Mike Seebeck at Liberty For All:
It’s been three weeks since Adam Lanza killed his mother, stole her guns, and massacred two dozen innocent children and teachers in Connecticut. In those two weeks we’ve seen the usual hysterics from the anti-gun lunatic fringe and after a delay, similar posturing from the pro-gun right. It’s now time to put the situation into proper perspective.
First, everyone agrees that the massacre was a tragedy, and our hearts and prayers go out to the families of those affected by it. No child should have their innocence forever shattered by watching their classmates, friends, and teachers die. No family should have to bury their child. I know how that feels, having been there and having had to bury my own child. It’s simply Hell.
Second, a disclaimer: I support the Second Amendment, and I firmly believe that attempts to limit its application are both unconstitutional and morally reprehensible. People have the obligation with their right to keep and bear arms the responsibility to do so safely and responsibly, and failure to do so causes tragedy and death. Willful failure to do so should be dealt with severely.
Now onto business. Let’s start with the guns and get that hoplophobia issue set aside.
Guns are simply a tool. They are a device: nothing more, nothing less. Yes, they are a device whose purpose can be lethal (but not necessarily so). Nobody denies that. Guns come in a large variety of shapes and sizes, from the single-shot Derringer like Booth used to assassinate Lincoln, to muzzle-loading black-powder rifles like those used in the American Revolution, to modern hunting rifles and pistols, to machine guns, from small-caliber to large-bore. There are estimates that there are over 300 million firearms amongst the 330 million populace in America. People use them to hunt for both sport and food, to teach hand-eye coordination, marksmanship, and even in Olympic events. And yes, they are used in, and as deterrents to, crimes.
32 responses so far ↓
1 Andy // Jan 5, 2013 at 1:12 am
This is an excellent response to that idiotic Demand A Plan video that features a bunch of Hollywood stars.
Demand A Real Plan
2 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 5, 2013 at 1:43 am
Wow, great video, Andy.
3 Smart Alex // Jan 5, 2013 at 1:49 am
Wow, Paulie, I’m impressed that you posted this when I know Mr. Seeebeck hasn’t always been nice to you. It is a good, thoughtful article.
4 Mighty Whitey // Jan 5, 2013 at 1:50 am
5 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 5, 2013 at 1:59 am
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=400605793351124&set=vb.277771632323015&type=2&theater
I don’t know why I can’t get this video to embed, but please click on it and watch it.
6 Mighty Whitey // Jan 5, 2013 at 2:12 am
Who Controls America?
Who is Behind Gun Control?
Most U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written, introduced, and sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Jewish Senators.
U.S. Federal Gun Control Legislation, 1968 – present
1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Congressman Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R.17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Senator Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.
1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.1523. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.
1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill – S.2180 – to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”
1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.
1993: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.653. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.
February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Senator Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Congressman Charles Schumer.
1994: Senator Howard Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Congressman Charles Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.
September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Charles Schumer.
1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.
September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.
1997: Senate bill S.54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hatch, among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.
January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.
January, 1999: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.
February,1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.
February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.
March, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.
March, 1999: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.
May, 2000: Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Schumer sponsor Senate bill S.2515, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.
January, 2001: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer sponsor Senate bill S.25, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].
May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban expired in September, 2004.
October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
March, 2005: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
March, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.
July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1621 – Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.
July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1622 – Fifty-Caliber Exclusion to S.397. This amendment would modify S.397 to allow suits when the firearm involved was a .50 caliber weapon.
July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1633 – BATFE Safety Standards. This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the safety standards as defined by the BATFE.
July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1634 – ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could, almost completely, dry up the handgun availability in the United States.
Click to learn more:
http://thezog.wordpress.com/who-is-behind-gun-control/
7 No Difference // Jan 5, 2013 at 2:51 am
Guns are just a tool, that’s all. And they needn’t be lethal, according to the article’s author.
Let’s see. So I guess that means that guns, when not causing LETHAL results, can cause non-lethal results. Permanent injuries that are life-altering, leaving an otherwise normal individual with disabilities as the result of a tool?
Of course, we also need to consider the LETHAL results, especially VERY lethal ones. People die because someone used a tool.
I understand when tools are used, say a table saw, to build a table or maybe to cut carpentry work. Occasionally, though not often, there are tragedies as a result. However, newer saw tables as well as newer other tools used for carpentry, have adapted with the times and feature safety mechanisms to prevent injuries, esp. serious ones.
Sure, guns have safety locks, and hopefully people who use these “tools” use those safety features wisely. But to say that a gun is a “tool” in the same sense as a table saw, or even an ice pick (which have been used as murder weapons, at least in the movies) seems a bit … incongruous?
Saw tables and ice picks were invented with convenience in mind. Guns were invented with death in mind. Those aims are not the same. Tools are used only for relieving toil and producing better results in some cases. These are peaceful means. Guns are not. To categorize them in similar classes does not make sense to me.
BTW, please notice that not once have I even implied banning or confiscation of weapons. That is not my point, and that should be obvious.
8 No Difference // Jan 5, 2013 at 2:55 am
Maybe what I should have said is “why is it so important to characterize guns as tools?” What purpose does that attribution serve?
I think a better classification for guns is “weapons.” Best be left to that.
9 johnO // Jan 5, 2013 at 8:30 am
Is #6 a member of the American Third Position Party? Sounds like a Golden Dawn member. Must be very angry. All ethnic groups have pro-gun or anti-gun advocates by the way.
10 Kimberly Wilder // Jan 5, 2013 at 9:00 am
Yes, automatic weapons, and guns with special, huge loads of clips, are only devices…devices which are only useful to kill large numbers of human beings at a time.
If it should be the right of everyone to own a gun, it should be the right of everyone to own a gun for the purpose of protecting themselves only.
Individuals do not need military-capability weapons.
11 Your humble subject // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:25 am
His Royal Majesty King George, III
It is with a burdened heart we come to petition you about issues we see that are most grave and dire. Of late some of your subjects have begun casting cannon and have acquired rifles upon which bayonets may be fixed.
We bring this to your attention as your loyal subjects as we can see no legitimate purpose for these activities. Although it is obvious that some of our subjects who live on the frontier have need of an ordinary rifle for the purpose of hunting food and protecting themselves from the savages, we cannot understand why they would need arms that are only useful for seemingly military purpose. For those living in your great cities it is even more absurd.
Does his majesty not have a standing army in navy impressive enough to protect us from the French and Spanish, who constantly seek to oppress us under their tyrannical rule?
Do they not trust your grace to protect us from such threats?
Clearly individuals have no need of weapons that are designed for the purposes of fighting and firing upon closed ranks of soldiers in an open field, and I can only speculate that their reasons for wanting them are ill intended. I also suspect some are secretly resentful against your grace and actually blame you for that recent unpleasantness last March.
We humbly petition you to stop such practices and pass laws forthwith to ensure that nothing unfortunate comes of these recent incidents.
Your humble and loyal subject,
Scott Wilder, esquire, of New York, formerly of Sussex
May 4, 1770
12 paulie // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
I’m not sure what the reason for that animosity is, but I see no reason to return it.
13 paulie // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:33 am
They can be used to hunt, target shoot, stop crime (millions of times a year, with the overwhelming majority of cases not involving any shots being fired, much less at anyone), or prevent tyranny. The last can result and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, millions or even tens of millions of people in countries where the citizens were first disarmed.
Via Hammer of Truth:
14 paulie // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:35 am
http://jpfo.org/ Started by Jews; Jews and non-Jews alike welcome and encouraged to join.
15 paulie // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:37 am
They’re the only type of gun that is suited for stopping multiple, or armed, criminal assailants or would-be tyrants.
It is precisely military-capability weapons that the Second Amendment is designed to protect.
16 paulie // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:38 am
@11 Nicely done
17 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Individuals do not need military-capability weapons.
In my article, I clearly and carefully delineated between military weapons and civilian ones:
As for “assault rifles,” they simply are a semi-auto variation of the full-auto weapons that are used by the military or police. Like every other non-full-auto weapon, they fire one shot at a time and no more. What makes them “assault weapons” and deserving of a ban in the minds of the anti-gun mob is their appearance, because they “look” like their military counterparts.
(Note I left out the reference to burst fire for military weapons, because it really isn’t relevant to the context and most full-autos come with that setting anyway.)
The issue of whether people “need” any type of weapon, military-capable (which doesn’t make any sense because the military uses some of the same weapons as civilians, such as sidearms) or not, is outside the scope of the article. Besides, rights are not based on any “needs;” they are based on the human construct that as a fact we as humans simply exist.
One can only wonder what would have happened at Waco if the Davidians had weapons equivalent to the ATF and FBI’s tanks…all because of a measly $200 tax stamp.
The issue of what makes up a purely offensive weapon, a purely defensive weapon, a mixed offensive-defensive weapon, and their applicability to military and civilian uses is also outside the scope of the article. I mention it here because I expect someone to break out the usual “Should individuals be allowed to have nukes?” card shortly. It’s really not relevant to Sandy Hook.
18 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Damn, typoed the italics wrong there. Apologies.
19 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm
@7 and @8:
All tools can kill if used a specific way—hammers, cars, blades, you name it.
A weapon is a tool or an implement, not all tools or implements, but some tools or implements can be weapons.
Banning a tool because of its potential use is nonsense. By that definition, bathtubs would be illegal because one could be drowned in them, and so would be anyone with a martial arts belt.
We live in a nation where actions are made illegal and punished, not the things they are done with. We saw the insanity of the latter when the state tried to ban the tools of meth that are used in common regular household use.
I can use a hammer as a tool or a weapon, and I can use it with lethal or non-lethal results as a weapon, but at the end of the day it’s still a tool. If I pound my thumb while pounding a nail with it, is that using it as a tool, or a weapon? My thumb thinks the latter! Use matters!
I can use a rock to landscape my yard, pound a nail, or bludgeon someone. Use matters!
I know a guy who when he ran LP meetings used a .38 S&W as a gavel. Use matters!
That seems to be the point lost on people.
20 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Whoever fixed the italics for me, thanks.
21 starchild // Jan 5, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“Your humble subject” @11 – Terrific post! I don’t think that’s an actual historical letter, but very nice attention to detail! If it is real, even better!
And speaking of history, since no article about the gun issue is complete without a link to the excellent documentary film “Innocents Betrayed” in the comments, here’s that link for those who haven’t seen it:
22 NoGovNo // Jan 5, 2013 at 8:35 pm
The only thing that makes me think that letter is not an actual 18th century one is the modern spelling and the lack of Random capitalization at the Beginning of Some words. Otherwise, it could pass muster!
23 Starchild // Jan 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm
NoGovNo @22 – I was thinking the same thing, but sometimes when transcribing historical writings, people edit that stuff out. However, not just the spelling and capitalization, but also the word choices strike me as modern. Nevertheless, as you say, it’s very well done!
24 Robert Capozzi // Jan 5, 2013 at 9:46 pm
19 S, yes, certainly “use matters.” It’s also the case that context matters, too.
Some objects become more inherently dangerous based on WHERE they are. For ex., a machine gun is more inherently dangerous in a subway car than it is on a private ranch in MT.
Property owners should, I suggest, be empowered to discern where these inherent risks can be tolerated, and where not. The owners of the subway car may tolerate a hammer and not a machine gun. The ranch owner may tolerate both.
25 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm
@24,
Dangerous in reference to location is based in ignorance and fear of those in that location. It’s also a matter of perception, which is entirely subjective and subject to mass stupidity and paranoia, and that immediately disqualifies it from the discussion.
26 Robert Capozzi // Jan 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm
25 S, surely you mean to say it “disqualifies it from discussion” FOR YOU, yes? You, for ex., may feel perfectly comfortable walking into a subway car with several machine-gun toters. Others may not.
Are you familiar with the subjective theory of value? It’s a linchpin of Austrian economics. Everything’s subjective in the end, near as I can tell. Unless you can prove otherwise…can you?
27 Seebeck // Jan 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm
@26,
Crapozzi, you’re the poster child for subjectivity, since all you do is impotently argue out of both sides of your keyboard.
I’m well familiar with the subjective theory of value,but it transcends Austrian economics into ALL economic systems. It’s at the basis of all economics. Applying it to a discussion about the RKBA, though, is inapplicable since that is LAW and not economics. Therefore it is disqualified from the discussion–unless you are one of the masses of the stupid and paranoid.
It’s not my fault that the majority of humanity has not learned to critically think and assess situations. That apparently includes you.
28 NoGovNo // Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 pm
Getting rid of government property would resolve the problem. There’s not really a right answer while property is held by government.
29 Robert Capozzi // Jan 6, 2013 at 6:44 am
27 Seebeck, thank you. I’d not been called “Crapozzi” since I was perhaps 9, so I smiled at that one. Charming!
Yes, most economists subscribe to the subjective theory of value, but not all do. Others subscribe, for ex., to the labor theory of value.
You may IN YOUR MIND believe that the “law” is somehow NOT subjective, but you have not even attempted to prove your case. That it is subjective is quite easy…just look at Supreme Court decisions. The justices often split, often 5:4. If “law” was objective, wouldn’t you think that all cases would be unanimous?
In base 10, 1+1=2, and we’d get unanimity (or something very close).
With the law, we don’t…not even close.
Even among Ls, we don’t get unanimity re: RKBA and what it means. There’s a range of thought regarding what constitutes “arms” and where they can be kept and carried.
As for my ability to think critically, I’d say it stands some improvement. This is my swing at it. I will share that your post 27 seems bereft of what I’d call “critical thinking,” though, to be honest. If it IS critical thinking in your mind, I would appreciate hearing why you think so.
It’s my practice to be open minded. Radically so.
30 paulie // Jan 6, 2013 at 11:39 am
@22-3 An 18th century letter would also probably be more flowery with praise when addressing the king. But as I said well done!
31 Andy // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:16 am
I just stumbled upon this on YouTube. I saw Innocents Betrayed a long time ago, but I had not seen this one before.
No Guns for Jews
32 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 10:28 am
That’s much better than @4.
Leave a Comment