The New York Times is following the smoke signals of the President and wants to take your guns.
It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
The editors at the NYT are scared by a bunch of pieces of metal. They are shaking in their boots because something looks “scary” to them. The real danger is the idea that humans can be controlled and made safer with more laws.
Here is a response to The New York Times from The Federalist.
…we encourage you to check out the recent coverage in Australia’s New Daily newspaper about the country’s thriving black market for firearms. Let it be said first of all that we’re fairly certain the journalist behind this series, George Lekakis, isn’t a gun-rights advocate by any stretch of the imagination. Just last week he tried to drum up hysteria about the Adler A110 shotgun—a scary gun that can shoot seven rounds in seven seconds! That’s practically a viable home-defense firearm!
If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.
Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
In summary, I am pro-gun, as I am, for example, pro-car, and didn’t see my belief in licensing users with a mandated level of skill, sanity, and noncriminality as making me “anti†either of them. I had assumed—and here lay my error and arguably my arrogance—that a similar sort of belief existed among “reasonable†gun owners in the United States: that they too thought it seriously worrying that they were 33 times more likely to die by someone else shooting them in their country than I am in mine, and if only someone who actually liked guns and knew a bit about them made a sensible case then they might listen. I see much similar commentary in the center-right press today.
I was wrong—and not just in my belief about the pro-gun lobby listening, but in the very fundaments of my argument. Here is the first thing that many anti-gun Americans and almost everyone else in the civilized world does not understand, not least because it is seldom explicitly acknowledged: A significant number of U.S. citizens, perhaps even a majority, are willing to accept these levels of gun violence as collateral damage for a greater good, the liberty to own arms.
“We were not surprised by the degree of gun ownership,” said study lead author Bindu Kalesan. “But what is never really emphasized in studies that quantify ownership is how it relates to the concept of gun culture — meaning involvement in social events that revolve around guns.”
The poll of 4,000 adults indicated that gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to engage in gun-related activities involving friends and family.
…the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
“In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the ‘public domain.’ Essentially, this means data ‘which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public’ through a variety of specified means. These include ‘at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.’ Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
“The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been ‘exported,’ as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
“With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be ‘clarifying’ the rules concerning ‘technical data’ posted online or otherwise ‘released’ into the ‘public domain.’ To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the ‘authorization’ of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.”
DD had pre-ordered a carbon fiber printer from the company MarkForged, who then backed out saying that only the government is allowed to use their printer for firearms.
“Being shut out from mainstream payment processors makes us feel like we are part of some type of shady business when, in fact, there is more regulation and documentation required for federally licensed firearms dealers than most businesses,†said Trevor Blandford of Terminal Performance Associates in Caroline, Va.
Four men in the group were charged in two separate indictments for allegedly conspiring to sell 153 firearms that were mostly bought in Georgia and destined for the streets of Brooklyn, from May to December 2014, the King’s County District Attorney’s office said in a statement.
One of the men in the group was employed as a Delta bag handler who smuggled weapons — some loaded —into the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, where he handed them off to an accomplice, Mark Quentin Henry, who flew to New York, federal law enforcement officials said.
After the Patriot Act and TSA making everyone go through naked body scanners, guns still got on planes. This same technique could be used by terrorists to smuggle bombs on airplanes. The government was too concerned with passengers and not focused on security in general.
The controversial 18-page ballot referendum, which voters approved by a 9-point margin earlier this month, greatly expands background check requirements to include most private gun sales and transfers. While supporters held that the measure’s intent was to close a dangerous loophole which provided criminals with guns, all the Lynden Pioneer Museum knows is that they now have to pull 11 vintage rifles currently on display and return them to donors to become compliant with the new law.
Did Washingtonians know that this is what they were voting for? Laws like this actually create criminals where none existed before. Many museums are stocked with items that are on loan because they don’t have very much money. Now the people of Washington are denied the ability to learn and experience history. Thank you Bloomberg for denying children an education.
The 10-employee company based in Capitola, California, said it was deploying the technology on a trial basis. The first takers have been the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department in California and the Carrollton Police Department in Texas.
“By connecting the firearm to the cloud, we give departments a technology that enhances officer safety, improves operational efficiency, and builds community trust,” Jim Schaff, a Yardarm vice president, said.
“When I auditioned, I was openly gay. But I was surprised as nobody cared. They only cared how well I could shoot and represent our season,†said Cheng, who quit his job at Google after the show and is now an NRA news commentator and is releasing his first book “Shoot to Win.†“There is this stereotypical view of the gun community as anti-gay rednecks, but nothing could be further from the truth. It was interesting as the History Channel never ‘outed’ me on the show even though they had hours of footage. I asked why and they said simply that it just wasn’t relevant.â€
