Now see, if only your post had contained anything serious on those topics, you would have a point. Instead it was just one of your drive-by bon mots featuring a shout-out to the fallen heroes at Occupy.
You are a smart guy. If you want to join the discussion in earnest then your viewpoint would be welcomed.
God made men, colonel Colt made them equal.
Ah, yes. Where’s my copy of Steal This Book? I’d link to it, but… well. Explosive instructions. Still.
That’s right. Abbie Hoffman says to contact the NRA.
Well, then I’ll break it down into something more tiresome.
The reason I mention the OWS is that they are somewhat “cutting edge”, lefty wise. Younger, for the most part. At any rate, if you spend any time among them, as I have, you might notice the general lack of interest in gun control issues. Put baldly, they don’t seem to much give a fuck.
What triggered that was wondering who does, who on the left is it that is burning with lust for gun control. You seem to suggest that such a concern might be pivotal in whom Obama nominates for Supreme Court. Really? If he could pick anything on his agenda to be miraculously enacted, it would be gun control?
Not that I don’t have some sympathy with the Brady coalitions. But the fight just isn’t worth it, under our circumstances. Such is the sorry state in which we find ourselves, and each other, that gun control just doesn’t rate.
I can’t be the only lefty thinking like this, I doubt if I’ve had a truly unique thought in my entire life. How many of us? Can’t really be measured. Certainly can’t be organized. But look at the OWS, a flurry of signage and opinions. See anything about gun control? Hear anybody talking about it?
Serious gun control is impractical to the point of absurdity, we couldn’t effectively do it if we had the black helicopters and UN troops. And the ferocious resistance of the ballistic community makes it a political nightmare, which offers nothing more useful than a vicious struggle to attempt something that cannot be done. It won’t work, therefore, it isn’t worth it.
Or, put another way, Christ Jesus, just keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you! Still like that better.
So the implication is that 99% of America, as they portray themselves, is cutting edge on the left? All that aside, I still don’t see what someone who doesn’t care about the issue (Occupy) has to do with this, but I won’t press the issue.
I think though that the liberals on this message board have made the exact argument I did with respect to Republicans and abortion. Do liberals not believe that abortion is an acid-test item for Republican Presidents in the position of nominating a USSC Justice? Do they think Republicans burn with lust for abortion providers to be sunning themselves in Cuba? I surely hope not.
I think if you read my posts closer you’d see I’m agreeing with you. I’ve been defending Obama and his Administration in that I don’t see them having a giant hidden or open agenda.
However, his personal beliefs are well-known; he championed them on his website for quite some time. And Presidents, Left, Right, or Middle, all have their own acid tests for USSC Justices and Federal judges. It’s expected. If I was President, I would never put an anti-gay Justice on the Court, thus that would be one acid test.
An “acid test” for a justice doesn’t have to be a bad thing.
I think this is an issue of correlation vs. causation.
I think there is quite a robust correlation between those who are left of center and support for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and a robust correlation between those who are right of center and support for gun owners’ rights. I no of no evidence to suggest that there is an active effort to vet potential appointees to the bench based on their views on that legal issues on gun control. I do think it is fairly reasonable to assume that there is an active effort to determine a candidate’s views on abortion.
In other words, I think the litmus test for abortion is a much, much, much more stringent test, while the importance of a nominee’s views on gun control are relatively much less important.
I think this is a relflection of the national environment on issues surrounding abortion vs those issues around gun control. Over the last 15 years, with a few exceptions, it has been difficult to legislate on abortion – such as the constantly-changing policy on whether US foreign aid can be used to benefit international family planning organizations that also provide abortions; or whether the District of Columbia can use local (not Federal!) funds to defray abortion costs for low-income women. As a result, the courts end up having a much greater influence on abortion matters, because the Federal government has a hard time dealing with abortion issues.
In contrast, at the Federal level, the trend for at least the last decade has been that the Congress and the White House have slowly been okay with expanding gun rights, and the judiciary has more or less been in the same position. The last ten years have shown that having a “(D)” next to a politician’s name is not a strong indicator of views on gun control. Since Republicans are pretty uniformly pro-gun rights, and Democrats are more mixed on gun control, I don’t believe there is a consensus that Democratic leaders see a judge’s views on gun control as being a top-tier issue. As opposed to abortion, where most R’s are pro-life, and most D’s are pro-choice, and the issue is definitely at the forefront of debate on a judge’s suitability.
Please note that I make these comments in regard to how I see the debate on all judicial nominees, not just those for the Supreme Court. I think SCOTUS nominations are so rare that it is hard to draw hard-and-fast conclusions.
Perhaps…maybe from the other side, though. I seem to recall news reports and soundbites of Republican senators being frustrated with Kagan’s refusal to answer if she felt RKBA was an individual right.
I find it very difficult to disagree with what you say here. Good post.
Nothing.
The primary use of a car is to drive.
The primary use of a knife is to cut bread.
The primary use of a gun is to kill human beings. That’s why in at least the last 40 years the NRA is do adamant in supporting unregulated and impossible to trace ownership of hand guns and bullets and make them as available as possible to inner city populations.
Then you’re talking about the Republicans adding a pro-gun litmus test to the abortion test, not about Obama adding an anti-gun one.
Wrong. I, and many of my friends, have quite a few guns each. None of these have ever been designed, sold or acquired for the purpose of killing humans. Just like every gun sold to civilians in my country. Over here, trying to acquire a gun to kill humans, or to put it euphemistically, “for self defense purposes”, is one of the most effective methods for getting your application for gun acquisition rejected.
tl/dr version:
The primary use of most guns sold to civilians is not to kill human beings:
[ul]
[li]The primary use of a shotgun is to kill birds or clay pigeons[/li][li]The primary use of a hunting rifle to kill deer and other animals[/li][li]The primary use of a target rifle is to kill paper targets[/li][li]The primary use of a sporting handgun is to kill paper targets.[/li][/ul]
IME, those gun categories cover the majority of guns sold to civilians.
What differentiates a “sporting handgun” from any other handgun?
Naxos, my shotgun is specifically designed to be incredibly bad at killing human beings.
It is a single barrel break action. That means it will never ever be able to fire more than one round at a time, requiring a reload before firing again. Further, in order to reload, you need to lose your sight picture, breaking the gun in half, and reacquire the target afterwards.
It has a 32" long barrel. A meter of barrel, ignoring the rest of the shotgun. It’s exceptionally accurate for a shotgun, but it is not something that can be used in any environment besides open fields. Even clear woods make it a pain in the ass.
It is exceptionally designed specifically for shooting clay pigeons. But killing people? I’d have better luck with a meat cleaver.
Just when some posters were convinced that despite President Obama’s previous statements, there was no possible way he would act to restrict firearms in any way, we get this from the administration:
So because of the sensibilities of people like Naxos, areas for recreational shooting, already plenty scarce, are going to be further restricted.
Predictably, the NRA is opposing these planned restrictions. I am happy they are doing so. There is no good reason to run recreational shooting and hunting off of public land.
That’s not a firearms restriction. It’s a land use restriction.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Regards,
Shodan
Can every otherwise legal activity be performed on public land?
If the federal government outlaws protests in front of the White House, that is not a restriction on protests. It is a land use restriction.
Right?
Regards,
Shodan
You are of the opinion that someone who controls land can’t decide that they don’t want people hunting on it?
That by doing so, they are taking a stand against hunting, even if they don’t stop you from hunting on land you control?
I don’t want you peeing on my lawn, but I’m not against peeing.
I am.
Shodan, do you think that perhaps there’s a difference between protesting in a specific location and hunting on public land generally?
So you seem to be insinuating that this is part of an Obama agenda to restrict firearms use or ownership, right?
It seems like similar restrictions were considered during the Bush Administration. Did George Bush also have a secret anti-Second Amendment agenda, too?