Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by MKSheppard »

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009”

Sponsors are:

Senate: Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
House: Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio)

There's a catch, though.
Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.
So basically; Hollywood gets a sweetheart deal so they can have the next action hero walk around with the latest machinegun built post 1986; without having to go to a foreign country which has less stringent manufacturing/import rules -- if you ever wondered why Stargate had P-90s, it's because the show was shot in Canada.

But anyway; regular Class III owners get screwed. Typical.

There's a whole bunch of other parts of the bill of more interest to other people:

--Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.

--Allow a licensee a period of time to liquidate inventory when he goes out of business. During this period, all firearms sold would be subject to a background check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

--Allow a grace period for people taking over an existing firearms business to correct problems in the business’s records—so if a person inherited a family gun store (for example), the new owner couldn’t be punished for the previous owner’s recordkeeping violations.

--Reform the procedures for consideration of federal firearms license applications. Under S. 941, denial of an application would require notification to the applicant, complete with reasons for the denial. Additionally, an applicant would be allowed to provide supplemental information and to have a hearing on the application.

--Require BATFE to establish clear investigative guidelines.

--Clarify the licensing requirement for gunsmiths, distinguishing between repair and other gunsmith work and manufacture of a firearm. This would stop BATFE from arguing that minor gunsmithing or refinishing activities require a manufacturers’ license.

--Eliminate a provision of the Youth Handgun Safety Act that requires those under 18 to have written permission to use a handgun for lawful purposes (such as competitive shooting or safety training)—even when the parent or guardian is present.

--Permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of out of business dealers’ records—a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for more than a decade.

--Allow importation and transfer of new machineguns by firearm and ammunition manufacturers for use in developing or testing firearms and ammunition, and training customers. In particular, ammunition manufacturers fulfilling government contracts need to ensure that their ammunition works reliably. S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would also provide for the transfer and possession of new machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.

--Repeal the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, which expired in 1998.

--Give BATFE sole responsibility for receiving reports of multiple handgun sales. (Currently, dealers also have to report multiple sales to state or local agencies, a requirement that has shown little or no law enforcement value.) State and local agencies could receive these reports upon request to BATFE, but would have to comply strictly with current requirements to destroy these records after 20 days, unless the person buying the guns turns out to be prohibited from receiving firearms.

--Restore a policy that allowed importation of barrels, frames and receivers for non-importable firearms, when they can be used as repair or replacement parts.

So basically, a significant rewrite of what the BATFE can do; following 2006 hearings on abuses by the BATFE -- that's what the 'establish clear investigative guidelines' and 'clarify licensing requirements' bits are about; because the BATFE used it's power as a regulator to basically screw with people.

As for Class IIIs -- at least it's a first step...perhaps when people realize new MGs are being imported for Hollywood and people haven't died in a paroxym of machine gun violence after Hollywood imports eleventy thousand guns and a billion rounds to re-equip their special effects houses...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Kanastrous »

MKSheppard wrote:
So basically; Hollywood gets a sweetheart deal so they can have the next action hero walk around with the latest machinegun built post 1986; without having to go to a foreign country which has less stringent manufacturing/import rules -- if you ever wondered why Stargate had P-90s, it's because the show was shot in Canada.
*shrug* if we were to want a specific chunk of full-auto bang-bang that wasn't legally available in a blank-firing conversion (or full-dress with a restrictor) we could just build a replica or obtain an airsoft and modify it for on-screen use. Stargate went to Canada because of the incentives offered to the production by the Canadians, not because they wanted to prop with P90s and Canada was the only place to do it. Hell, I have a very nice airsoft P90 which (together with several others) I have rented out for film and tv shoots. You don't *have* to use powder on set; there's plenty that you can do in post to lay in firing FX (and more and more productions prefer to go this way for obvious cost, insurance, and safety reasons).

I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about 'Hollywood.' Most of the stock held by SFX armorers is in the form of non-firing replicas, and weapons converted for blank-fire only. Sure, they could be converted back. Ever hear of it having happened? I haven't. And obtaining the permits and licensing to offer full-on armorer's services to production isn't a walk in the park, either.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

Man, it's a step in getting my own NFA legal Mk17 SCAR. So good on them.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by SirNitram »

--Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.
Please de-jargon this for this curious forumite.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
ShadowDragon8685
Village Idiot
Posts: 1183
Joined: 2010-02-17 12:44pm

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by ShadowDragon8685 »

SirNitram wrote:
--Improve the process for imposing penalties, notably by allowing FFLs to appeal BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge, rather than to an employee of BATFE itself.
Please de-jargon this for this curious forumite.
FFLs - Federal Firearms License
BATFE - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Exactly what it says on the tin.


If I'm reading what he wrote correctly, the ruling means that, if the BATFE (sometimes known more simply as the "ATF,") decides for whatever reason to slap a licensee with some kind of penalties, the licensee's legal remedy in the form of appealing the action goes through a neutral judge, not an employee of the Bureau itself.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Dude...

Way to overwork a metaphor Shadow. I feel really creeped out now.
I am an artist, metaphorical mind-fucks are my medium.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by MKSheppard »

Kanastrous wrote:I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about 'Hollywood.'
I will admit to a personal dislike of 'Hollywood' as a whole in regards to the gun issue; because many actors and actresses are massive hypocrites on it. They'll do anti gun PSAs, do voice overs etc for anti-gun NGOs; while at the same time happily shoot up the celluoid as action heroes; apply for Concealed Weapons Permits and suchlike, which are of course rapidly granted.

I will defer to your knowledge of the Armorer side of the business; and it appears that some film/prop companies can actually manufacture their own machineguns for private use; the kicker is if they lose their SOT they have to sell the guns to another SOT, to a police/military organization, or destroy the gun -- IOW, non transferrable.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

So if I grab an old stamping mill and start churning out .45 ACP for the 5-man police department of some small town, can I buy fully automatic submachineguns under this bill?
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Invictus ChiKen
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: 2004-12-27 01:22am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Invictus ChiKen »

MKSheppard wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about 'Hollywood.'
I will admit to a personal dislike of 'Hollywood' as a whole in regards to the gun issue; because many actors and actresses are massive hypocrites on it. They'll do anti gun PSAs, do voice overs etc for anti-gun NGOs; while at the same time happily shoot up the celluoid as action heroes; apply for Concealed Weapons Permits and suchlike, which are of course rapidly granted.

I will defer to your knowledge of the Armorer side of the business; and it appears that some film/prop companies can actually manufacture their own machineguns for private use; the kicker is if they lose their SOT they have to sell the guns to another SOT, to a police/military organization, or destroy the gun -- IOW, non transferrable.
Don't forget have armed guards for themselves and there children -ahem-Rosie O'Donnell-ahem-

Still this is a step in a good direction I never seen how weapons bans do good for dropping crime rates.
"The real ideological schism in America is not Republican vs Democrat; it is North vs South, Urban vs Rural, and it has been since the 19th century."
-Mike Wong
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:can I buy fully automatic submachineguns under this bill?
You've always been allowed to buy full-auto submachineguns, you just can't buy any made past 1986 and not already registered with the BATF. Look for a Class 3 Dealer, ask for a Form Four, fill it out, pay the $200 tax which covers the background check and the paperwork, get your tax stamp, get it put on your form, and your done. The whole process takes about 3-9 months and you can then buy your weapon which in today's market given the limited availability of NFA legal firearms the cheapest is the MAC-11 at a bare minimum of $2400.
Image
From MachinegunPriceGuide.com



Then, once or twice a year the BATF will stop by for a friendly visit to make sure your weapons are properly secure
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by [R_H] »

Jesus, 2400 minimum for a MAC-11 (real deal, or a clone)? Over here I've seen MG42s for sale for under 2500, an FA Vz-58 with NVGs for around 1600.
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

[R_H] wrote:Jesus, 2400 minimum for a MAC-11 (real deal, or a clone)? Over here I've seen MG42s for sale for under 2500, an FA Vz-58 with NVGs for around 1600.
Real MAC-11. Good luck finding an MG42 for that price, though, the minimum right now is $32,000 and I'm not sure on the price of a Vz. 58 but even an AK-47 can runs about $15,000. Your average M60 will cost you $35k, if it's over fifty years old and in original configuration the price jumps to $70k. The worst offender to this is the MAG 58 which costs an astounding $120,000.

Where are you at in Europe? Sounds like they have pretty lax gun laws.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by [R_H] »

General Schatten wrote: Real MAC-11. Good luck finding an MG42 for that price, though, the minimum right now is $32,000 and I'm not sure on the price of a Vz. 58 but even an AK-47 can runs about $15,000. Your average M60 will cost you $35k, if it's over fifty years old and in original configuration the price jumps to $70k. The worst offender to this is the MAG 58 which costs an astounding $120,000.

Where are you at in Europe? Sounds like they have pretty lax gun laws.
Damn, those are some incredible prices. I've seen a MAG listed for 8000.

I'm in Switzerland. The canton where I live doesn't allow FA or NVGs/lasers etc., but in some getting an exemption is possible. Lax, but some what stupid. They used to be even laxer - before 1999 it was possible to CCW without a license (which is nigh impossible for an average Joe to get).
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Kanastrous »

MKSheppard wrote:
I will admit to a personal dislike of 'Hollywood' as a whole in regards to the gun issue; because many actors and actresses are massive hypocrites on it. They'll do anti gun PSAs, do voice overs etc for anti-gun NGOs; while at the same time happily shoot up the celluoid as action heroes; apply for Concealed Weapons Permits and suchlike, which are of course rapidly granted.
Well...'Hollywood' kind of describes a lot more people than a handful of well-publicized hypocrites. I meet plenty of working acquaintances at the range and at shows, all the time. Don't tar too broadly is all I'm asking.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5496
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Ritterin Sophia »

[R_H] wrote:I'm in Switzerland.
I thought it'd be Switzerland, but I'm not familiar enough with the rest of Europe (the Eastern part at least) to have said for certain. I love Switzerland's policy on guns. I always thought that if shit went downhill over here I'd try to immigrate to there.

But back to the topic. Yeah, the FA gun prices here are ridiculous, but the politicians would rather attack an accessory to a crime rather than attack the sources.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10648
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Elfdart »

MKSheppard wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about 'Hollywood.'
I will admit to a personal dislike of 'Hollywood' as a whole in regards to the gun issue; because many actors and actresses are massive hypocrites on it. They'll do anti gun PSAs, do voice overs etc for anti-gun NGOs; while at the same time happily shoot up the celluoid as action heroes;
:lol:
Oh noes! Next you'll be telling me that Sharon Stone is a "hypocrite" because she played a character in Basic Instinct who stabbed a guy to death with an icepick, but is against murder by icepick in real life!
:shock:
apply for Concealed Weapons Permits and suchlike, which are of course rapidly granted.
Where's the hypocrisy in advocating for a change in the gun laws while obeying the laws that are currently on the books?
Image
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22436
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Mr Bean »

Elfdart wrote:
Where's the hypocrisy in advocating for a change in the gun laws while obeying the laws that are currently on the books?
Rosie's are good example which is why he brought her up (Throw Rosie + her stands on guns into googles and you'll find webpages dedicated to her). She's spoke out before on her show and more famously at the million woman march asking for a Britain like system where all private gun ownership is banned. At the same time as noted her bodyguard and her children personal bodyguards are well armed out of her own pocket.

She's not the only star to have this stance, IE we should ban all handguns! Why yes my bodyguard is armed why do you ask?

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Teebs
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2006-11-18 10:55am
Location: Europe

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Teebs »

Mr Bean wrote:Rosie's are good example which is why he brought her up (Throw Rosie + her stands on guns into googles and you'll find webpages dedicated to her). She's spoke out before on her show and more famously at the million woman march asking for a Britain like system where all private gun ownership is banned. At the same time as noted her bodyguard and her children personal bodyguards are well armed out of her own pocket.

She's not the only star to have this stance, IE we should ban all handguns! Why yes my bodyguard is armed why do you ask?
I don't actually see anything illogical about that line of thought. You can think liberal gun laws make the world a far more dangerous place and want to see that ended and then employ armed professionals to insulate you from the perceived consequences of those laws. You're taking precautions within the system as it exists. You might disagree with her premises about gun ownership's consequences, but her actual behaviour is not illogical.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by MKSheppard »

Elfdart wrote:Oh noes! Next you'll be telling me that Sharon Stone is a "hypocrite" because she played a character in Basic Instinct who stabbed a guy to death with an icepick, but is against murder by icepick in real life!
Stallone is a pretty good example -- he made his career off of hyperthyroidal action heroes and mass quantities of firepower; yet in real life he's been pretty anti-gun.

Of course, the icing on the cake was that he applied for a CCW permit on 29 September 2004, and got it on 30 November 2004. That's a speed of response that's pretty damn fast and efficient for the LA Sheriff's Department.

Don't believe me? Link. A blogger actually wrote some letters and got copies of Stallone's CCW Application under the California Public Records Act (of course any real personal information liek address etc was blacked out).
Where's the hypocrisy in advocating for a change in the gun laws while obeying the laws that are currently on the books?
Here's the thing. California as of 2010 is a MAY ISSUE state. It means that the issuing authority, typically the County Sheriff, can deny your application for any reason whatsoever.

He doesn't like the looks of you from your CCW Application? DENIED.

You spelled stuff the British way 'Colour'? DENIED.

And so on. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) is notoriously unfriendly towards CCW permits...unless you have the right kind of 'pull', like Stallone.

With a SHALL ISSUE state like most of the nation as of 2010; as long as you met the legal requirements, have no outstanding problems that bar you, and everything is dotted correctly; it's an automatic CCW issuance.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Kanastrous »

What's objectionable is that people like O'Donnel have access to that protection because they can afford to buy it. Hiring a licensed armed bodyguard is very expensive, and it's not an avenue open to the average citizen. As for her own personal concealed carry permit, should she want one, she can make the claim the being a 'public personality' means that she has greater need, and therefore greater priority in being granted a permit than, say, some non-famous/non-wealthy person living where bullets are flying in some less-desirable part of town than Bel Air or Beverly Hills.

Basically, *I* have a need and I can afford and obtain it within the system as-constituted; *you* may have equal or greater need but since you're not wealthy or connected...well, you can just suck it.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22436
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Mr Bean »

Teebs wrote:
I don't actually see anything illogical about that line of thought. You can think liberal gun laws make the world a far more dangerous place and want to see that ended and then employ armed professionals to insulate you from the perceived consequences of those laws. You're taking precautions within the system as it exists. You might disagree with her premises about gun ownership's consequences, but her actual behaviour is not illogical.
That might be true except she lives in Nyack, NY. Not the projects. Your talking about an area where the only crimes are robbery (It's an upscale area with a crime rate 1/3rd the national average) and robbery related crimes (And oddly enough arson) each year. If she does not believe anyone should own a gun it's pretty damn hypocritical to run around with a posse of armed guards at all times while spouting lines that guns are evil and no one needs guns. Don't mind the guards dear.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Teebs
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2006-11-18 10:55am
Location: Europe

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Teebs »

Mr Bean wrote:That might be true except she lives in Nyack, NY. Not the projects. Your talking about an area where the only crimes are robbery (It's an upscale area with a crime rate 1/3rd the national average) and robbery related crimes (And oddly enough arson) each year. If she does not believe anyone should own a gun it's pretty damn hypocritical to run around with a posse of armed guards at all times while spouting lines that guns are evil and no one needs guns. Don't mind the guards dear.
I'm not sure where she lives has much to do with it. Anyway my argument is that owning a gun and wanting gun control are not incompatible. Getting rid of guns is only of benefit to society if everyone does it (assuming the premise that loose gun control is bad). No one as a law-abiding individual thinks that they themselves owning a gun is a problem. However, giving up the right to gun ownership for one's own (harmless) purposes is a cost one can be willing to pay for the benefit to oneself and society if it's a necessary step to getting everyone to give up guns. However, if no one else is getting rid of them because no legislation has been passed then it makes perfect sense to keep your guns. You know you're not dangerous so there's no benefit to society from you getting rid of them and you do get some benefit from having them. So long as you would be willing to give them up as soon as the legislation you want is passed, there's no hypocrisy involved.

She may well be stupid, wrong and/or counter-productive, but I don't think she is necessarily a hypocrite. If she got the laws passed and then tried to work round them then she absolutely would be.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by General Zod »

Teebs wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:That might be true except she lives in Nyack, NY. Not the projects. Your talking about an area where the only crimes are robbery (It's an upscale area with a crime rate 1/3rd the national average) and robbery related crimes (And oddly enough arson) each year. If she does not believe anyone should own a gun it's pretty damn hypocritical to run around with a posse of armed guards at all times while spouting lines that guns are evil and no one needs guns. Don't mind the guards dear.
I'm not sure where she lives has much to do with it. Anyway my argument is that owning a gun and wanting gun control are not incompatible. Getting rid of guns is only of benefit to society if everyone does it (assuming the premise that loose gun control is bad). No one as a law-abiding individual thinks that they themselves owning a gun is a problem. However, giving up the right to gun ownership for one's own (harmless) purposes is a cost one can be willing to pay for the benefit to oneself and society if it's a necessary step to getting everyone to give up guns. However, if no one else is getting rid of them because no legislation has been passed then it makes perfect sense to keep your guns. You know you're not dangerous so there's no benefit to society from you getting rid of them and you do get some benefit from having them. So long as you would be willing to give them up as soon as the legislation you want is passed, there's no hypocrisy involved.

She may well be stupid, wrong and/or counter-productive, but I don't think she is necessarily a hypocrite. If she got the laws passed and then tried to work round them then she absolutely would be.
That's a bit like arguing that someone who advocates prohibition and sobriety isn't a hypocrite for going to a bar and pounding away a few shots of whisky each night because it's not illegal yet. If you're not going to practice what you preach why should anyone take you seriously?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by [R_H] »

They may be incompatible depending on how the individual interprets gun control. If it's a total ban on civilian possession, then owning one just furthers the cause of ban opponents who would argue that there are far too many weapons to feasibly seize (for example), because not everyone would be willing to turn in their guns (criminal or not). It also puts more money in the pockets of those who are interested (manufacturers of guns and ammunition) in having a civilian market to sell their products to, and some of that money would go to lobbying against a total ban.

Isn't tight gun control just a knee-jerk, reactive response though? What about proactively preventing/reducing all crime, instead of just gun crime, by improving social conditions?
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Kanastrous wrote:What's objectionable is that people like O'Donnel have access to that protection because they can afford to buy it. Hiring a licensed armed bodyguard is very expensive, and it's not an avenue open to the average citizen. As for her own personal concealed carry permit, should she want one, she can make the claim the being a 'public personality' means that she has greater need, and therefore greater priority in being granted a permit than, say, some non-famous/non-wealthy person living where bullets are flying in some less-desirable part of town than Bel Air or Beverly Hills.

Basically, *I* have a need and I can afford and obtain it within the system as-constituted; *you* may have equal or greater need but since you're not wealthy or connected...well, you can just suck it.
This, indeed, is objectionable.

The thing to check is whether they would advocate disarming their bodyguard if gun control laws were passed. If they are honestly worried about random people shooting at them, they may honestly want an armed guard. Hell, if I were high profile enough that lunatics had heard of me so that I might get shot by some nutter who thinks I'm a Martian agent, I'd want one. If I weren't worried about that lunatic having a gun, I wouldn't want a guard with a gun so much, though.

So on a very basic "I seek to optimize my personal safety" level, there is nothing hypocritical about both having an armed bodyguard and opposing widespread gun ownership... as long as you are willing to participate in general disarmament by getting rid of the bodyguard's gun in the event that the disarmament actually happens. Which it hasn't, yet.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Bill to allow post-1986 Machine Guns on the Docket.

Post by Kanastrous »

You never get to stop worrying about the 'lunatic with a gun.' Never. Because (a) a ban means the necessity of collection, and by definition criminals will not turn in their weapons for collection and (b) the sheer quantity of firearms in circulation, particularly the ones in criminal hands means that you will never get all the hardware that's out there.

'General disarmament' is a sort of utopian pipe-dream, and I'd sure like a toke of whatever that pipe is stuffed with. It's obviously narcotic to the point of incapacitation.

All of this "if" business is bullshit. Let's look at the actual reality that exists: many people openly pushing for laws (and/or the maintenance of laws) to make it more difficult for other law-abiding people to get weapons for self-defense know very well that they themselves will not be affected by those laws because they will be able to afford ways around them, either by the application of cash, of their celebrity or political pull, or both. That's pure hypocrisy: what's good enough for all those *other* people just isn't good enough, for *them.* I'm surprised that there's even need for a discussion of the matter.

As for the whole not-wanting-a-bodyguard-with-a-gun if no prospective attacker were likely to be able to procure one - that's plain stupid. You want to defend yourself - or your bodyguard to have to defend you - against an assailant using a knife, club, whatever, being yourself restricted to a close-quarters weapon? Have you ever actually taken any CQB training with improvised weapons? And again bear in mind that lacking a magical giant electromagnet suspended over North America, or some similarly Dr. Evil-esque chunk of ridiculousness, you will never craft a ban that disarms criminals who choose not to disarm. Absolutely all you will accomplish is increasing the proportion of armed criminals to newly-disarmed straight citizens.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Post Reply