Are You “Eligible”?

Drudge has this up under his banner.

Connecticut has voted to certify you to be “eligible” to benefit from your Second Amendment rights.

The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned…

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown, said Republicans and Democrats have understood they needed to “rise above politics” when they decided to come up with a legislative response to the massacre.

Anytime a politician says that they will “rise above politics”, it signals that what follows is actually all about politics. Just as when they say that it is “for the children”, you can be sure that it isn’t even about children. Time to bend over, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass (or wallet) goodbye.

None of this is brave or courageous. None of this would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre. They estimate that Lanza killed those kids and teachers in about 5 minutes. The police didn’t get there for 15 minutes – after the call. What difference would it have made if Lanza had a bag of 10 round mags and it took him 14 minutes?

None. Those kids and teachers were still defenseless and would still be dead.

What if there had been an immediate response by an armed teacher or administrator?

A shooter’s mind will get focused on reality very quickly when he is staring at the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun.

This is all “feel good” political crap.This is nothing but putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound for the benefit of the emotional, the easy to please and the weak minded . Many will see this as “progress” even as it does nothing to prevent another massacre and only serves to take the right of an individual to protect his own person away.

What they are doing is gradually siphoning off Constitutional rights to make it easier in the future to impose a full out ban. If they really wanted to be “brave and courageous”, they should just go for a ban today…but they won’t because they realize that while the “hair on fire” people want “something done”, there are still enough who believe in the Constitution to stop them.

So they will do it incrementally. Inch by inch.

They will enact law layered upon law until everyone is guilty.

33 thoughts on “Are You “Eligible”?

  1. I’ve read somewhere (unsubstantiated) that we have over 600,000 laws on the books. I think they already have a way to find everyone guilty of something.

    • Mark Levin talks about this ! He calls it the Criminalization of America…..enacting enough laws to make everyone guilty of something……even though they don’t even know it.

  2. “Anytime a politician says that they will “rise above politics”, it signals that what follows is actually all about politics.” Exactly! My family never hunted and we didn’t pay much attention to the gun debates. I just didn’t think it applied to me. In my older age, we now have several guns- for target shooting and protection from animals, human and nonhuman. I wish I had been more involved way back when our rights started to disintegrate. Colorado elected a coastie incomer for Governor and we are now ruled by Democrat/Statist mandate. I expect this in Connecticut, but the fine, individualistic, Western traditions in Colorado are gone as well. Politics has become real life. They are supposed to sit in Washington and argue, making laws rarely. What happened?

    • One saving Grace is that UNDOING some of this can be done by the same tactic Utah highlights….. that is Inch by Inch…

      We just HVE to be engaged …. Start Now Dr K … there are those in Colorado talking about Recal … at the very least a Campaign against him NOW for the next elections…..also if I remeber correctly some of those recent laws were only won by 1 vote 2 votes ….. THOSE politicians can be trageted for defeat …as can those GOP who voted against the Constitution.

      At the same time Find out WHO opposed the recent legislation and Hickenloopers (Sp?) Marxism …. and SUPPORT them, spread their names as the good ones. One can still be active even behind a Computer…..Spreading Name recognition of the Good ones is just as important as Name recognition of the Bad ones… :- ) .

  3. Is there anyone here who believes that 1, 2, …100, …1,000, … or 100,000 gun control laws will stop gun violence?

    No. Well, not if you are a person of reason, intellect, and logic you don’t. These ‘gun laws’ have absolutely nothing in them that would give reality to curtailing gun violence. No, they aren’t about the gun violence at all.

    It’s all about adding your name to a list … an invasion of your 4th Amendment rights.

    It’s never been about the Sandy Hook victims. They are but banners for the rallying cry.

  4. Here’s to all those in Colorado. If after this you are unable to turn the State of Colorado from Blue to Red in the next election you better start thinking about a move.

    • Chhelo,

      At some point, the few of us liberty lovers who remain will have to pick a State in which to make a stand. Personally, I’d be willing to leave my crap here and move to Texas — IF they will agree to hold a second — and hopefully more successful – Alamo.

    • @ Chhelo But where can we move? OK is the top of the list of free states, I guess. Unfortunately, my husband and I are only allowed to practice in CO, due to the laws of state licensure . Though, if the ACA continues, Chiropractors may not be able to practice anywhere and we will need new occupations anyway. Colorado is suffering from the problem of cities ruling the state. The rural county where I live still goes Republican- not that they are so conservative anymore. We also have a lot of libertarians in the woods.

  5. drk,

    We ask ourselves the same questions every day. The next election cycle in Colorado will tell. If the State swings back to Red there may be some hope. If not Colorado is a goner. We have friends with ties to Oklahoma. He is Cherokee Indian and we may head up there to the reservation and fight against the Paleface’s from the Government. Regardless, we are not going down without a fight. Kind of like a Dancing With Wolves moment.

  6. This may very well be a minor point, even a moot point, but didn’t Adam Lanza use a pistol in the shooting? Wasn’t the AR-15 found in his trunk afterwards? I know it is irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, but come on! Why must the gun control lobby ground their arguments in misinformation!?

  7. To this day I do not know what the real truth is. Was the .223 used or just the handguns. The story has change so many times who do you trust. In the long run its irrelevant as the progressives will change the story to suit their goal of enslaving the American people.

    • Chhelo,

      I thought the coroner contradicts the police report??? Which would bring up another question. IF the shooter used the AR15, then how was that rifle found in the shooter’s truck when he would have had to have had it with him in the school?

      What I think is they were waiting for this event so they could do with it exactly what they have done: made sure they aren’t letting the crisis go to waste (at least, waste from their perspective/agenda)

  8. “What difference would it have made if Lanza had a bag of 10 round mags and it took him 14 minutes?”

    http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gun-deal-newtown-0413-20130401,0,7341094.story

    “We learned, the way that no other parents should learn, that the most dangerous, dangerous part of an assault weapon is the magazine,” Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan, 6, was killed Dec. 14, said at a press conference with other parents at the Capitol Monday morning.

    “The horrible, brutal truth is that 154 bullets were fired in four minutes, killing our children, our daughters, our wives. The shooter carried 10, 30-round large-capacity magazines,” Hockley said. “We have learned that ***in the time it took him to reload in one of the classrooms, 11 children were able to escape.*** We ask ourselves every day — every minute — if those magazines had held 10 rounds, forcing the shooter to reload at least six more times, would our children be alive today?”
    —————————
    “What if there had been an immediate response by an armed teacher or administrator? A shooter’s mind will get focused on reality very quickly when he is staring at the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun.”

    http://gawker.com/5970539/

    “Gardner, seeing [Eric] Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

    After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. “Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me.”

    It was 11:26 a.m. Only five minutes had passed since Jefferson County Sheriff’s dispatch center had announced a bomb explosion and subsequent fire on South Wadsworth Boulevard.

    Wouldn’t you know it: it turns out crazed school shooters have no qualms about shooting at armed guards, who, it also turns out, aren’t necessarily effective at stopping gun-crazy madmen. After shooting at the guard, Harris and his partner, Dylan Klebold, stormed the school and were able to kill 13 people.”

    —————————-
    “Many will see this as “progress” even as it does nothing to prevent another massacre and only serves to take the right of an individual to protect his own person away.”

    What exactly do you need more than 10 bullets in your gun for if not to massacre people? If you can’t hit a target with less than 10 bullets I suggest you spend more time at the shooting range practicing your aim.
    —————————-
    And just for fun:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/newly-hired-guard-leaves-gun-unattended-school-bathroom-article-1.1243009

    Oops.

    • What exactly do you need more than 10 bullets in your gun for if not to massacre people? If you can’t hit a target with less than 10 bullets I suggest you spend more time at the shooting range practicing your aim.

      And with that ignorant question, Dave tells the world he does not understand the 2nd Amendment or liberty. And he probably calls himself an American… 😦

      • Joe, I thought the “fromOz” part would have been pretty clear I’m Australian…

        As to the question, why do you need more than 10 bullets in your gun for “self-protection”? Or if hunting is what you are doing it for, you should spend more time practicing your aim if you need an assault rifle to hit that deer or duck.

        • Dave,

          I know what your name refers to. I also know that you are from a nation that should have already learned its lesson about this issue.

          The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, or sport shooting. It is only secondarily concerned with individual protection. It is intended to insure the people will always be able to resist govt. tyranny.

          When China comes knocking, you guys down under may wish you had understood this better…

    • “What exactly do you need more than 10 bullets in your gun for if not to massacre people?”

      Because fuck you, thats why. And just for your records, I do not purchase high capacity magazines to ‘massacre people’ either, though I honestly do not feel the particular need to rationalize my right to self determination to your punk totalitarian ass. Rights are not subject to your perception of my ‘need’.

      Are we clear … Dave?

      • Augger, pretty sure most people would consider their right to life to be a greater right than your right to be able to shoot more than 10 bullets at a time, no?

        Honestly if your self determination is reliant upon owning a gun I feel sorry for you more than anything else. My self determination is drawn from my actions to create a fairer, more tolerant, more prosperous society that limits its impact upon the natural world (a natural world that will continue long after humans are extinct).

        • Dave,

          Oh I see now, Dave. Just because I own a gun, and a magazine capable of shooting more than 10 rounds without a reload … then I certainly must be a murderer.

          No demagoguery here, now is there?

          And Dave … I will exercise another right; Your argument was/is a joke, and you are a straight dumbass to think that I honestly need you to determine the course if my life, and the choices that I make. However, it would appear as if you would make a fantastic dictator. Maybe you would be better served going to a small country and practicing your brand of totalitarianism there.

          • Augs:

            @Dave aka the “Thunder From Down Under” is talking about policies that worked in a country with a total population of 22 million people. The New York metropolitan area alone has that many.

            Roughly 14 million (64%) live in the 5 cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. What makes sense there does not make sense there, especially since there is no enumerated right to bear arms. Australia is a far less dense population than America and that is no doubt a positive in reducing crime.

  9. 150 rounds equals roughly 5 30 round magazines or 15 10 round magazines. It takes 2-3 seconds for someone who knows his way around an AR-15 to change magazines. That’s 30-45 seconds with a bag of 10 round magazines vs. 10-15 seconds for the 30 round mags, a difference of 20-30 seconds. Do you really think that changes anything?

    And that poor distraught mother cannot know that these kids escaped due to reloading. Lanza was clearly insane, he might have just not chosen to shoot.

    My point was that it is not the gun but the person behind it that has to be dealt with. Simply reducing the rounds in a magazine changes nothing. It is political theater. The most dangerous part of a gun is the magazine? What a crock of Pollyannaish crap. The most dangerous part of any weapon is the person with their hand on it whether it is a gun, a knife, a length of rope or a fist.

    For every one of your assertions that an armed guard doesn’t stop shootings, I can post on that does – just like this one from Atlanta in January:

    The armed resource officer who took the gun away was off-duty and at the school, but police didn’t release details on him or whether he is regularly at Price. Since 20 children and six adults were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in December, calls for armed officers in every school have resonated across the country.

    And whether or not I “need” something, is not yours to decide when it is a matter of a Constitutional right. When you can’t say that reducing the round count would end the possibility of a shooting, only reduce the body count, you do not achieve your goal – therefore, this is just an unnecessary restriction to create the image of “doing something”.

    Oh, and just for a little hypocritical fun:

    Piers Morgan, fierce gun critic has armed protection for his home and employed armed guards at his recent Texas visit.

    • “Lanza was clearly insane, he might have just not chosen to shoot.”

      Utah, if the lady said that the children escaped because he was reloading, I can only assume she said that because one of the children or people who escaped while he was reloading said they escaped while he was reloading. I think that’s a more reasonable reason why than “he might have chosen not to shoot”.

      “My point was that it is not the gun but the person behind it that has to be dealt with.”

      Option 1 for dealing with the person – restrict access to guns. Option 2 for dealing with the person – kill them, possibly before, during, or after their rampage.

      Pretty sure I know the option that makes sense.

      As for armed guards in school, this has eternally amused me. People talk about needing guns and protection to protect yourself against “the government”, but you are happy to place government armed guards at your schools standing over your children. I would have thought that if you were truly for “small government” you would find the idea of putting people with guns next to your children would be the last thing you would want. Oh well, I guess we are all really for big government, just when it is big government doing the things we want it to do.

      • People with guns do not equal “government”. Government = police with a response time that is only relevant after a crime has already been set in motion.

        What never gets talked about is the sheer number of crimes that the presence of a gun prevents. No government agency or legislator intent on banning guns has ever seriously produced or tracked these statistics? Wonder why that is? If it would help their case, one would think that they would be all for talking about how ineffective they are at prevention.

        It’s not really a one-sided argument, now is it?

        Funny. I’ve spent time in Perth and I seem to remember your government buildings and politicians guarded by armed guards. Once, I also happened to stay at a hotel at the same time as Delta Goodrem, she had armed guards as well. Your country boasts that it has not had a mass shooting since 1996 and yet John Bunting tortured, ate and killed 11 people (that we know of) without a gun, so OZ is not quite Utopia.

  10. Dave,

    Everything you progressives do turns into a pile of Crap. You and your ilk created everything negative that is going on today in the USA. Your side re-established the Central Bank, imposed an unconstitutional progressive tax system through lies and fraudulent state votes to approve it, took God out of schools, pushed pornography to It’s limits, destroyed the whole black family through the War on Poverty and are working hard on the Latino families as we speak. Now it’s gay marriage, bowing down to Islam and the list goes on.

    Now the law abiding, God fearing, hard working rest of us have to live in the hell you created and you wonder why we need weapons with 30 round magazines. They are definitely not need for hunting or killing little kids, that your kind layed the ground work to kill by giving them mind altering drugs, condoms, pornography, a socialist education, and generational welfare recipients.

    They are for returning the government to real Americans.

    • Hi Chhelo,

      I understand it is nice to assume that the people on the opposite political spectrum are dumb/wrong/evil/mentally incapable, but the fact is that we both want what is best, we both want to improve our world, we just believe it is done in different ways.

      Just on the topic of a progressive taxation system because it is close to my heart, unless you are really rich and wealthy (which considering you are posting on this forum I would doubt), then a progressive taxation system is beneficial to you. You pay less as a proportion of your income under a progressive taxation system than what you would pay under a flat taxation system. A progressive taxation system is fairer all around.

      Suppose you make $30,000 (many many people in your country make this or less, you’ve got a lot of poverty). Under a flat taxation rate of 10% you would pay $3,000 and have $27,000 left.

      Suppose there is a hedge fund manager who makes $30,000,000. Under a flat taxation rate he would pay $3,000,000. He would have $27,000,000 left.

      You both have 90% of your income left, but the hedge fund manager has much much more money. So while you are struggling to put food on the table, pay your energy and water bills, keep gas in your car, the hedge fund manager has done all that, taken three trips to the hamptons, bought a new yacht, and filed the other $25,000,000 away into an offshore bank account or bought some more shares or bonds to keep turning even more of a profit.

      The fact is that poor people spend more of their money than rich people. A person who makes $30,000 a year is pretty much guaranteed to spend all of it and not be able to save any of it. A flat tax therefore hurts them much more than a progressive taxation system.

      Under a progressive taxation system suppose you on $30,000 pay only 5% of $1,500. The rich person instead pays 15% or $4,500,000. In this scenario you have $28,500 left over after tax while the hedge fund manager has $25,500,000. When you are making that amount of money an extra $1,500 a year can really help, such as if you need to go to the dentist or doctor. You might even be able to afford to watch a movie or take your wife out to dinner for your anniversary.

      Does the extra $1,500,000 taken from the hedge fund manager really hurt? Really? Is there something that they might have wanted to buy that they won’t be able to with that extra $1,500,000 (a new island perhaps…). People who are rich are able to absorb higher tax rates much easier than poorer people because they already have a sufficient buffer of income and cash needed to support themselves.

      As you know there are a heck of a lot more poor people in the USA than rich people. With this explanation wouldn’t you agree that the best good for the most people arrives from a progressive taxation system which levies its taxes from the people who are most able to afford them?

      • But Dave, we’ve got a progressive tax system, and it is neither fair nor is it working. Rich people are rich because they worked their tails off to acheive that status. Why should they carry an extra burden?

  11. @Dave:

    There is no doubt that guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable are dangerous – even deadly…but this is not a single issue debate. Even when we look at the sheer numbers of those killed by all guns (including suicides), we are hard pressed to get to 30,000 people a year out of a country of 312,000,000 people. That number is roughly equal to the number who die on the highways in auto accidents in America.

    So logically, auto accidents are just as deadly as guns.

    Looking at deaths that are attributed to mass shootings, while these are true tragedies, statistically they are infinitesimal as compared to the deaths in auto accidents…what do we ban or restrict if we are really serious about deaths in large numbers? Should we ban trains, buses or other high capacity vehicles even as our government pushes society toward more mass transit? While the concentration of people on a single bus or rail car reduce the number of incidents, will it not increase the severity of one when it does happen?

    If you want to reduce the severity of incidents, you reduce the population that is subject to that condition, you don’t increase the population exposed to it. You diversify the risk by individualizing it. It is an exercise in trade-offs.

    The same goes for guns.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.