jollyroger's picture

    Guns lawfully owned, must not be registered so as to facilitate the unlawful evasion of lawful confiscation.

    By jollyroger on Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:30pm |

    It is commonplace to respond to the fear of gun confiscation, (virtually universally voiced by anti-registration zealots) with a soothing tut-tut, coupled with strenuous oaths forswearing the passage of any law which might reach into the extant stash of any armed citizen in order once and for all to rid society of a manifest source of misery.

     

    One need look no further than Australia to see that it is by no means outside the bounds of imagination that a  people might make a reasoned decision to live unarmed, and in so doing require the surrender of those weapons currently abroad.

     

    We might, after all, amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment.  Hard cheese, gun nuts, but there you are.

     

    I find it curious that even as they thump their chests and declare themselves "the law-abiding and responsible gun owners", these same individuals (and their associations) assert, implicitely, their right to disobey a democratically enunciated law (should one issue) that eventually declared the private ownership of firearms forbidden, and furthermore, feel perfectly empowered to assert an interest in facilitating their disobedience to such a law by resisting the salutary (for so many reasons in addition to possible  confiscation) practice of registration.

     

    Consider, after all, that their strident objection to registration is couched in terms that really say this:

     

    If a law were duly passed that required me to sell my gun to the government, I would consider it my right to disobey, and I further assert that in order to make it easier for me to break that law, I will fight any system of registration, notwithstanding all the benefits it might have vis-a-vis crime prevention/solution, because it might make it harder for me to break the law.

     

    But I am a lawful gun owner, you betcha'.

    Comments

    Its not the atrocities man does to man that would be the problem. It would be food. The main impetus for man versus man atrocities would be the fight over the scraps of food left. Look at the population in your town and the stock of food in the local supermarkets. There will be no more deliveries. I think a month is an over optimistic estimate of how long it will last.

    Now ask yourself. What are you going to be eating and where will it come from a month after the apocalypse?


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 6:48pm

    Josephus estimated the number of Jews in Jerusalem at the Passover season 70 A.D. to have risen above 3 million. As the siege progressed famine set in. Armed bandits soon formed the habit of going from house to house in search of food, breaking down doors and confiscating food or anything of value for themselves. As the food scarcity intensified conditions got worse and order broke down completely in the besieged city as roving hordes of militants went totally berserk looting, killing and ransacking homes and confiscating all stores they could lay their hands on without caring about how their victims would survive.
    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5476400

    The Fall of Jerusalem 70 AD: Cannibal Lady Feeds on Baby's Flesh

    The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian : a Study in ...

    Food and eating in medieval Europe - Page 73

    Cannibalism as an Aspect of Famine in Two English Chronicles Julia Marvin From 1315 to 1318 England - and much of Europe - suffered ... of the disaster to the wrath of God.3 These topics are by no means unique to 1316; many of them can be found in Josephus' first-century Jewish War,4 and in reports of other medieval famines, such as that of 1258 in the ... vi. 193-213; Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake, i (London and New York, 1926), 3.5.5-3.6.28; .


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 8:57pm

    So are you trying to say that after ALL the food is gone, and therefore guns cannot get anyone any more, you would resort to killing other humans and eating them?


    by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:07pm

    Con respetto, you brought up zombies...at least (so far) no one's talkin' eating...y'know...the brains...

     

    Edit to add: and O-K requested atrocity data...Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus, he asked Resistance for atrocities!  What the fuck did you expect to get?--it was a perfect cannibalism set up!

     


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:18pm

    Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus

    Ah, you have no idea how right you may be! Catholicism could have the solution in Transubstantiation!cheeky


    by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:43pm

    No shite, what the heck was he thinking? 

    Two cannibals were eating a Clown. 
    One cannibal looks at the other cannibal and said, "Does it taste funny to you?"


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 2:26am

    (GROAN)


    by jollyroger on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 2:33am

    Remember to tip your servers. 


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 7:47am

    Just don't let me see Resistance coming outta Fairway with a bag of fava beans and a nice chianti...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:55pm

    I dislike liver. 


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 7:34am

    NO 

    I'm interested in what you'd do, if they came looking to eat you?


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 7:41am

    Daggers this is what happens when we get 4000 comments on a blog with 'Guns' in it. Resistance goes whole hog into his apocalyptic fantasies. Although, this being America, fantasies are often the norm. I can see it now, the author interviewed by O'Reilly: "The Coming Collapse, 100 Tasty and Easy to Prepare Neighborly Recipes" .


    by NCD on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:33pm

    Jolly deserves applause for hosting a long thread that, rather than getting shut down by a moderator (as is often the case for long threads here,) continues to entertain!

    And thanks for finally joining in the fun, NCD.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:46pm

    Yes he does.

    What was O-K thinking? 

    Couldn't catch my breath it was so funny. Jolly that was good. 


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/01/2014 - 2:33am

    to serve man


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 9:47pm

    This is what Tom Brown is teaching his survivalist students based on the apocalypse prophecies of his Apache teacher. Primitive skills, hunting with bow and arrow, edible wild plants, living off the land. He says you can't defend  your property with guns, they are better at it than you are, more ruthless, and they will get through all your defenses. When the apocalypse comes you will have to hide and live off the land for a few years until the predator humans die from starvation when there's nothing left to steal.

    I'm not an adherent of apocalyptic fantasies nor am I a survivalist. But his scenario of what will happen if there's a collapse is more reality based than most. Its just not heroic enough to appeal to most who plan for it.

    All those people who spent thousands for personal fall out shelters in the 50's died without ever using them. I suspect all those stockpiling guns and ammo today will die without ever needing them too.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:59pm

    See, this is why y'gotta love Dagblog--Spontaneous Dag--Zombies, and living off the land.

     

    You never know where a thread will go...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:07pm

    Don't head for the hills, that is where everyone else is heading. If you do go, you'd better be ready to give up your comfort zone and go deep into the woods.  Like you said, primitive and no fires with smoke.

    For poison ivy and poison oak - not sure about poison sumac:
    Leaflets three, let it be,
    Berries white, a poisonous sight.

    For distinguishing between coral and california king snake:
    Red touch yellow, watch out fellow,
    Red touch black, OK jack.

    Red sky in morning, sailors take warning,
    Red sky at night, sailor's delight.


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:22pm

    People won't head for the hills unless they have the skills. Most people will head for the metropolitan areas looking for edible leftovers. Cans will last the longest but they'll be gone pretty quickly. Then you will die.

    Opps, I mean then jesus will come and feed everyone with loafs and fishes.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 5:08pm

    Opps, I mean then jesus will come and feed everyone with loafs and fishes.

    No he wont.  All of mankind will come to the realization, certain death was before them and there was no escape.

    Just as the Hebrews being trapped at the Red Sea in front of them and pharaohs army fast on their tails. The Hebrews thought for sure; it was certain death,

    Only by the hand of God, who made the way available through the sea, when he held back the waters; were they saved.

    So that no man could boast, they saved themselves.


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 5:21pm

    In the show, most property that is not essential for survival is truly an encumbrance, it is lying everywhere abandoned, free for the taking, virtually nobody who has survived wants it. Vehicles are useful only if they have gas in them, that is all. All the abandoned homes/buildings can switch from being protection to a death trap in a second. Real property is only of value if it has had team labor invested to make it fortress like.The problem is really too few people, their numbers getting lower all the time, there would be strength in numbers, that is one of the themes. (including a tribal war when the bad--the Hittler-like one- realizes that.) It really is quite good for challenging all kinds of normal assumptions, mind opening, the "what if" factor of good science fiction. There is also the theme of evolution in the background, as a CDC guy says early on that this is human's "extinction event," so the remaining human species is really all about survival, in the true meaning of the word.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:26pm

    I read his book, Tracker, which may have been his first, some years ago.

    I couldn't put it down. I still think about the Pine Barrens and those wild, scarred dogs who chased him up a tree.

    Didn't know he was a "survivalist" in the political sense, but the book was GREAT.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 6:57pm

    Brown teaches primitive/Native American skills and tracking. In one book he briefly mentions Stalking Wolf's prophecy. But according to many friends who have gone through all his lower level courses and advanced to the higher level courses its at that point its mostly about how to use those skills to survive the apocalypse.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:19pm

    When they come to raid your pantry of what remains of your families sustenance; are you just going to say, "Go ahead take it all;  my family will die, so you can live"?

    Or will you say over my dead body, will you kill my children?

    As for me if facing a possible confrontation,I would want my neighbors, friends and me to be heavily armed,  to be able to defend against the marauding gangs.   The battle may not last long, but I can only gain the advantage if I am better prepared. 

    The weak ones will be the first to go.


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:07pm

    As usual you didn't get my point. Doesn't matter how many guns you have. If they come for your food it will be over your dead body. Your dream of heroically defending your property is a fantasy. You can fight but you will lose. If civil society breaks down and the trucks with food stop rolling into the local supermarket those with predatory tendencies will have guns too.

    A gun isn't the great equalizer. You have health problems I believe. You're not a young man anymore. Those coming for your food are likely younger, healthier, and better trained. You will lose.

    If there's an apacalypse there will be no food coming in. You have how many heirloom seeds stockpiled? Because food, not predators is your major concern. You know how to grow wheat or other storable grains to last through the winter? How to gather seed for next year's planting? There will be no mail order Burpee catalog after the apocalypse. Sustainable farming is a lot different than putting in a backyard garden for the occasional fresh tomato.

    By the way I think it will be the gun nuts with their stockpiles of guns and ammo that will be one of the larger groups turning predator.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:44pm

    As usual you didn't get my point.? 

    Can't you be nice? 

    Added:  In the realm of possibilities, Good folks will gather together, because there is strength in numbers. There will always be bad men with guns and it’ll take good men with guns, to stop them. 

     

     


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 5:49pm

    Yeah, I read that book years ago. Interesting and fun science fiction novel. I didn't know it was a movie, I'd like to go see it. I can imagine myself as the heroic Costner leading the people to freedom and justice. Gun on my hip, brave and wholesome. I can see myself now falling in love and into bed with the beautiful leading lady.

    Here's the non fiction reality. I know more than 99% of the people about gathering food from the land and about growing it because of my hobbies. I also know I'm just a hobbyist. So I know that  instead of heroically leading the people with the women of my dreams on my arm I'll be starving. So will you.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:04pm

    It was actually your quip about the zombies that inspired me to ask my questions, not that I envision any zombies in my apocalyptic musings. EMPs or pandemics seem much more likely.

    Still absent any apocalypse at all, I do think we as human beings and citizens have duties to both ourselves and our fellows to be prepared to fill in as many necessary roles as we are capable of in an emergency. But that requires training and I think the state has an obligation to provide that training, not all of it military. EMTs, for example, even basic law enforcement and fire and rescue. As an economic bonus in the meantime, pay people to train just like the military does. 

    Yes, "when there is anarchy, you want to be with people who have an idea of how government re-starts".  I think I just prefer a deeper bench than you. We have become what I call a Blanche DuBois society: too dependent on the kindness of strangers. Looking to essentially strangers who may or may not respect the rule of law does not comfort to me. Too many are attracted to sheriffing, policing and other uniformed roles for the personal power that comes with them. I would prefer as many alternate candidates to fill those roles as possible if only to keep the present holders in check.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:38pm

    I respectfully disagree Emma,  If I have misunderstood your position I sincerely apologize 

    A well regulated militia being  necessary to the security of a free state

    That is not a qualifier  

    It is recognition of the benefits that are derived from the People’s Right to Bear Arms.  "necessary to the security of a free state"  

    The selecting of folks to receive extra training and discipline, in matters of securing or preparing for military engagement is not to be construed, as depriving others who are not selected to serve in a regulated arrangement in service to a State. 

    George Washington at Valley Forge, wasn’t choosy about who would come  to the aid of the country, but he did appreciate a well regulated militia over those who had no training. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:50pm

    You inferred something I did not say or even imply. I said nothing about selecting folks to receive extra training and discipline. I propose that every citizen have paid basic training and beyond that the opportunity, not necessarily paid, for further training to the limits of their abilities, interest, and purse.

    As for disagreeing, this is an argument that has been going on for centuries. You do not have to agree with me or stop arguing but neither do I.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 3:54pm

    I agree with the continuing education. it would go along ways towards improving humanity.

    Why not have free First Aid classes for anyone who wants to be prepared. The role of the FIRST responder is indispensable. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 4:45pm

    This thread is like the un-dead.

    Not that I want it to die or re-die or anything.

    Bogie to Bacall: "Darling, we'll always have guns."

    Bacall to Bogie: "Yes, it's wonderful, isn't it!"

    Did I already say somewhere that it's time for Jolly to reveal why he carries a gun?

    Is he hoping to run into Mae West or something?


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:03pm

    I don't anymore--I did at the time I got busted and had my little colloquy with the judge concerning the folly  (potentially fatal) of carrying a gun without ammunition in it...'t

     

    Edit to add: I vastly prefer a lifestyle which doesn't require going about strapped.  (notwithstanding the little sense of [false] safety that comes with that pressure under your armpit...)


    by jollyroger on Fri, 02/28/2014 - 7:11pm

    I was trying to figure out what zombies had to do with this thread then you admit that you carried an unloaded gun and it became clear that zombies ate your brain long ago.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 11:14am

    Wow!  Peter, you have caught Resistance's diseased reading comprehension from remote contact...my remark to the judge, as quoted was "Your Honor, do I look crazy?  Of course it was loaded!"

     

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/when-cecil-wlliams-preaches-warren-buffe...

     

    That said, the zombie theme was introduced from the unlikely entry of DoubleA

     

    Edit to add:"false" safety is "false" not because the gun is unloaded--it is "false" because a loaded gun is still no guarantee of safety...surely a sophisticated thinker such as you knows that!


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 3:49pm

    Weaponized with extreme sarcasm:

    When May I Shoot a Student?
    By GREG HAMPIKIAN,
    Guest Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times, Feb. 27, 2014

    Edit to add meta:

    warning, looks like the comments on this thread have caused a need for a "page 2" to start. If I remember correctly, Drupal software has a glitch when this happens, where the links to the comments that come hereafter don't work, and can only take you to page 1. Maybe this newer version fixed that, we'll see.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 1:58am

    I was just saying to Genghis the other morning that I broke the site...I guess it was true.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 4:16am

    You can take all the credit for that Jolly. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 03/02/2014 - 8:06am

    You best be rounding up some ammunition for that old handgun, Jolly, and I'll get practicin' with a katani, then lessee what the the military surplus websites have, as our extinction event is acoming!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ancient-virus-resurrected-after-30000-years-...

    wink


    by artappraiser on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 2:09pm

    As climate change leads to rapidly melting permafrost in the Russian tundra

     

    There' s an extinction event in the story, but it's right in the lead..what's also being released by the rapidly melting permafrost is a veritable sea of methane

     

    http://a-m-e-g.blogspot.com/


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 2:24pm

    Amazing how things rattle around in the mind's background and suddenly pop out.

    So, I've gotten clarity on your thesis and proposal.

    Your hypothesis is that "law abiding" gun owners actually don't give a shit about "the law," but are simply using the current law as a log in the barricade against any move to restrict their gun ownership. A log they would quickly burn if the law were changed.

    By changing the law, you propose to unmask them as people who don't care about "the law," but only about keeping their guns, come hell or high water.

    And then, of course, force them into either giving up their guns or breaking the law.

    Okay, that's clearer...

    Unfortunately, all the former objections to this proposal stand. Principally...

    • When they say "law abiding," they mean they haven't broken any other laws with their guns (or without them, maybe), e.g., killing, stealing, and so on.

    • The law which gives them the right to own their guns, they would argue and perhaps you, too, above, rests on deeper ground than laws passed or repealed by legislatures. You would need to address this deeper ground.

    • Any attempt to simply remove this deeper ground would meet with the same resistance (I didn't say that, did I?) as did, say, the duly passed segregation laws in the South or other laws that were eventually found to be "wrong" or "immoral."


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 7:15pm

    The law which gives them the right to own their guns, they would argue and perhaps you, too, above, rests on deeper ground than laws passed or repealed by legislatures. You would need to address this deeper ground.

     

    Which, as I said somewhere ten miles upthread, brings us to the chasm between "law" and "morality", at which chasm we perilously walk the bridge of civil disobedience and jury nullification (Starting to sound an little like "pilgrim's progress...")

     

     That said, I still maintain that their self described law abiding status is undermined by their implied willingness to hide their guns if a confiscation law is (lawfully) passed, and all their stonewalling on registration (with its manifold benefits) involves explicitly stating that they want to preserve their future option to disobey.

    ,Edit to add:  Wait, you mean you've posted , maybe forty replies and you just now got the point of the original post...I need to take that course in Remedial Forensic Composition.

     

     


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 8:02pm

    To be fair to me...

    Not entirely, but your argument came into clearer focus.

    How's that?

    I'm a bit of ponderous ponderer, so I tend to mull things over long after the (gun)smoke has died away.

    I would say their "future option to disobey" is, in their terms and ours, too, to disobey laws we strongly believe are immoral.

    IOW, any law to confiscate and any confiscation would be immoral in their eyes. Hence their willingness to disobey, though I bet many gun owners would comply.

    For example, RM and others would say they reserve the right to disobey any law that attempts to re-segregate lunch counters. They're law-abiding now because they agree with the current law, but that doesn't bind them to consenting to a immoral imposed in the future. Don't you agree?

    BTW, I saw this strange NRA video about the gun laws and confiscation that took place in Britain and Australia. Lots of video of guns being sawed in half and huge piles of guns being picked up by giant claws and dumped into the melting pot.

    I know nothing about what happened in either place, but the whole thing was a cautionary tale about what happens if you agree to give up your guns...or something. Various and sundry gun owners, dealers, and collectors issued dire warnings to their fellow American gunners not to submit to the siren song of those who would restrict gun ownership.

    However, it wasn't clear exactly what laws were passed or what gun owners had had to do as a result. It was almost as if they were ruing the fact the day had complied with the new law...or hadn't fought the new law.

    But I couldn't tell what the current state of play is. At points, it sounded like ALL guns had been banned, but then it seemed that all guns hadn't been banned. It was, of course, propaganda and clarity on those points wasn't the point. Stoking fear was.


    by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 9:02pm

    As the *girls all say to me in a different context...."It's not you...it's me..."

     

    I am famously  unclear, sometimes even without the help of exogenous neurotransmitter modification (oftentimes with...just ask Resistance...)

     

     

     

    *they are usually lying, as we all know, but that's another story


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 10:03pm

    exogenous neurotransmitter modification ? 

    Darn it Jolly cant you just speak English so I don't have to grab a dictionary .

    Did you notice I caught  your subliminal message though, Truly an art of yours 

    Thanks again Jolly. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 10:28pm

    My bold:

    Playing John Wayne with the G.O.P.
    by John Cassidy, newyorker.com, March 6, 2014
    Why was Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, brandishing a musket rifle above his head at CPAC?

    [....] Just another morning’s work in the life of a modern G.O.P. leader. But before moving on, it might be worth asking what Coburn did to earn his award from the N.R.A. The Web site ontheissues.org has provided some of the answers: He voted no on banning high-capacity magazines holding more than ten bullets, the sort favored by the mass murderers in Aurora, Newtown, and other places where innocent Americans have met an early and gruesome end. He voted yes on prohibiting certain lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of bills allowing gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines, and allowing guns in national parks. He voted to amend the law so that the government couldn’t take a person’s firearms away because he or she had been deemed mentally incapacitated or incompetent; the government also had to persuade a court that the person was dangerous.

    McConnell has taken practically identical positions. In 2008, he received a “Defender of the Constitution” award from the N.R.A., which has announced it will support his reëlection effort. But that doesn’t mean he’s home free. Bevin is supported by the Gun Owners of America, an organization that is even more extreme than the N.R.A., and his likely Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s Secretary of State, is also making a play for gun lovers. Shortly after McConnell’s appearance at CPAC, she tweeted, “Someone tell @Team_Mitch that’s not the way to hold a gun. KY women do it better.”


    by artappraiser on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 9:15pm

    K-Y;  Women do it better

     

    There, fixed it for you...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 12:42am

    How not to protect your loved ones:

    Oscar Pistorius used maximum-damage bullets, expert testifies
    The pathologist who did the autopsy on Reeva Steenkamp, Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend, details deadly damage from expanding bullets that hit Steenkamp's brain, hip and arm.     - LA Times, March 10, 2014


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/10/2014 - 10:19pm

    Pages

    Latest Comments