"...and one full fifteen shot magazine was fired in only 10.8 seconds."

[SHIVAN]

Jan 6, 2013

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Control Alchemy

by Nicholas J. Johnson


We now have a view of the new gun control proposal that some have labeled Diane Feinstein’s Grand Plan. Grand? Feasible? Passible? That remains to be seen. What is plain and predictable is that Feinstein’s proposal illustrates the structural inadequacy of supply control policies that attempt a purely public response to an intensely private crisis.

The impulse here is the horror in Connecticut. A moment’s reflection shows that Feinstein’s plan is basically non-responsive. The main worry from Connecticut is not that an incomprehensively mad, damaged (one searches for something more here) young man, killed with an AR-15. At one level we all know that virtually any sort of firearm and a variety of other deadly weapons are easy substitutes against the helpless.

But that is a difficult thing to say in this climate and it does not satisfy people who are hurting. And that hurt is very much a driver here. The pain from Newtown is intense. Many people desperately seek something to ease that pain and affirm that our society, our culture, are not irretrievably off the rails. For those under the delusion that the state can stop imminent violent threats, Feinstein’s supply side gun control proposal will have appeal.

A friend said to me, “Well it couldn’t hurt”. And this actually advances the point. First, it actually might hurt. But that hurt is remote from what we are feeling now. It is a bundle of concerns about stormy days of public unrest; people on the margin who can operate a carbine, but not a shotgun or a handgun; civic militia values; and whether the legislation will just drive millions of the guns into the black market or provoke militant resistance. For many people, those concerns do not fit on the same table with the pain of Sandy Hook.

....con't @ link....

http://libertylawsite.org/2013/01/06/sen-dianne-feinsteins-gun-control-alchemy/#.UOtmKCCbbkg.twitter

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Thank you, good read

[Moose-Knuckle]

Playing upon people's fear through mass media manipulation to bring about disarmament of the American people, Joseph Goebbels would be impressed.

[SeriousStudent]

Good article.

"For those who need a refresher, the state loses its monopoly on legitimate violence in that window of imminence where government cannot act and people must protect themselves."

Thanks for the link.

[No.6]

Very good read. I plan to forward it to others to read. One respondent to the article summed up this whole argument when he said that the key wording in 2A wasn't about "militia" but about "necessary to a free state".

On a side note and something that's been rattling around in my mind the past few days; it seems to me that the pharmaceutical and mental health industries get a pass whenever these acts occur. If I've read the accounts correctly the past several mass shooting have been done by someone who, according to friends/relatives was acknowledged as unstable and often using/had used psychological altering drugs prior to committing the act of violence. Additionally, they have a history of being immersed in violent games. So why does the entertainment industry get a pass too? Perhaps it should be required that movie makers have to have a long, detailed disclaimer at the start of any movie that featured violence, especially by use of firearms, stating that what the audience was about to see was fictitious and beyond the realm of capability of known firearms. That violence, gun play and the results were not a desirable outcome in the real world. The movie's actors, producers, writers and directors feel that "you" should take any opportunity to resolve conflict by non-violent means, etc, etc, etc.
Additionally, the console game programmers/distributors need to be held to task. Perhaps with a victims fund established, with payment based on a sliding scale dependent upon violent content, pre-paid prior to release date, benefiting and payable to any one who is victimized by someone who participates in these alternate realities. Or program into the game play a "waiting period" with questions about what the player is about to do (ie. shoot someone, do physical harm to, are "you" really the "good guy" in this scenario?) that have to be clicked through to continue the game play. Silly? Facetious? Perhaps. But as logical as blaming an inanimate object as being capable of committing the acts of violence.