The Twin Crusades Against Drugs and Guns

[Pertinacious Tom]

What bans or confiscation programs? We must live in alternate realities.

I already answered that question in this thread. If I did it in a non-gun thread, the grabbers here would freak right out. Bringing up my views on gun control in non-gun threads is very important and I thank them for doing it, but it's only OK when they do it.

Anyway, to reiterate, I'm talking specifically about Trump's ban on bump stocka, about the ban on battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons passed by the US House and proposed in the Senate, and the ban on battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons proposed in legislation and by constitutional amendment in Florida. As noted previously, there are threads on all of those, which I've helpfully linked.

If none of those things exist in your reality, it's because you're a non-reader.

By the way, do you think Trump or Obama is right about banning bump stocka? Was Beto right to tell the cheering crowd "hell yes we're going to take" your battlefield .22's?

 

[pusslicker]

I already answered that question in this thread. If I did it in a non-gun thread, the grabbers here would freak right out. Bringing up my views on gun control in non-gun threads is very important and I thank them for doing it, but it's only OK when they do it.

Anyway, to reiterate, I'm talking specifically about Trump's ban on bump stocka, about the ban on battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons passed by the US House and proposed in the Senate, and the ban on battlefield .22's and other suitable militia weapons proposed in legislation and by constitutional amendment in Florida. As noted previously, there are threads on all of those, which I've helpfully linked.

If none of those things exist in your reality, it's because you're a non-reader.

By the way, do you think Trump or Obama is right about banning bump stocka? Was Beto right to tell the cheering crowd "hell yes we're going to take" your battlefield .22's

So you think fully automatic weapons should be legal? They haven't been for as long as I've been around except in a few cases.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So you think fully automatic weapons should be legal? They haven't been for as long as I've been around except in a few cases.

We're still in separate realities.

In mine, Saint Ronald closed the machine gun registry in 1986, leaving hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns in private hands.

If you're rich enough and in the right state, you can buy one. If you pass the background check and pay the $200 tax.

But you're right in assuming that I think that more of them should be legal than currently are legal.

The closed registry has led to prices in the five figure range for the most effective militia weapons. The effect is: the very rich have constitutional rights that the rest don't. I don't think that's right. I think the registry should be reopened.

But try to get grabbers to undo Ronald Reagan's legacy. They're not interested and wish to preserve his work, much like they won't object to Trump's bump stocka ban.

By the way, Obama or Trump on bump stocka? Not a hard question. I'm an Obama guy. You?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What bans or confiscation programs? We must live in alternate realities.

I'm guessing you didn't want to discuss the bans and confiscation programs that I mentioned.

That's OK. There are more.

How about the ones in California and New Jersey?

In those places, ownership of property that was previously legal has been declared a public nuisance, so owners have to surrender their property. Having to surrender your property seems a bit like confiscation, but I'm sure you can explain why it's not.

If you don't want to discuss those, there are others. There's a ban for every state and some for territories as well, in addition to federal actions. Surprised you didn't know about any of them, but you're welcome!

 

[pusslicker]

I'm guessing you didn't want to discuss the bans and confiscation programs that I mentioned.

That's OK. There are more.

How about the ones in California and New Jersey?

In those places, ownership of property that was previously legal has been declared a public nuisance, so owners have to surrender their property. Having to surrender your property seems a bit like confiscation, but I'm sure you can explain why it's not.

If you don't want to discuss those, there are others. There's a ban for every state and some for territories as well, in addition to federal actions. Surprised you didn't know about any of them, but you're welcome!

I was discussing it above. Fully automatic weapons were always illegal and now you're whining about a workaround being banned? I live in California and have guns. More than I care to and I have never had anyone confiscate them. What specifically do these make believe confiscation programs go after that bothers you?

 

[Mike in Seattle]

,,, I live in California and have guns ,,,

You are not keeping keeping up.

Do your own research about your AG releasing your personal information

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Fully automatic weapons were always illegal and now you're whining about a workaround being banned?

Always illegal? As mentioned, there are hundreds of thousands of legal ones floating around America and I've even shot one of them right here on my property. Here's a pic, so it did happen.

And asking a question isn't "whining" at all. I just want to know if you agree with Trump or Obama on whether the President has the authority to ban bump stocka. I'm an Obama guy. You?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You don't have to sulk just because I asked a question you can't answer, @pusslicker

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So yes, insurance would be a great start, cant get insurance? can't get a gun.

This part of a reply from one of the many other gun threads actually belongs here because denying financial services to legal businesses is a current drug warrior tactic and is being expanded into the war against gun ownership.

It's still a stupid idea. Just a workaround for authoritarians whose favored prohibition is failing and thus falling out of favor. It's a way to continue being stupid.

 

[Keith]

This part of a reply from one of the many other gun threads actually belongs here because denying financial services to legal businesses is a current drug warrior tactic and is being expanded into the war against gun ownership.

It's still a stupid idea. Just a workaround for authoritarians whose favored prohibition is failing and thus falling out of favor. It's a way to continue being stupid.

Tommy gun,


Christmas is almost here,
Do yourself a big favor and become a better human.
It's the perfect time to get rid of those extremely dangerous firearms that you have, that are just laying around the house.

 

[Raz'r]

This part of a reply from one of the many other gun threads actually belongs here because denying financial services to legal businesses is a current drug warrior tactic and is being expanded into the war against gun ownership.

It's still a stupid idea. Just a workaround for authoritarians whose favored prohibition is failing and thus falling out of favor. It's a way to continue being stupid.

No one is denying gun owners liability insurance, but like owners of property in a flood plain, expect your premiums to increase. Maybe for once, gun owners themselves will pay the price for your freedoms.







Ha, good joke there. These folks are all about personal responsibility, for the other guy.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No one is denying gun owners liability insurance, but like owners of property in a flood plain, expect your premiums to increase. Maybe for once, gun owners themselves will pay the price for your freedoms.

I said financial services, not just insurance. Cannabis businesses are being tracked and blocked and grabbers want gun businesses to face the same.

Gun control advocates are cheering a new change in the credit card industry that they say could help prevent gun violence.


This week, credit card companies Visa, Mastercard and American Express all said they would adopt a new code to categorize sales at gun shops, a move that advocates say will make it easier to flag suspicious gun sales.


"Today's announcement is a critical first step towards giving banks and credit card companies the tools they need to recognize dangerous firearm purchasing trends – like a domestic extremist building up an arsenal — and report them to law enforcement," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, in a statement last week.


All purchases made with credit cards are categorized with what's called a "merchant code" – a special code assigned to various types of businesses like utility companies, grocery stores, gas stations, airlines, hotels. And, for years, gun shops have been categorized as miscellaneous retail or sporting goods stores.

...

Some experts have expressed concerns about privacy, which echo those raised by abortion rights advocates in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. With abortion bans enacted in more than a dozen states, some have worried that credit card histories could become evidence in abortion-related prosecutions.
...

And as the last bit notes, these drug/gun war precedents tend to eventually come after rights you want to protect, not just those you want to undermine.

I'm not sure why my insurance rates might go up. Insurance companies have actuaries and probably know that I'm extremely unlikely to ever hurt anyone, just like the vast majority of gun owners. Grabbers will always want us to pay the price for the actions of criminals, which is why no safe can be good enough for jocal and why you'd impose liability on people who use safes, even a couple of owners back in the blockchain.

Weirdly, none of you ever seem to apply this reasoning to badlat's five figure assault weapon. Nope, it's my wife's battlefield .22 that's super scary.

 

[Raz'r]

I said financial services, not just insurance. Cannabis businesses are being tracked and blocked and grabbers want gun businesses to face the same.



And as the last bit notes, these drug/gun war precedents tend to eventually come after rights you want to protect, not just those you want to undermine.

I'm not sure why my insurance rates might go up. Insurance companies have actuaries and probably know that I'm extremely unlikely to ever hurt anyone, just like the vast majority of gun owners. Grabbers will always want us to pay the price for the actions of criminals, which is why no safe can be good enough for jocal and why you'd impose liability on people who use safes, even a couple of owners back in the blockchain.

Weirdly, none of you ever seem to apply this reasoning to badlat's five figure assault weapon. Nope, it's my wife's battlefield .22 that's super scary.

BatLat seems the type of fella who has a nice umbrella policy.

 

[veni vidi vici]

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

BatLat seems the type of fella who has a nice umbrella policy.

I'll join you in that assumption. We're also assuming that at some point an actual criminal appeared, defeated his safe, and then committed a crime with one or more of badlat's guns.

They're still his after being stolen, right?

But what must they cover? Should they cover liability for the first time he owned the gun, the sale of the gun, the second time he owned the gun, all of the above?

And how about his gun dealer friend who bought and sold that gun at least once? He's responsible for any crime committed with any gun that ever goes through his dealership, so must have a heck of a policy, right?

They're all still the dealer's after being repeatedly sold and then stolen, right?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Once you take possession of firearm, you assume responsibility for whatever that weapon does in the future.

So really anyone who touches any gun should have an insurance policy in case the gun is later stolen from the owner's secure storage and then used in a crime.

Or should the gun owner's policy cover those people?

I'm just thinking that a generous person who owns a five figure assault weapon lets his friends shoot it, so lots of people may have possessed badlat's gun and thereby assumed responsibility for any future crimes.

 

[Raz'r]

I'll join you in that assumption. We're also assuming that at some point an actual criminal appeared, defeated his safe, and then committed a crime with one or more of badlat's guns.

They're still his after being stolen, right?

But what must they cover? Should they cover liability for the first time he owned the gun, the sale of the gun, the second time he owned the gun, all of the above?

And how about his gun dealer friend who bought and sold that gun at least once? He's responsible for any crime committed with any gun that ever goes through his dealership, so must have a heck of a policy, right?

They're all still the dealer's after being repeatedly sold and then stolen, right?

I thought you’d just blockchain it?

 

[Go Left]

So really anyone who touches any gun should have an insurance policy in case the gun is later stolen from the owner's secure storage and then used in a crime.

Or should the gun owner's policy cover those people?

I'm just thinking that a generous person who owns a five figure assault weapon lets his friends shoot it, so lots of people may have possessed badlat's gun and thereby assumed responsibility for any future crimes.

A generous person would send that 5-figure amount to Medicins Sans Frontieres to help undo the damage assault rifles have done in the world.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Or how about, "Considering Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513, 57 S.Ct. 554, 81 L.Ed. 772, and what was ruled in sundry causes arising under the Harrison Narcotic Act2—United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061, Ann.Cas.1917D, 854; United States v. Doremus, 1919, 249 U.S. 86, 94, 39 S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493; Linder v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819, 39 A.L.R. 229; Alston v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 289, 47 S.Ct. 634, 71 L.Ed. 1052; Nigro v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 332, 48 S.Ct. 388, 72 L.Ed. 600—the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."?

I filled in the part you ignored because it's the genesis of this thread.

Did you actually do what the court did and consider Sonzinsky and the Harrison Narcotic Act precedents?

I'm guessing no, so spoiler alert. If you do, you will discover that the stupid drug war precedents have been eroding our freedoms for a very long time and the precedents have entangled the twin crusades in a gruesome embrace for a hundred years.

Before the commerce power was stretched beyond all recognition, the power to tax was used for power grabs. That's what the Harrison Act was. That's what the National Firearms Act was. That's what the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was.

It means the same thing to me as it has for a long time: our various prohibition programs are stupid.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

A generous person would send that 5-figure amount to Medicins Sans Frontieres to help undo the damage assault rifles have done in the world.

I suppose, if he felt responsible for the actions of others.

How about it, badlat? Going to sell your assault weapon again to undo some of the carnage you have imposed on the world?