District 3 House Candidate Briscoe Supports 2nd Amendment, Opposes NRA

I was going to exert myself rebutting Ryan Kelly’s letter in my morning paper peddling the useful myth that the National Rifle Association is a helpful public service organization rather than the marketing arm of the firearms industry. But then I open my morning Facebook and find my fellow District 3 Democratic Legislative candidate Brooks Briscoe doing it for me:

Brooks Briscoe on drums
Brooks Briscoe: not afraid to bang the drum for gun rights but against NRA-industry baloney!

Having been raised in South Dakota and been around responsible gun owners, I would never vote to take away ones 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I grew up hunting on opening day and thinking of the NRA as an educational asset for the promotion gun safety. Unfortunately, the NRA has become an advocate for the firearm and ammunition manufacturers as well as one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington D.C.

When our national congress is unable to pass legislation to prevent citizens on the No Fly List from buying weapons, when 90% of Americans are in favor of it, it’s obvious that corporate money and power has defeated the voice of Democracy.

Both Drew Dennert and Dan Kaiser (my opponents) seem to be proud of their NRA endorsements, which may have been ok in the 1970’s, but times have changed and I’m proud to say that I wouldn’t accept their endorsement if it was offered. It’s time to take control from the few and give it back to the many as intended by our constitution. Vote for me in November to help make it happen! [Brooks Briscoe, Facebook post, 2016.07.07]

Briscoe makes an interesting point: we shouldn’t need gun makers’ endorsement to be considered advocates for the personal right to bear arms any more than we should need Martin Shkreli’s endorsement to prove we support the right to affordable health care.

Briscoe’s pro-Second Amendment/anti-NRA missive appears as #2 in what he promises will be a series of “20 Reasons to Vote for Brooks Briscoe” for State House. Stay tuned for more from my fellow sensible Aberdeen Democrat!


69 Responses to District 3 House Candidate Briscoe Supports 2nd Amendment, Opposes NRA

  1. Steve Sibson

    “I would never vote to take away ones 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I grew up hunting on opening day”

    There is proof that this candidate cannot be trusted in regard to protecting the 2nd Amendment. The right is not a hunting right. I have seen this propaganda line used over and over again with anti-gun politicians, including Senator Mike Vehle, one of the most anti-gun legislators currently representing me (or better said, not representing me) in Pierre.

  2. Paul Seamans

    I became a life member of NRA quite a few years ago. The NRA is not the same organization that it was thirty years ago when one of its main purposes was advocating gun safety. It is almost comical when the NRA will pay people like Sarah Palin to be the featured speaker at the annual convention. If I wasn’t a life member I would not join today’s NRA.

  3. mike from iowa

    Everybody knows ARs are perfect Bambi getting machines. They give you a quick follow up shot-or 30 or 40 or 100 depending on magazine size.

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/12/when-did-nra-become-malignant

  4. “the NRA has become an advocate for the firearm and ammunition manufacturers as well as one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, D.C.” So, how can this change? What’s the plan to change it? How can you support the NRA right to bear arms –2nd Amendment– blah blah — and change the fact that NRA has bought and paid for Congressional support of their agendas. Just more of the same — political propaganda.

  5. Don Coyote

    “When our national congress is unable to pass legislation to prevent citizens on the No Fly List from buying weapons, when 90% of Americans are in favor of it, it’s obvious that corporate money and power has defeated the voice of Democracy.”

    Brooks Briscoe might not vote to take away a person’s 2nd amendment rights but he certainly doesn’t care about that person’s 5th amendment rights of due process. From the ACLU:

    “The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”

  6. I’m with Don here. The no fly list point is hot garbage, and playing on the knee jerk reactionary fears of the American public to limit a fundamental right based on a list that doesn’t even play in the same zip code of due process is asinine.

  7. Except the part about the 5th amendment, (it’s the 4th amendment) I agree with Coyote. The government should not be taking away the rights of Americans without due process. Democrats should not be in favor of the government putting people on lists that work to deprive citizens of constitutional rights (and yes – the right to buy arms is implicit in the right to bear arms) without those citizens having recourse in the court system. That recourse should not be unduly time consuming, burdensome or expensive. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    But with proper due process protections, the government should take steps to ensure that certain people cannot walk into a store or a gun show and walk out with weapons. People who are legitimately a threat to themselves or others should be on a no-buy list subject to court review.

  8. No problem, Texas has that no fly stuff and all other NRA garbage taken care of. A no fly list to deny a person an automatic assault rifle, what could go wrong? The knee jerk reactionary fear is when you take one of these hot hornets. I can attest that you will have a knee jerk and you may even fill your pants. Why not have sensible gun laws that keep guns into the hands of those who are mentally stable to have them? What could possibly be wrong with doing a back ground check? Like Republicans fondly used to say about the Patriot Act, if you ain’t got anything to hide, why not?

  9. Coyote, Dicta, I will accept two positions as logically consistent:

    (1) If the no-fly list has merit, if it makes sense to deny certain individuals access to dangerous airplanes, then it makes sense to deny those same individuals access to dangerous firearms.

    (2) If the no-fly list does not have merit, if it violates due process rights, then it should be scrapped immediately.

    Briscoe and I don’t get to put either position into action, since both policies in question are federal. But Thune, Rounds, and Noem have not taken either position. Show me a good faith proposal to repeal the no-fly list, and I’ll support it, as well as any other measure to curb the overreaches of the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security.

  10. It seems to me that there is some room to craft a bipartisan bill in congress if people would quit sabotaging the opportunity. The Democrats who are hijacking the floor of the US House in violation of House rules are setting a precedent that invites Republicans to do the same thing when Democrats eventually retake the majority. Being uncivil is not a virtue. Paul Ryan is actually showing responsible leadership trying to rein the rule breaking in and preserve the ability of the House to operate.

  11. You’re a slippery one, Cory. How about explaining why the no-fly list or a no-buy list, if they have merit, can’t have due process protections incorporated into them?

  12. “You’re a slippery one, Cory. How about explaining why the no-fly list or a no-buy list, if they have merit, can’t have due process protections incorporated into them?”

    Because nuance sucks, apparently.

  13. “If the no-fly list does not have merit, if it violates due process rights, then it should be scrapped immediately.”

    See, this bothers the hell out of me. The first two clauses are separate premises, yet you try to pawn them off as one. The list can have merit and still violate due process, dude. Now, if you’re arguing that the GOP only brings this up now when gun laws come under scrutiny and that seems awfully, erm, convenient, then I think that’s a fair point. Yours isn’t.

  14. Ror, my apologies if I sound overly slippery. I can roll with no-fly and no-buy lists based on solid due process… although what would that look like? Don’t we pretty much have to have a trial and a conviction on substantial charges to deny people their rights to travel and to buy firearms?

    I would say that it should take a greater infraction to deny individuals access to ariplanes than access to guns. The fact that John Doe has committed a felony should not by itself deny John Doe the privilege of buying an airplane ticket and traveling across the country. The fact that John Doe has committed a felony should deny John Doe access to firearms.

    No, Dicta, my point is fair. “Having merit” means “denying rights based on due process, not administrative caprice or unsubstantiated allegations.” I’m not trying to play any tricks here. I’m trying to find some common ground with you on your point about the no-fly list.

    For jurisprudential purposes, is there any merit to either a no-fly or no-buy list that matters enough to make it law other than whether it is based on due process?

  15. Don Coyote

    @Rorschach: Indulge me in some nit picking. Due Process is in the 5th Amendment.

    4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  16. Having merit in this context would generally mean there is a good reason for having it, not the odd meaning you injected. And there is, which is a point I don’t think anyone would argue. The latest international instance of what “matters enough” is the Metrojet bombing which killed 225 passengers on a flight leaving Egypt headed for Russia. The problem is that a good reason should not allow extralegal practices in the manner the list is populated. It’s almost like we use the law to balance competing interests sometimes: here, the need to protect the public being weighed against constitutional protections of individual rights.

    The list doesn’t need to be scrapped, as there is a sound justification for having it. There should be some procedural requirements about who is placed on the list and a method for them to appeal something that so clearly inhibits their ability to move about and, now as proposed, exercise a right deemed fundamental by SCOTUS.

  17. Whether a no-fly list has merit depends on whether it keeps potential hijackers off of planes and potential terrorists from getting to terrorist training camp. Due process is a different concept than merit. Such a list can achieve its desired result – thus having merit – while scooping up a whole bunch of innocent people in its net. That’s what the no-fly list has done. The list has merit without due process. I believe that now there is some due process incorporated into it, and if so, it now has both merit and due process.

    I personally know one Muslim person who lost a lot of money on a plane ticket when he wasn’t allowed to travel to Kenya. He wasn’t a terrorist, but the government may have had some legitimate concerns about someone else with the same or similar name. Due process for my friend? Not so much at the time. But as I understand it he can now fly and has.

  18. mike from iowa

    Amazing how wingnuts embrace the ACLU when their questionable 2nd amendment rights are being gored. Other times the ACLU is the godless Libby organization that kicked god out of public schools.

  19. Coyote, as always I could be wrong. I wing it here sometimes.

  20. mike from iowa

    How about a little due process for the Black men and boys who have been killed while being black and unarmed?

  21. … thanks for the inapposite point, Mike. What is the point, exactly? That if we don’t support the legislation which would prevent the purchase of firearms for people on the no-fly list that we somehow support the shooting of unarmed black people? Or is it the mind-numbingly stupid point that discussing political issues is a zero sum game and that if we talk about this problem we somehow detract from the seriousness of cop on black violence? Or do you just have the functional equivalent of comment section ADD and thought you could hammer home a real zinger apropos of precisely jack?

  22. mike from iowa

    Dicta- did you just say something?

  23. mike from iowa

    Next time try English, not gobbledygook.

  24. It’s just disappointing to know that you had absolutely zero to add to the conversation, so you thought it would be a cool move to use dead black people as props to substitute for an argument. It’s gross, man, and I hope you feel bad about it. You won’t, because it seems you don’t do the well at the whole introspection thing; but hey, we can hope.

  25. W R Old Guy

    I walked away from the NRA close to 40 years ago. That’s when I started getting several mailings a week asking for funds to keep the government from taking our guns, doing background checks, and a myriad of other perceived things that could be used to get donations. It was also when the NRA, IMHO, started the slide away from the sporting and education because gun control threats raised more money. It was a time when firearms education was pushed out of the public schools by the anti-gunners and the NRA didn’t really fight to keep the programs but used it as an example of the government taking our guns.

    Cory, I don’t believe all felony convictions should bar an individual for life from owning a firearm. What about the 18 yr old who stole a car for a joy ride, was caught, paid a fine, and is now 30 yrs old with no other marks on his record? What justification do you have to bar him from firearm ownership?

  26. mike from iowa

    Why are you so broken up about people who can’t fly? Are they being murdered because they are Black? That’s right, they’re and your feelers are hurt because they didn’t get their day in court before not being killed because they aren’t Black.

  27. That’s great reasoning, Mike.

    Why are you so broken up about poor people being raked over the coals by payday lenders? Are they being murdered because they’re black?

    Why are you so broken up about people not being able to get married because they’re gay? Are they being murdered because they’re black?

    How goddamn stupid is that? You can’t be upset by an issue because another issue is serious and people are being killed. That pretty much eliminates 90% of policy discussion, doesn’t it? Get the hell out of here with your zero sum ——.

  28. mike from iowa

    Dicta-your a nut.

  29. And you cant acknowledge wrongdoing so you’re deflecting. It seems we’re at an impasse.

  30. mike from iowa

    White cops killing unarmed Blacks is wrong!!!

  31. Don Coyote

    Black snipers killing White cops is wrong!!!

  32. Gun violence is wrong and so is the NRA. The NRA is a clear and present danger to a civilized society and should be as banned as 30 round clips and 100 round drums.

  33. A Dallas copycat http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-tennessee-shooter-targeted-white-victims-similar-to-dallas-ambush/ When you are willing to let everyone take the law and their anger into their own hands, here is what the NRA and their scummy lobbyists have brought to us. More will come.

  34. Don Coyote

    @Jerry: The NRA doesn’t condone gun violence. The New Black Panthers and the Black Power movement not so much. You can blame Black Lives Matters too for inciting and ratcheting up the tension. Blue lives matter too.

  35. The NRA is gun violence. They live the sticky carnage they put on our streets hourly. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/03/orlando-shooting-survivors-recovery-ar-15-ammunition The NRA and their bottom feeding lobbyists do it all for literally blood money and they have our Senate and our House so damn scared of them, they cannot do a thing but put more death on the street. It is so bad that the City of Yankton as well as the South Dakota Highway Patrol have bomb carrying robots like the one used in Dallas. That is fear when you have that kind of military hardware just laying around.

    What is wrong with having some control over these instruments of death? You can stay in your state of denial which fortunately for you, it is here.

  36. Zimmerman’s stalked murder of 14 ya Treyvon, while Z was concealed carrying, was violent ala OJ.

    “Fundamental” constitutional 2nd Amend right? I’m not so sure. Also many NRA shills here similarly scream about Chi Town’s murder rate forgetting Scalia’s morbid propensities AND the context of 2010’s Mcdonald SCOTUS ruling & dicta, Dicta. I swear….

    Cornell.edu/wex/second_amen…ect

  37. mike from iowa

    Black sniper got his/will get just desserts. Murdering/racist white cops-not so much.

  38. mike from iowa

    3 days after Orlando slaughter, NRA was advertising “America’s gun” the AR-15 and urging people to go out and buy more and more of them. Sounds like condoning violence to me.

  39. barry freed

    Yawn…

    So, let’s hear ONE of your solutions that actually do something.

  40. barry freed

    Oh, and still unanswered from the last whistle stop:

    When is the Democrat sit-in planned for a vote to let Medicaid negotiate drug prices?

  41. The NRA is the hate vehicle that drives white America into the fear they so love. That is why the NRA has the solid support of the radicals in this country that see only hate and their own misfortune caused by Blacks, Natives, gender issues, and of course, Muslims. So now the Blacks are shooting back, that does not mean that either one is right on this racism. It really means that white America needs to take a look at themselves and their privilege on how it produces law enforcement that can kill unarmed, secured minority men with out any recourse. How did it get this way? Ask the NRA that infuses the hate in its rhetoric at every meeting. Ask the NRA why they lobby so hard to allow the ammo produced to kill you slowly over time. To make you suffer at the hands of the shooter for the rest of your days. Some would say that death is more welcome than living with the issues that come from a seemingly simple wound.

  42. ““Fundamental” constitutional 2nd Amend right? I’m not so sure. Also many NRA shills here similarly scream about Chi Town’s murder rate forgetting Scalia’s morbid propensities AND the context of 2010’s Mcdonald SCOTUS ruling & dicta, Dicta. I swear….”

    Dicta has no precedential weight. Dissents have no precedential weight. Leslie’s disagreement with a SCOTUS opinion has no precedential weight. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right identified in the second amendment and made applicable to the states through the 14th and that was clearly stated in McDonald. It’s the law, whether you swear or not. I’m ok with limiting the right in many contexts, but it’s not at all crazy to ask for due process instead of unilateral revocation of that right with no hearing.

    Some damn dullards on this site.

  43. mike from iowa

    Gee,Dicta why don’t you take your immense ego and talent and go somewhere where you might be more appreciated. Us dullards get along fine without walking,talking encyclopedias reminding us how damn dumb we are.

  44. Back when I was what you might call, rotund or rotunder, I bought some clothes at Dullard’s. They were not to bad. So I am not ashamed to be a Dullard’s shopper. Regarding the 2nd Amendment, what did it say about full auto and 30 clip magazines, 100 round drums and maiming ammo designed to severely wound and not to do anything else. I missed that. Show me and the rest of the Dullard’s shoppers.

  45. 1. “Immense ego.” That’s a fair call, and I’ll wear that hat.
    2. “go somewhere where you might be more appreciated” – no. I’m not letting a complete idiot like Steve Sibson be the voice for all conservatives on this website.
    3. You still haven’t even feigned an attempt at debating the issue that started this whole song and dance, Mike. You’re the left’s version of Sibson for this site- call the other side wingnuts and smugly goose step away. You’re horseshoe theory in action, man.
    4. Jerry- never once did I argue about full auto, maiming weapons, or 100 round drums. Not a single time. You should read the thread again.

  46. I agree with W R Old Guy. Any old felony conviction should not result in a lifetime firearms ban. Violent felonies – yes. If we believe in rehabilitation, and we should, then we should restore civil rights (like voting and firearm ownership) at some point after sentences are completed. People for whom there is no demonstrable danger of firearm misuse should get that right back.

  47. bearcreekbat

    barry asks: “let’s hear ONE of your solutions that actually do something.”

    Ok barry, here goes. First off this is not an all or none deal. Even though a solution that stops all violence seems improbable, history provides us with a solution that could actually reduce a killer’s ability to quickly shoot many many officers or other innocents.

    During prohibition killers used fully automatic weapons to slaughter groups of people. Our eventual response was to make it extremely difficult for any private citizen to obtain a fully automatic weapon and to prohibit the future manufacture and sale of such weapons to private citizens.

    The result – today it is so difficult for a private citizen to obtain a fully automatic weapon that we no longer read about crimes committed with such weapons. Criminals can’t seem to get their hands on machine guns or tommy guns precisely because of our actions many years ago that established restrictions on possession and manufacture.

    That history informs us that if we did the same thing with semi-automatic killing machines and large capacity magazines our society’s killers would eventually lose the ability to obtain such weapons.

    Sure, it would take some time – perhaps even decades – before such weapons ended up virtually disappearing, and killers would find other ways to try to commit murders. But in the long run this would make our descendants much safer by at least eliminating a potential killer’s ability to walk into a gun show or store, buy a semi-auto with a large magazine and turn around and begin ambushing police officers or helpless 1st graders.

  48. You coming for my guns, bearcreekbat? When you arrive you will find me heavily armed.

  49. bearcreekbat

    Rors, no I don’t advocate coming for your guns. Rather I advocate for making it extremely difficult for future killers to acquire semi-automatic weapons and large magazines in the same way we have made it extremely difficult for killers today to acquire fully automatic weapons.

    Unless you commit some sort of crimes your guns will be grandfathered in and you can keep them. But I want to make it nearly impossible for future killers to obtain similar weapons and magazines. Given the success we have seen by restricting new killers from acquiring fully automatics, it seems a reasonable goal.

  50. Douglas Wiken

    Gun buyers should be required to join a special militia that requires marching around in circles for a couple of hours at least every two weeks or less.

  51. mike from iowa

    When is the Democrat sit-in planned for a vote to let Medicaid negotiate drug prices?

    What’s the use-wingnuts will just block it as per usual.

  52. My prediction is that the Democrats will do guns like they did cigarettes. If they can’t ban them outright, they will make manufacturers emblazon guns with large typeface warnings and unsightly pictures of dead people. They will slap taxes on guns that quintuple the price of them. It’s only a matter of getting enough votes in congress with a D behind their name, and this will happen. It’s a proven formula.

  53. WR, Ror, I agree that we should beware absolute rules. But the consequences of misusing a gun or letting a gun fall into the wrong hands can be pretty absolute. I’m open to a discussion about classes of felonies that don’t signal danger that the felons pose a risk of misusing firearms. But if carrying a gun is so all-fired important (and remind me, just how badly is a felon’s quality of life degraded by not being able to carry a gun around town?), maybe folks who want to carry a gun should just not commit felonies.

    Or maybe there’s a rehab process, as suggested above. Commit a felony, lose your gun rights. But as with the sex offender list that takes away freedom of residence and travel (ah, akin to no-fly list?), we create a process by which felons who have served their time and probation can apply to own guns again. Set criteria those applicants must satisfy to demonstrate they pose no danger. Hold a hearing before a judge or other official, give them a chance to prove their trustworthiness to carry a gun. Maybe make a simple gun safety course a pre-req: if the felon can show up on time four weeks in a row and pass basic tests of safe gun handling, we allow the felon to own and carry again. Or maybe we phase the right back in on a staggered basis: first the felon can buy and own guns again, but only after some period with a clean record (year? two years?) can the felon carry the gun outside the home. I’m open to possibilities.

  54. Hey! Dicta! Mike! You’re getting off topic, and you’re getting too personal. Knock it off.

  55. Due process is an essential part of a policy having merit. If a policy does not afford citizens due process, it lacks merit and should be overturned.

    If the current no-fly list takes away basic rights without due process, it should be scrapped or amended to implement due process. If we can implement due process and establish with evidence that certain individuals pose such a great risk that we can’t let them near airplanes, we should not let those individuals near firearms, either.

  56. “Hey! Dicta! Mike! You’re getting off topic, and you’re getting too personal. Knock it off.”

    You’re right, we are. And where did we veer off topic? If I recall correctly, it was right around the time someone told me I shouldn’t be concerned about the no-fly list issue because black people were being shot by cops. It wasn’t only irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but really goddamn offensive, and you said nothing. Thanks for that.

  57. aint taken no guns away!!!!!!! no way!!!!! they dreamin!!!!

  58. W R Old Guy

    Cory, Do not throw a wide net over the reasons for gun ownership. I had a nice little collection of handguns and long guns that were used for hunting and target shooting. I did not feel the need to carry concealed and still don’t. I have passed most of them on to my daughter, son-in -law and grandkids. They will be used in the same way. There are probably more gun owners that fall into my category than the “carry at all times ” crowd. Look at the number of pheasant hunters that show up every year in your neck of the woods. I would bet that most of them do not carry concealed.

    The felony issue is problematic in a some states. They still have the “three strike laws” that require a third conviction of a crime even if all three were misdemeanors to be classed a felony.

    A person can get off the no fly list but it takes some legwork. You also do not know you are on the list until you try to check in for a flight. There’s a lot of room for errors and I feel that a person should not be placed on the list without due process. The terror watch list presents a different problem in that revealing who is on it can compromise an investigation. I believe the government must submit a request to “secret court” for approval before adding someone to the list. The problem is there are no records that I am aware of showing the number of requests vs the number approved. I’d bet they are about equal.

  59. mike from iowa

    As usual, Dicta gets it wrong. I asked about due process for Blacks being murdered by cops for being Black, People on the no-fly list aren’t being murdered-it is pretty simple.Dicta believes I accused him of some damn thing or another, which is patently false. Besides, I am too damn dullard to argue with Mensa members, according to said Mensa member.

  60. God bless you sir . I hope you win…………………..

  61. barry freed

    Bearcreek,
    They limited machine guns to the wealthy and/or criminal. Even today, full auto license is only $250, but since they banned manufacture since 1986, only the rich can afford the toys. A select fire AR is now $35K, but far from banned.

    Were we to limit guns today as they did machine guns, we law abiding will turn them in, the rich will ignore and be ignored, and the criminals will print them on their 3d printer.

    http://www.3ders.org/articles/20160526-australian-mongol-bikie-arrested-after-3d-printer-and-firearm-equipment-found-at-home.html

    Try again

  62. barry freed

    What constitutes a Felony and how one sheds the title goes beyond guns. In the Founders time, one did not get a Felony and prison time from their bookkeeper forgetting to file sales tax records three months in a row. They would find our War on Drugs’ mandatory minimums, 10 year conspiracy penalties, and their applications most distasteful. We need to examine how harsh our laws have become for the 99%.

    The Right to defend one’s self and family is above any Government or Religion. It is a Natural Right with which we are born and not given by man or decree. We have jails for people who cannot be trusted among us (and those who cannot afford a good lawyer who golfs with the Judge) and when we let them out, they have paid their debt and have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

  63. bearcreekbat

    barry, if only rich folks and criminals have the fully automatics today it seems odd we don’t read or hear any news about one or two criminals using their fully automatics to commit crimes. And if making it expensive and difficult to acquire semi-autos with large magazines means only rich folks will be able to afford them, this seems well worth it. Indeed, there are many things that only rich folks can afford. Gradually reducing the supply of semi-autos available for non-wealthy killers should accomplish a similar result as reducing the supply of machine guns.

    Consistent with my earlier observation, your 3D printer example shows that we cannot stop everyone from obtaining a killing machine or stopping all violence at this point in our history. Our experience in regulating machine guns demonstrates we can take steps to reduce that violence by making it more difficult to acquire guns designed to kill many many people in very little time.

  64. bearcreekbat

    News media reports that there were several non-police “good guys” carrying weapons during the Dallas protest. When the killer attacked, police had no idea whether those people were good guys or killers, which complicated the situation and created even more danger. In addition, the good guys didn’t try to shoot the killer, instead, they reportedly tried to run away.

    We do have a right to self defense of our home and property. But unless our Tea Party friends succeed in ending government as we know it and allow our society to devolve into into anarchy, it seems that a large magazine and a semi-automatic rifle would be more weapon than necessary, just as a machine gun is more weapon than necessary, for self defense in a civilized world.

    If the military or police come after you, you are screwed regardless of what type of weapon you might have. If its a robber, burglar or home invader your double barrel shotgun or your handgun should do the trick.

  65. barry freed

    Bearcreek,
    Gang bangers use full auto to kill each other all the time. Of course, they are “children” to the banners, so they must not count. Some of those neighborhoods are not visited by Police, and one can hardly blame them, but what about the non-bangers who have to live there? To be truly safe, they should leave their money and property on their front stoop so home invaders won’t want to come in.

    Only the rich (governnment) can afford guns in Mexico and Central America. Take a look at how the poor fare in those countries. My dad worked in Tijuana and asked some Mexican Police why the people they were viciously beating at the moment didn’t revolt. The response: ” With what, rocks???”
    The rich already own the wealth we create, the politicians we elect, so a certain amount of money is now the criteria for gun ownership? Works for the Kocks and the Clintons!

    Your thesis of degree of difficulty obtaining a gun equaling safety is counter intuitive when looking at Detroit, Chicago, and New York gun violence. How’s that leftislation for banning pressure cookers as used in Boston going? When pressure cookers are banned, only the rich and criminals will have pressure cookers.

    They banned semi auto rifles in Australia and the Monguls are armed with 3D full autos while civilians go to prison for protecting their families. Nice, how do I immigrate to their utopia?

    Finally, please don’t presume to choose for others what is needed to keep them and their families safe. You can decide for yourself, but that’s where your Rights end and how schizo-paranoid is the Left saying Americans should not be armed as The Founders believed and wrote simply in the 2A, in defense from a Government gone rouge, because this Government that snipes mothers holding newborns in the face and chooses to end a standoff by burning 17 children to death (the same Administration that banned assault weapons) is too powerful to resist?.

    Again, there has not been a single sensible solution offered here or by any banner. I would have no more murder of any kind, but emotions and fantasies are not solutions..

  66. Barry, the guns in our closet are no defense against true tyranny. The guns in our closet didn’t stop passage of the Patriot Act. They don’t stop NSA surveillance. I’ll run down the Limbaugh path and say they didn’t stop the IRS from harassing Tea Party groups… but public scrutiny and pressure did. Guns don’t stop tyranny. Educated citizens voting stop tyranny.

  67. bearcreekbat

    barry, can you provide any documentation to back up the statement that “Gang bangers use full auto to kill each other all the time?” mfi found one report of a criminal using a full auto AR-15 in a crime many years ago, but I have not been able to find any other recent documentation or news stories. Maybe you have seen something I missed?

    And to clarify, I am not advocating banning the private ownership of semi-automatics and large magazines, rather, I am advocating that the existing semi-automatics be regulated in the same manner as fully automatics to make sure they become rarer and are owned only by folks who have complied with reasonable regulations.

  68. barry: “Finally, please don’t presume to choose for others what is needed to keep them and their families safe.”

    Personally, I feel I need 20lbs of C4, a half dozen hand grenades, a full auto M60 with at least 3,000 rounds of ammunition, and when I can afford it I’d really like a F-16 just in case. The only problem is the pesky government doesn’t think I should have any of it… guess they don’t respect my right to bear arms.

    “there has not been a single sensible solution offered here or by any banner.”

    I suspect you would never concede any solution is sensible, but bcb’s concept of following the same path for semi-auto rifles as was done for full auto does seem sensible. I may not like it, I may not feel it will have a significant impact… but it is sensible. So are more thorough background checks with a mandatory mental health reporting system that not only can prevent some people from buying firearms, but also could allow for the seizure of existing firearms.

    Those are common-sense approaches which seems sensible in my eyes and in the eyes of many. However for the type of person who feels it is a moral obligation to carry a firearm with them every time they take out the trash or someone who sleeps within five feet of at least three weaspons… these probably aren’t sensible. Opinions vary.

  69. This is a problem that unfortunately is taking care of itself. Maybe once every family has a member gunned down we all will get off our asses and demand a solution. Until then, I am very sorry for our individual losses. I wonder what kind of gun laws some one like say…….. Wyatt Earp would have put into place?