Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[The boogaloo empire]

ATF agent "this mission can't be that dangerous," (hears loud AF Mp5 slap with fortunate son playing in the background)

ATF agent - (goes into cardiac arrest)

[Grinning Dragon]

Too bad Judge Roger Thomas Benitez wasn't also sitting on the supreme court next to Clarence Thomas as they rule on overturning an unconstitutional gun control law. I do like judge Benitez' no nonsense writing style, cuts to the chase and doesn't hold back.

[Telconi]

Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?

I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.

Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.

That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

Malice isn't a point, it's just malice.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?


Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.


No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.

Panic-button claymore-mine if they make it to the kill-zone main-hall.

[The Chuck]

And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.

Panic-button claymore-mine if they make it to the kill-zone main-hall.

ANFO under the floor boards. They can't make it up the steps to my Roof Korean perch if there are no steps... and no half of the house.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Panic-button claymore-mine if they make it to the kill-zone main-hall.

ANFO under the floor boards. They can't make it up the steps to my Roof Korean perch if there are no steps... and no half of the house.

That's why you point the claymore down.

Also breaches a hole in the floor for you to shoot into the floor below.

I mean, if you can predict that they'll stack on a corner before an obvious fatal funnel... you can really start exploiting normal hollywood-tactics.

Hear flashbang, pull trigger. People tend to lose their composure when you casually pull that in an RP, BTW.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm going to be honest, I watched that for about 5 minutes, trying to see the seam in that loop.

[The Two Jerseys]

Panic-button claymore-mine if they make it to the kill-zone main-hall.

ANFO under the floor boards. They can't make it up the steps to my Roof Korean perch if there are no steps... and no half of the house.

And when all else fails, extract yourself with a Fulton Skyhook and call in Puff the Magic Dragon to level the house.

[The Chuck]

ANFO under the floor boards. They can't make it up the steps to my Roof Korean perch if there are no steps... and no half of the house.

And when all else fails, extract yourself with a Fulton Skyhook and call in Puff the Magic Dragon to level the house.

^ this man gets it

[The Two Jerseys]

And when all else fails, extract yourself with a Fulton Skyhook and call in Puff the Magic Dragon to level the house.

^ this man gets it

Some people say you should keep your yard landscaped so that you can see any intruders trying to break in.

I think it would be more effective if you let the grass grow chest high and blast "Fortunate Son" at maximum volume...

[The Chuck]

^ this man gets it

Some people say you should keep your yard landscaped so that you can see any intruders trying to break in.

I think it would be more effective if you let the grass grow chest high and blast "Fortunate Son" at maximum volume...

I planted elephant grass so any intruders get cut to shit and I also have a few tall trees with platforms in em...

[Grinning Dragon]

Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?

The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:

1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?

Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.

[Diopolis]

Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?

The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:

1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?

Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.

Here's to hoping Machine guns wind up legalized in some capacity over all this.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?

The argument that scared DOJ into dropping felony charges is that:

1. Federal authority to regulate machine guns is derived from their authority to tax them.
2. Since 1986, it is has been unlawful to make them for private ownership.
3. If they will not collect that tax, do they have authority to regulate their possession?

Apparently this is a side effect of ACA which required you to pay a tax for not being insured. The penalty was reduced to 0 recently by Congress, so the individual mandate no longer has any basis, because it was derived from Congressional taxing authority. It appears that DOJ has figured what that my friend Stephen Halbrook argued in U.S. v. Rock Island Armory (C.D. Ill. 1991) could sink machine gun regulation, very quickly:

As applied to machineguns alleged to be possessed after May 19, 1986, prosecutions may no longer proceed under 26 U.S.C. § 5861. This is because the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and its provisions — including registration of machineguns possessed after May 19, 1986 — are valid only to the extent they aid in the collection of tax revenue. Since BATF would not register and accept tax payments for any machinegun after May 19, 1986, registration of machineguns made and possessed after that date no longer serves any revenue purpose, and such registration requirements are invalid. Since 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is interpreted to ban registration and taxation of machineguns under the National Firearms Act, § 922(o) effectively repeals such registration and taxation provisions. Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms. However, since registration of firearms may assist in the collection of revenue, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 pursuant to its power to tax. Section 922(o) destroys the constitutional basis of registration.

The U.S. Attorney did not appeal that decision, likely afraid it would become precedent for the whole circuit.

GO ON CLARENCE, DO IT! GIVE US OUR DAKKA!

[Pax Nerdvana]

Well check this out.
A prosecution for unlawful machine gun possession was granted cert by the Supreme Court--and the Justice Dept. filed a motion applying to vacate the judgment and drop the indictment. (It appears that the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the indictment before this went to trial.) Huh?

Here's to hoping Machine guns wind up legalized in some capacity over all this.

Let's hope so.

^ this man gets it

Some people say you should keep your yard landscaped so that you can see any intruders trying to break in.

I think it would be more effective if you let the grass grow chest high and blast "Fortunate Son" at maximum volume...

And boobytrap the grass. Better yet, turn your yard into a thick forest, and learn it like the back of your hand. They won't know what hit them.

[Big Jim P]

Here's to hoping Machine guns wind up legalized in some capacity over all this.

Let's hope so.

Some people say you should keep your yard landscaped so that you can see any intruders trying to break in.

I think it would be more effective if you let the grass grow chest high and blast "Fortunate Son" at maximum volume...

And boobytrap the grass. Better yet, turn your yard into a thick forest, and learn it like the back of your hand. They won't know what hit them.

Place tannerite traps where you think you might need them (especially to cover those areas an intruder might find cover). Then bang away.

[Big Jim P]

Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?

I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.

Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.

That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

No one needs to rationalize the exercise of a right. The onus for rationalization lies with those who would restrict those rights.

[The Alma Mater]

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?


Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.


No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

No one needs to rationalize the exercise of a right. The onus for rationalization lies with those who would restrict those rights.

The rationalisation seems to be "the right exists so the people can defend themselves and others against oppression and evil; but in practice the people do not use it that way and do harm"

Seems to be. It is not mine *strokes his extensive collection of sharp and pointy things*

[Telconi]

No one needs to rationalize the exercise of a right. The onus for rationalization lies with those who would restrict those rights.

The rationalisation seems to be "the right exists so the people can defend themselves and others against oppression and evil; but in practice the people do not use it that way and do harm"

Seems to be. It is not mine *strokes his extensive collection of sharp and pointy things*

The capacity to do something isn't predicated on such a use. The fact that my tractor sees literally no use except as what is functionally a toy doesn't make it unable to be used for farming. Likewise the fact that my target pistol sees no use except as a target pistol doesn't invalidate the possibility that I could use it to defend valuable liberties.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

ANFO under the floor boards. They can't make it up the steps to my Roof Korean perch if there are no steps... and no half of the house.

And when all else fails, extract yourself with a Fulton Skyhook and call in Puff the Magic Dragon to level the house.

To be honest, you could probably do a skyhook and a spooky with the same plane.

Better yet: Double-spooky.

[Telconi]

I wonder if the cali ag is having his Commodus breakdown moment. Maybe cali will get lucky and the POS will rage quit.

BRB, ordering ammo...

Aaaaaaand it's gone.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Let's hope so.
And boobytrap the grass. Better yet, turn your yard into a thick forest, and learn it like the back of your hand. They won't know what hit them.

Place tannerite traps where you think you might need them (especially to cover those areas an intruder might find cover). Then bang away.

That sounds like an effective strategy.

BRB, ordering ammo...

Aaaaaaand it's gone.

This darned ammo shortage.

[Big Jim P]

Place tannerite traps where you think you might need them (especially to cover those areas an intruder might find cover). Then bang away.

That sounds like an effective strategy.

Safe until you need it, plus no detcord or wires to be disconnected.

[Telconi]

Place tannerite traps where you think you might need them (especially to cover those areas an intruder might find cover). Then bang away.

That sounds like an effective strategy.

Aaaaaaand it's gone.

This darned ammo shortage.

Not the ammo shortage, the 9th circuit overturned the injunction. Because apparently Xavier Becerra would suffer irreparable damage if people in his state enjoyed human rights.

[The Chuck]

Celritannia, speak of the devil! Yesterday you mentioned the EM-2 and now I have this for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-vx9a7MnQQ