DISCLAIMER: I do not attempt to be polite or partisan in my articles, merely truthful. If you are a partisan and believe that the letter after the name of a politician is more important then their policies, I suggest that you stop reading and leave this site immediately--there is nothing here for you.

Modern American politics are corrupt, hyper-partisan, and gridlocked, yet the mainstream media has failed to cover this as anything but politics as usual. This blog allows me to post my views, analysis and criticisms which are too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets.

I am your host, Josh Sager--a progressive activist, political writer and occupier--and I welcome you to SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Gun Regulations Modeled off of Abortion Restrictions

© Josh Sager – 7/22/12

The United States constitution guarantees residents of the United States certain rights and restricts the government from infringing upon many of the free choices of individuals. Among these rights, the right to bear arms and the right for women to choose to get an abortion are two which have been subject to extreme controversies.  By saying that abortion rights and gun rights are both controversial constitutionally protected rights, I do not support a false-equivalency between abortion and gun ownership past the facts that they are both constitutionally protected rights which have been controversial and polarizing issues in US politics.

Abortion rights are a matter of personal control over ones’ body and are protected under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (as established by Roe v. Wade); under current interpretation of the constitution, abortion rights are protected until the fetus is viable and any attempt to limit the right to an abortion before viability is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, many religious individuals, particularly right wing Christians are extremely active in their fight against abortion rights and have promoted unconstitutional restrictions on abortion rights; these restrictions seek to narrow the scope of abortion rights, make it harder for women to get abortions/shame women, attack abortion providers, and make it more expensive to access abortion services.  

Modern gun rights are established by the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the constitution and are justified through an argument that people have the right to defend their person; unlike with abortion rights, gun rights are potentially dangerous to others and the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment allows for regulations which restrict gun ownership (ex. barring convicted felons from owning weapons). In the last decade, gun control regulations have decayed to the point where assault weapons (assault rifles) and expanded magazines are legal in some states, and gun shows can sell virtually any weapon to virtually any individual (without a background check). 

While both abortion rights and gun rights are constitutionally protected, gun rights have been expanded and protected beyond their constitutional intent, while abortion rights have suffered from innumerable, unconstitutional, restrictions. This disparity is due to several reasons, but the primary reason is that there have been concerted and well-funded campaigns to attack abortion rights and protect gun rights enacted by right wing groups; in the absence of an organized left wing pushback against these right wing campaigns, abortion rights have shrunk and gun rights have expanded during the past decade.

In the face of the dichotomy between the protection of gun rights and restrictions on abortion rights, I propose a campaign where left wing politicians translate a parody of right wing abortion restriction onto gun rights; this campaign consists of getting left wing politicians to transpose the draconian anti-choice regulations and legislations into analogous restrictions upon gun buyers/sellers. By reversing the anti-choice regulations onto guns, left wing politicians will be able to highlight the absurdity of the right wing attacks on abortion, while either forcing the right wing to contradict the justifications behind their ant-abortion regulatory regimes or significantly reducing the number of gun sales in their states. If right wing states wish to impose unreasonable and intentionally burdensome rights upon abortion, a constitutionally protected procedure, then they should have no problem with left wing states imposing similar regulations upon gun sales.

Restrictions on Gun Sellers:

Anti-choice activists and politicians have recently begun attempting to restrict the providers of abortion services to the point where they are unable to perform their function. By attacking abortion providers, these activists are able to de-facto ban abortion without overtly banning the procedure (and running up against the wall of Roe v. Wade). Strategically, this indirect method of attacking abortion is far more effective and pervasive than overt attacks on abortion rights.

The justifications that anti-choice activists use to argue for increased regulations on abortions include the protection of the women who seek abortions and the promotion of good medical safety but these justifications don’t hold up to scrutiny. While promoting medical ethics and safety are admirable, the regulations pushed by these individuals are intentionally over-restrictive. If the creators of these regulations truly desired women to have access to safe abortion services, they would not be attempting to ban abortion and bring back the days where back alley abortions and coat-hangers were the only ways by which women could access abortion services.

Two good examples of intentionally draconian restrictions, also referred to as “TRAP” laws, would be those passed in Virginia during the latter half of 2011 and those passed in Mississippi during 2012:

In Virginia, abortion clinics were mandated to follow the architectural codes of normal hospitals, despite the fact that they don’t specialize in surgical services; these regulations demanded that the hallways and waiting rooms of abortion clinics be certain dimensions (necessary in hospitals to allow many wheelchairs and stretchers to pass each-other) and that the electrical wiring/air filtration of clinics be far above what is necessary. Abortion clinics are often small and have a very difficult time complying with such restrictive regulations, thus these regulations are often a death sentence for the clinic.

In Mississippi, the state has passed a set of restrictions on abortion providers and doctors so strict that the only thing preventing MS from being the first state to ban abortion is a judicial order. These restrictions not only put new regulations on the facilities of abortion providers, but forces all doctors who provide abortion services to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The requirements for admitting privileges at local hospitals are fairly detailed and are virtually impossible for abortion doctors to obtain—they simply do not admit enough people, often live in another state (only MS residents can get admitting privileges), and face incredible pushback from local activists.

States with conservative Republican or fundamentalist religious legislatures have been passing dozens of intentionally over-restrictive abortion regulations in service to their anti-choice ideology. Progressives and Democrats need to take the very restrictions which right wing anti-choice activists use and translate versions of them onto gun sellers. Through restricting the location where gun sellers can set up shop and mandating that they have specific/costly building requirements, progressives can parody anti-choice regulations and force right wing activists into a corner. In reacting to such gun regulations, conservatives must either debunk their own tactics against abortion in service to their pro-gun agenda, or abandon their pro-gun agendas in liberal states.

Restrictions on abortion providers are justified through medical safety arguments and restrictions upon gun sellers can be justified through the similar argument of public safety; new regulations on gun sellers should mimic TRAP abortion regulations by forcing gun sellers to comply with extremely stringent and expensive measures to ensure the safety of their establishments. Here are a few examples of such draconian regulations:    
  • Ø  Limit the locations of gun shops to ensure that they are a certain distance away from schools, public parks, and areas where children gather.
  • Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have bullet resistant walls and windows—just in case there is an accidental discharge of ammunition.
  • Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have two very high grade safes—one for guns and the other for ammunition.
  • Ø  Mandate that all gun shops have top of the line security systems and be staffed with a live guard at all times.

These new regulations on gun sellers would be extremely expensive and difficult to comply with—just as TRAP abortion regulations are to abortion clinics—and would be very costly to the states’ gun sellers. The overlap between the anti-choice and pro-gun ideologies (essentially the entire right wing) means that this course of action would give anti-abortion activists a taste of their own medicine—a medicine which they cannot fight without attacking their own attempts to impose restrictions on abortion clinics.

In addition to regulations on facilities, several states have attempted to make abortion doctors legally liable if they unintentionally perform an illegal abortion. An analogous regulation for gun sellers would be to hold gun shop owners partially liable for all harm done by a weapon which they sell to an individual who has a criminal record or who lacks a current gun permit; I do not see this as an unreasonable statute; however, it is modeled upon an anti-abortion law and can be enacted in parallel to the other, more extreme, restrictions.

Restrictions on Gun Buyers

Draconian abortion regulations have not only targeted abortion providers, but the women who are seeking abortions. During the past few years, waiting periods, mandated evaluations, financial penalties, and even invasive procedures have been used by state governments to attack abortion rights. These restrictions attempt to make abortion as painful, embarrassing, expensive and difficult get as possible, in an attempt to shame women from exercising their rights.

While over a dozen states have passed a these legislative shamings of women, the most extreme and egregious example of this type of regulation was seen in Virginia. In the early months of 2012, the Virginia legislature attempted to pass a bill which mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds for all women who are seeking an abortion—regardless of whether these women were raped, incest victims, or underage. A trans-vaginal ultrasound is an ultrasound delivered via vaginal probe, thus it is extremely invasive and entirely unnecessary. This law is so extreme that many have described it as the legislation which legally mandates the rape of women who are seeking abortions.

Here are a few examples of draconian gun laws based off of existing abortion restrictions:
  • Ø  Mandate that all individuals attempting to buy a weapon receive a full physical examination, CAT Scan, and colonoscopy before buying their weapon—simply to ensure that they are healthy enough to properly handle a gun. In order to keep governmental costs down, the individual will be forced to pay for the procedures out of pocket.

This mandate is based around the various laws which anti-choice legislators have passed to mandate unnecessary medical procedures on women who are seeking a constitutionally protected service. To add insult to injury, women are often forced to pay for these medical procedures. In recent years, such laws have been passed in numerous states, including Virginia, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Texas. If it is okay to mandate unnecessary and invasive procedures on women who are seeking an abortion, it is okay to mandate such procedures on men who want guns.

  • Ø  Mandate that all individuals who wish to purchase a weapon have a psychological evaluation before their purchase; this evaluation should occur in a state facility, of which there is only one in the state. These evaluations must happen before each gun sale, regardless of whether the buyer has received previous evaluations.

This mandate is based off of the abortion restrictions which have reduced the numbers of abortion clinics in a state, thus forcing women to travel significant distances to receive their procedure. By making the process of buying a gun inconvenient and mandating that prospective buyers travel to inconveniently located evaluation centers in order to get their evaluation, gun buyers can get a taste of what it feels like to have the practice of their rights obstructed.

  • Ø  A three day waiting period must be enforced from the time of application for a gun license and a gun purchase; during this waiting period, the gun purchaser must visit a crime victim support center and listen to the stories of several parents who have lost children to gun violence and view graphic photos of gunshot wounds—so as not to be overly cruel, the purchaser may choose to look away from the screen during the viewing of these pictures.   

Numerous states have passed mandatory waiting periods for women who are attempting to get abortions, and many have mandated that these women visit “pregnancy help centers” during the wait. The waiting period is intended to draw out the decision (giving the women time to regret her choices and feel guilt) and be as obstructive as possible. Pregnancy help centers are most often run by anti-choice activists and religious groups and are nothing more than places where women are told that they are evil for considering abortion, lied to about the side effects of abortion, and told that they are going to hell; in short, they exist to shame/scare women from away from exercising their constitutional rights.

If anti-choice legislatures are able to pass laws which mandate women to have waiting periods and visits to anti-choice groups, then it is possible for anti-gun legislatures to pass laws which mandate similar things for gun buyers. Instead of going to religious faux-clinics, prospective gun buyers should be forced to go to victim’s advocacy centers and witness the effects of gun violence. As several states have passed legislation forcing women to look at their ultrasounds and have the fetus described to them, it is certainly okay for these centers to force prospective gun buyers to listen to parents who have lost children to gun violence and view graphic photographs of people killed by guns (similar to the old shock videos around car accidents shown in traffic schools).  

Ultimately, what we, as a society, need is a balanced system of laws and regulations for both gun rights and abortion rights. Regardless of ones’ personal opinions on these rights, they are part of our constitution (or at least it interpretation), and cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment.

If the right wing wishes to enact absurd, repressive and ridiculously harsh regulations on abortion providers in order to shut them down, they cannot protest if the left wing does the same to gun sellers. The right to bear arms is far less absolute than the right for a woman to have access to an abortion (gun rights can constitutionally be taken away in some circumstances, yet abortion rights cannot), and there must be a re-balancing of the regulatory scales to reflect this truth.

Most, if not all, of these draconian regulations on guns are far too extreme to be rational gun laws; this is okay, because they were designed as a protest rather than rational policy (similar to how some pro-choice legislators have attempted to attach mandated prostate exams for men who want Viagra to TRAP abortion restrictions). By enforcing extreme gun-control laws which parallel extreme anti-abortion laws, pro-choice activists can create a parody of anti-choice policy and ensure that gun enthusiasts (who are often right wing “pro-life” activists) feel the very pain which they would impose upon women who are seeking abortions.

Rational Gun Laws
After discussing intentionally draconian gun laws, it is important to conclude with a platform of rational gun laws. Unlike anti-abortion activists, who simply live within the binary choice of banning abortion, supporters of gun-control must suggest rational laws to regulate firearms. Here is a short summery of my ideal gun-control regulatory regime:

1.      Nobody with a felony record, mental illness, pending criminal charges, or place on the terrorist watch list is allowed to buy or carry guns within the United States. In addition to these restrictions, nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to own a gun and nobody under the age of 15 should be allowed to operate a gun (even with parental consent/supervision).

2.      No guns are to be allowed in the following locations: Religious institutions, schools, government buildings, national parks, places where alcohol is sold/consumed, sports stadiums, large public gatherings, political rallies/voting location, or any areas which have large numbers of children (zoos, amusement parks, playgrounds, etc.).

3.      Before buying a gun, an individual must pass a psychiatric evaluation (with federal standards), and be certified competent in the safe handling of a firearm (identical to a driving test for the right to drive a car). The results of these tests will be confidential and not used in any capacity other than determining whether an individual has the ability to safely handle a firearm.

4.      The only guns which are legal for civilians within the United States are bolt-action rifles, scatter-guns (shotguns/bird-rifles), and non-automatic pistols (revolver or semi-automatic). Any individual seeking another type of gun may attempt to buy one, but only after submitting a written statement to the federal government, describing the exact purpose and need for such a firearm (ex. private security personnel may require assault weapons for overseas government contracts).

5.      All legally sold guns must have their barrel striations and firing pin imprints logged and registered to the government; any intentional alterations to these components should be a felony and result in an immediate loss of the right to carry a firearm.

6.      Straw-purchasing and the personal sale of firearms without disclosure to the government should be a felony. If a gun is stolen, the legal owner has 72 hours from the discovery of the theft to report it to the police, or they will lose their right to own a firearm for a minimum of a year and will be subject to a fine.

7.      All ammunition sales should require identification and should be immediately reported to the government. In addition to this reporting, there should be caps on ammunition sales, both on the number of bullets which can be bought in a single instance and on the number of bullets which can be bought per year; gun ranges and professional shooters are exempt to these limits, but only after receiving a federal waiver.

8.      No extended magazines or specialty ammunition are to be allowed for civilian use (tracer, explosive, sabot, etc.); a waiver can be obtained for this restriction, but only after a written application is submitted to the government, and the individual has been certified in the safe handling of the ammunition (ex. if a movie crew wants to use tracer rounds for a scene).

9.      Without receiving a federal waiver, no individual may own more than three of a single category of firearm (sidearm, rifle, or scatter-gun), putting a cap of nine guns for each individual. If an individual wishes to obtain more than three of a single category of gun (hunters, collectors, etc.), they must be evaluated and approved by the federal government.

10.  When storing a firearm, it must have a trigger-lock (fingerprint based, if possible) or be stored in a secure location (locking drawer, lockbox, safe, etc.). Any violation of this regulation which is discovered by authorities will result in a fine or loss of the right to own a gun for a period of time.

In order to ensure that there is no race to the bottom for gun control, these regulations should be based in the federal government. Any state which wished to further restrict gun rights should have the right to do so, but the above regulations should create the federal baseline for American gun laws.


  1. youre a fucking retard.... how the fuck is killing babies protected by the constitution, but then owning guns not protected... your proposition is absurd and it would do nothing to curtail crime... it would serve only to expand the power of the federal government

    1. Perhaps you should read my article before insulting my arguments.

      1) Killing babies is not protected by the constitution, but a women's right to get a surgery to remove a parasitic growth is; until the fetus, zygote, or blastocyst is an independent organism (IE. viable) it has no more protection than an enlarged pancreas.

      2) The right to abortion is more heavily protected than gun rights because it cannot be taken away under any circumstances, while gun rights can. A state can legally prevent felons from ever owning weapons, but they cannot legally stop a women from getting an abortion except in very limited circumstances (lest they violate Roe v. Wade)

      3) If gun control does nothing to curtail crime, then why is it that the USA has both the laxest gun control measures and highest gun death rates of any developed country? We are either psychotic, or simply have too many guns. Even on the state level, we see that increased gun ownership leads to increased deaths due to gunshot wounds (both murder and accidental).

      4) Yes, my proposal would increase the power of the federal government to regulate weapons. This is necessary, because the mentally deficient and corrupt politicians in red states are willing to let anybody carry any weapon which they would like. In the absence of rational state laws, the federal government must step in.

      I have no problem with guns (I am a very good shot), just as long as they are tightly controlled and only those who are rational can get their hands on them. Guns allow irrational people to kill large numbers of people quickly, thus there is a vital need to control their distribution in society.

      PS. As to my being "a fucking retard": I am a political writer, Boston University graduate, and have a tested IQ of 149. You are a troll who writes with the grammatical quality of a 3rd grader and who posts comments on a site before reading the article. Given the evidence we have here, which of us is the "fucking retard"?

      Have a nice day,
      Josh Sager - The Sarcastic Liberal

  2. Liberal Jews like yourself have always had crazy ideas about sex and procreation. After all, that's how you made the notion of "penumbral rights" part of the legal fabric of this country, of which privacy rights are a subset and abortion rights are a subset thereof.

    Simple suggestion (not that you'd ever be interested in taking it): pick up a copy of the US Constitution, flip through it and write down how many times the phrase "right to bear arms" is used, as opposed to the word "abortion."

    Final note: I am anticipating your bilious reaction and state outright that I am an antisemite (by the way, Arabs are as semitic of a race as Jews are): I wish all Jews and Arabs would pack up and move to the Middle East and either kill or love or sodomize each other or whatever the hell else, without the U.S. supporting or caring about your sniveling lives at all.

    Please do us a favor and call an Arab cabbie asap so you can leave for Israel and take advantage of their Law of Return. The good old U.S. of A. will reward you with a gracious flip of the bird!

    1. Please read the article in order to see why you are wrong about abortion and gun rights--you may actually learn something.

      At to you claim that right to bear arms appears in the constitution while abortion does not: this is true, but that does nothing to change the affect of the law. The right to an abortion is absolute to the point of viability, but the right to bear arms is limited by the circumstances (ex. criminal records).

      The Supreme Court has stated that the 14th Amendment covers the right to an abortion (something that didn't get put into the constitution merely because it wasn't an issue at the time), thus it is undeniable that the law considers the right to an abortion as a constitutional right.

      The term "right to bear arms appears in the constitution, but it is qualified by the requirement that the bearer be in a "well-regulated militia". I suggest that you actually read the Constitution before you begin trying to pull this false 2nd Amendment argument on me.

      Simply preempting the accusation of antisemitism by asking me not to call you one does nothing to mitigate the fact that bigotry and hatred drips of of your statements about Jews and Arabs. Us "liberal Jews" are as American as you are and your desire for us to leave the country is simply indicative of you bigotry and inability to use words to convince others to your point of view.

      Sometimes I get comments from people who are so dumb as to make me feel sorry for them--if you weren't such a bigot, this would be one of those cases.

    2. Point 1: That "[t]he Supreme Court has stated that the 14th Amendment covers the right to an abortion," as well as being "absolute to the point of viability" doesn't make them so in perpetuity, but rather just for the time being. Otherwise, Dredd v. Scott would still be with us because, well, SCOTUS at one time decided that blacks were subject to the property laws of their state of residence and would maintain their status (of slaves) even if they escaped to a free state - but hey, I'm probably wrong since I only went to law school and practiced constitutional law for over two decades, so I'm not as smart as you despite having a 152 IQ myself and 99% GMAT percentile (I only mention that since you apparently are so quantitatively-dominant).

    3. While it is possible for future Supreme Court decisions to reinterpret the law, once the Supreme Court decides upon a case it is considered binding. That means, that for as long as Roe v. Wage isn't overturned by a future ruling, it is the constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment and only overturnable through a constitutional Amendment.

      As to your Dred Scott analogy: The passage of the 14th Amendment superseded the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and ensured that it could no longer be used as a precedent; until this happened, the case was the current legal interpretation for the constitution at the time.

      If you don't like abortion rights or wish to guarantee everybody a universal right to bear arms, you can work towards a constitutional amendment to change the current interpretation of the constitution. Unless this happens, my commentary on this subject is perfectly valid and in line with the current interpretations of our constitutional rights.

      If you are telling the truth about your past (which is highly unlikely given your lack of knowledge regarding constitutional law), I suggest that you retire--this country can't afford constitutional scholars who have no understanding of the law or how it is changed.

  3. Point 2: If something was not an issue at the time of the adoption of the Constitution but became so, there is a procedure called "amending the Constitution" - you might have heard of it. It's actually been used before, 27 times I think - but I don't know for sure because, as you said, I'm so dumb.

    1. As the constitution is a framework for the law rather than a complete legal code, such a process is unnecessary -- for example: after the creation of airplanes, there was no need for a constitutional amendment in order to give the government the ability to regulate air travel.

  4. Point 3: I am bigoted against you but I do not hate you, since you were probably born a Jew so you didn't have any choice in the matter. But (here I go starting a sentence with a preposition again - sorry, my stupidity is at play again) if it makes you feel better to lump together adjectives like that, feel free as long as it's getting you any closer to buying that plane ticket.

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Point 5: I had read your "article" - it's actually too light a read and devoid of any source material to be called an article, it is more of a pamphlet and brings nothing new to the anti-gun rights narrative.

    1. This article is a pure opinion piece and doesn't present itself as a scholarly article. I wrote it to suggest an interesting legal ploy that could be used in order to disrupt the ideologically schizophrenic right wing.

  7. Point 6: Read the Second Amendment yourself and note the use of commas, go to the Virginia constitutional ratification debates and read Madison's comments about what gun rights are for (obviously for defense against government tyranny, which logically cannot then be put in control of the population's access to guns as has already been happening and the further limitation of which you advocate), and if not convinced, the Federalist Papers have some telling pages about it as well.

    1. The background of the amendment is immaterial because the plain reading of the amendment contradicts these discussions--if everybody who ratified the Amendment thought as Madison, then they would have included such wording in the constitutional amendment rather than the militia qualifier.

  8. Point 7: Being born here does not “make” you an American in anything but the legal sense and even that’s a tenuous argument (read the Fourteenth Amendment and the requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Millions of Jews thought of themselves as Soviets too and were the spearhead of the Russian communist revolution, the most bloodthirsty of its perpetrators and the most savage of the persecutors of the Russian masses, all of which didn’t save them from being turned against by Stalin because perhaps even him, the “father of the people”, realized that most Jews are not attached to any country or system, but rather seek to place themselves on top regardless and will forever keep themselves from being truly assimilated (see for reference Golda Meir’s appointment as Israel’s ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1948 when thousands of Moscow’s most prominent and Jews greeted her in the streets chanting "Am Yisroel chai", making obvious their allegiance to Israel to the detriment of the Soviet Union).

    1. This argument is not only bigoted, but it is the same trash that the Nazis threw out there to inflame the masses against the Jewish people. Jews are as nationalistic as any other group and the accusation that we are endlessly attempting to take over is a conspiracy theory that smacks of the Illuminati delusions.

      The only reason why this comment isn't getting blocked for racism is because it bears debunking and there is no effective way to do so without the original comment.

      P.S. It is no wonder you hide behind the anonymous commenting shield, what with you antisemitism and foolishness.

  9. Point 8: It’s probably not easy to admit that the guy in the mirror is born with as much junk in your veins as your kind has (in case you wonder, do a little reading on a few “occupiers” of the Soviet Union such as Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Kaganaovich, Primakov, Slutsky, Orlov, Zavenyagin, Lyushkov, Yagoda, Reiss, Yakir, Zadov, Krivoshein, Sverdlov, Gamarnik – it’s a little hard to transcribe the names but my Master’s in Slavic Studies helps), but what a personal “triumph of the will” (to reluctantly use the Nazi movie’s title) would it be if you would go away to be amongst your own. The world never forgives the Jews, and whether it’s going to be in the form of slavery, pogroms or a holocaust, the day of reckoning will come again and you people can prevent that this time by retreating to Israel and not allow yourselves to be victims anymore.

    1. 1) The assertion that there is "junk" in my veins is simply offensive and is bigotry at its worst.

      2) I like all American Jews, am already "amongst my own" in the United States. However, perhaps you should take this advice and join your local neo-nazi group.

      3) There is nothing for the world to "forgive" the Jews of, and nothing justifies antisemitism. Your attempts at justifying the holocaust, slavery and pogroms are simply disgusting and prove that you are a worthless scumbag.

      If you had any balls or courage of your convictions, you would put your name to theses comments instead of posting anonymously (not that it is too difficult to use Google analytics to backtrack your IP address and then trace your name, email, and employer down, but I really don't feel like expending that much effort for a single foolish bigot).

    2. Gotcha! You will track me down you say, and there'll be knocks on my door by revolver-brandishing thugs in gray uniforms, banishing me to gulags from which I will never be heard again. Ha! I guess me being "too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets" doesn't work too well when the point of view is diametrically opposed to yours, eh? Seriously, good luck to you, it's been fun watching how even your thin patina of civilization wears off. And if you're really serious, please, please "track me down" in true KGB-style. You'd really make my day!

    3. At what point did I ever say that I would "track you down"? I fight with words and any resort to violence or the threat of such would be a complete betrayal of my ideals--it would also prove that I was unable to effectively argue my case. I have no problem with people who promote views that are diametrically opposed to mine, just as long as they aren't bigots or fools who lack the ability to argue the issues (you are both).

      I merely pointed out that when an idiot from Sodahead follows me back to my blog, the fact that he refuses to put his name on his comments makes him look like a coward.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. Ha, ha - you removed my post noting your failure to use correct syntax, grammar and words as "racist." Well, then a proud racist I am, you eminent scholar you! I hope you'll grow sweet oranges in the Negev!

    1. My mistake, I was aiming to delete the post above that one--you know, the one where you say that you are bigoted against Jews and because of this, I should move to Israel.

  12. Interesting article but it falls victim to a fallacy which is the "assault weapon" fallacy. I don't think this is a deliberate distortion on your part, but a common mistake made by people who are not familiar with the technical aspects of firearms (I'm not trying to insult you, its just that "assault weapon" is a legal term and media buzzword, and isn't usually used by gun owners or user). Assault rifles are by definition select-fire (meaning they have an automatic setting in addition to their standard, default semi-automatic mode) that use intermediate power cartridges and are thus already virtually illegal to the general public under machine gun restrictions. "Assault weapon" is a legal term with no technical basis that was invented by the lawmakers who wrote the assault weapons ban. In other words, instead of banning a technical category of firearms that actually exist, the law simply created a new category with no basis in reality and called them "assault weapons" and lumped in any gun with a certain number of superficial features that looked scary to them into this fictional new category. Assault rifles, on the other hand, which are a real category of guns (named after the first widespread select-fire intermediate power rifle, the German Sturmengewur, translated into English as Storm Rifle or “Assault Rifle, hence the term) , are in effect automatic weapons and thus already virtually illegal unless your state issues machine gun licenses and you get special federal permission, pay 200 dollars, and thousands for the actual guns because the Hughes Amendment to the National Firearms Act makes the manufacture of new machine guns for civilians illegal and thus drives up the price by thousands of dollars, making them all but inaccessible to anyone but rich collectors. (Additionally, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime, and it was by a police officer, because of how hard they are to get legally). However, the media confuses the term assault weapon and assault rifle and because of this there is alot of confusion about what they are. For example, the AR-15, widely demonized in the media, and referred to as an “assault rifle”, but it is actually not an assault rifle because it is only semi-automatic, and furthermore it is not even an assault weapon under former federal and state legislation because it only has a certain number of the banned "assault weapon" features, and not enough to be banned in states like Massachusetts, variations of it are even legal in California. Because the media uses these two terms interchangable, there is much confusion over what assault weapons and assault rifles are and what guns they actually apply to. So any new federal legislation should ban real types of guns, not fake buzzwords for guns which look machine guns, but work like semi-automatic hunting weapons. I do appreciate that you at least acknowledge moral and legal justification for the right of self-defense, which in the modern world requires firearms, unlike many who try and deny the 2nd Amendment, which even Allen Dershowitz, who opposes it, doesn't do. But if gun owners and those who seek to regulate firearms are ever going to have a meaningful national dialogue, we're going to have to focus on the technical aspects of firearms, not their cosmetic features and words used to demonize them. (if by “assault weapon” you simply mean civilian versions semi-automatic rifles, a good argument could be made for their danger being overstated, especially since you seem to ok with people owning semi-automatic pistols which are a lot more dangerous than rifles do to concealibility)

  13. Sorry, correction, the Hughes amendment applied to the Firearm Owner Protection Act, Not the NFA. Also I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying your ignorant about guns, but that you seem to like the general public outside of the firearms community, be unaware of the fact that assault weapon is a legal buzzword distinct from assault rifle which no longer applies because the law is no longer in effect and several guns that people consider assault weapons were not considered so under the law unless they had a certain number of banned features.

    1. I understand that the term "assault weapons" is a legislative fiction, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as a group. Even though the connection between such weapons is synthetic, the fact remains that the weapons within this category are unusually dangerous and are conducive to mass-murders.

      Most of the weapons that are considered "assault weapons" are easily modified to full-auto (it just takes minor modifications to the firing pin, reloading mechanism and magazine)and are not reasonable for self-defense--I understand that some people may want them, but there is little justification for people needing them and no constitutional protections for their right to own them (as you pointed out earlier, they were already banned before, and this was upheld as constitutional at the time).

      In my opinion, the risk of mass-shooters getting ahold of powerful weapons far eclipses the desire of collectors, paranoids and gun enthusiasts as a national legislate priority--we need gun control now.

  14. Though I appreciate you debunking the antisemetic assclown above (the supposed "Jewish" Bolshevsists, murdered deported and murdered many Jews because like the Nazis, they bought into antisemetic scapegoating that identified Jews as subversive foreigners, and created Jewish only region where they may have been planning to deport all Jews) I'd have to disagree that Americans high gun ownershup rate and relatively lax regulations are the cause of its gun crime. Switzerland arguably has a higher-per capita gun ownership rate and an incredibly low gun crime rate, while gun-rights activists could attribute this to an armed population, Switzerland also has better social services than the US like Scandinavia, which despite tough gun laws, has very rates of gun ownership and low gun crime, suggesting its our society rather than the presence of guns in and of itself that causes gun crime. Michael Moore even came to a similar conclusion in Bowling for Columbine.

  15. understand that the term "assault weapons" is a legislative fiction, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as a group. Even though the connection between such weapons is synthetic, the fact remains that the weapons within this category are unusually dangerous and are conducive to mass-murders. Could you elaborate on this, not being sarcastic but I'm genuinely confused by this. Unlike alot of the anti-assault weapon crowd, you recognize that the term is in effect hollow and the connections between the guns is superficial, but then why do they deserve special regulation? What is it about these guns that makes them more dangerous? I thinl you'd agree we can't ban something just because its used in homicides, there has to be something about it that makes it more dangerous, what is it about them? We don't wanna end up like England which bans kitchen knives and virtually all guns despite an incredibly high gun crime rate which has not been effected by the legislation because most of it is related to gang crime which has access to black markets.

  16. Only one such assault weapon that I know of was easily modifiable into full auto because it fired from an open bolt, and that was the pre-ban Tec 9, and later versions of it were corrected by closing the bolt to prevent said modification. This criticism doesn't seem to apply to many of he guns people consider assault weapons, like the AR-15.

  17. I have no problem with guns (I am a very good shot), just as long as they are tightly controlled and only those who are rational can get their hands on them. Agree completely with this statement, but then wouldn't the course of action be to to do just that, instead of banning specific types of guns which won't effect the black market anyway, to just make sure the only people who have them are sane, law-abiding people?