is poured into the idea?If the second amendment is repealed, and something similar to this became a reality, who would be to blame?

Gun nuts also like their hearing, using suppressors help to protect against hearing problems. Seeing as suppressors are legal to own in 41 of the 50 states and you have the military and law enforcement markets, there is already a massive incentive to produce better suppressors. The people breaking the law, you're not big on personal responsibility are you?

'Expanding' is a fairly non-specific term. Expand in what way? Surely, the ATF is at least in part yet another set of police...

More details are in the editorial I linked to, Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For. He says things like, "[The NRA] has worked relentlessly to limit the A.T.F.’s budget and strangle its operations." That part begins at the 5th paragraph from the bottom, relating how the ATF's staff has not expanded in 40 years, and that the NRA prefers that gun enforcement responsibilities remain with an agency that is "hobbled." Not sure what you're getting at here, but the ATF is in the Justice Department, which also runs the FBI and the DEA.--Percy

The New York Times article Percy linked is simply an extraordinary look at corporate America run amok. The gun manufacturers have a lobbying arm that has subverted the legislative process to benefit an industry that is doing an outrageous amount of damage in America.The NRA wields such power in this country that legislators live in fear of a low NRA-rating come election time. And the gun dealers who would have benefitted from the increased foot traffic that enforced background checks would have supplied knew better than to complain when the NRA put the kibosh on the reasonable proposal. The only dealers the NRA has done anything for in recent memory are the ones selling to gun traffickers, because the organization won't allow legislation that requires dealers to report repeat sales and keep inventory records that can be audited. The NRA is quite literally aiding and abetting the crime that they use to motivate gun sales in the first place.That's just diabolical.

My comment was perhaps overly reliant on previous discussions, but in other fora you've expressed some trepidation about the ability of law enforcement to handle power properly. Based on that, I thought it was reasonable to ask what exactly 'expanding the ATF' was suppose to mean.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Herein lies the whole rub. The current "conservative" movement looks at compromise as weakness. They expect the whole world to fall in lock step with their worldview. Though within that movement there are many differences. Progressives need to learn, as President Obama finally did, there is not compromise with them. We can offer compromises but the radical right will not compromise.Ed Kilgore has a great opinion piece that expresses this.
The Cult Of The Second Amendment

quote:

---

Indeed, a lot of Second Amendment ultras appear to think the right to revolution is entirely up to the individual revolutionary. Here’s Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, the darling of the GOP Class of 2014, talking about this contingency in 2012:

​

"I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere...But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family whether it’s from an intruder, or whether it’s from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."

​

You can wonder, as I often do, how people like Ernst would react to such rhetoric if it were coming from a member of a black nationalist or Islamist group. But clearly, there’s no point in progressives seeking any compromise with them on gun issues. They can only be defeated by a true mass social movement supporting reasonable gun regulation. But it’s important to understand that according to the Cult of the Second Amendment, opponents of gun measures have every right to fire back, literally.

---

Hell no.

Actually I said "Expanding the ATF's capabilities,' but I was just attempting to summarize that part of the editorial, which describes the ATF as "hobbled" because of years of being underfunded, understaffed and undermandated. He mentioned things like gun trafficking and the ATF's inability to track gun purchases, and the lack of a database. Beefing up the ATF to properly handle things like this is one of the things the NRA is against.Police abuse of power is a different subject.--Percy

I disagree. The possibility for abuse is completely wrapped up in the question you asked. If we are going to give the ATF more capability, it is reasonable to ask what misuse they might make of it. Certainly that potential for abuse is appropriate to consider when asking if we should expand ATF capability.And of course you might have helped out a bit by not making us totally rely on linked material to figure out what you meant.

Hell yes.

I'm against civilians owning guns but that gun looks awsome.What perks does it have?

Some interesting fear you have decided to deal in there, but let's be realistic.1) America is a leader in military research
2) America is a leader in civilian research
3) Many guns are available legally in the USA
4) America has a well funded military that it uses overseas
5) America's well funded military used napalm in living memory. They and their allies also dropped over 70,000 cluster bombs into Iraq since 1991.I think a reasonable conclusions from these reasonably well known facts, is that if your nightmare case is possible - there has never been a more optimal time for research into it.Knives and opportunity are much cheaper and easier to come by.

I guess "Hell no" isn't very specific, but my guess is that Ringo meant that guns shouldn't change hands willy nilly with no record keeping. Ownership should be registered centrally in the same way as car ownership.This means that someone could give you a gun, but the change in ownership would have to be registered. Given that cars and guns both cause roughly the same number of deaths annually, we should have roughly the same level of oversight for both.--Percy