Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot,
by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse.
" -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, December 17, 2012

Who is Going to Pay for It?
The Jackhole of Newtown, CT, Part Three

(Parts one and two)

There are calls from the usual crowd* to "ban assault rifles". My question to them is: "Who will pay for it?"

When the 18th Amendment was ratified and enforced by the Volstead Act, existing stocks of alcohol in the possession of individuals and private clubs were not affected by the ban. The reason for that was simple: The takings clause of the 5th Amendment requires that if the government takes something from you that you had legally obtained, the government has to pay for it.

I don't know how many guns would be covered by such a ban, but the chances are that the number is easily in excess of ten million firearms. The vast majority of such weapons have a retail price of over a thousand dollars, though some cost much less and some cost several times more.

Those weapons will have to be paid for by the government at a fair market price, not a "gimme yer guns and get outta here" price of zero.

The magazines will also have to be purchased. When you add in the number of magazines for handguns that can hold more than ten rounds, you're probably looking at a hundred and fifty million or more magazines, most of which cost between $10 and $50.

Over ten billion to buy back the guns, over two billion to buy back the magazines, and probably a lot more than that at the end of the day. For a national buy-back program will have to be administered and that will add in more cost.

If Mayor "No Big Gulp Sodas For You" Bloomberg wanted to liquidate his personal fortune, he could probably fund the program. Here is a prediction: That'll never happen.
* Sen. Lieberman, who has less than two weeks left in his senatorial career, has been one of those. Lieberman has a long track record of backing every proposal to limit the freedoms of Americans to do anything from surf the internet to be free from indefinite detention without trial. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Lieberman has never met a right or liberty that he is not in favor of restricting.


CenterPuke88 said...

Hummmm, a $10,000,000,000.00 stimulus plan, eh?

Just saying...

Old NFO said...

Yeah, they won't ever pay for them, IF they try anything it will be turn them in or go to jail scenario... sigh

w3ski said...

Yea, when I bought my EBR it was $450., last time I saw one for sale it was 1450. I never had a monetary investment do so well.

Allan S said...

EB, reading over your last three posts tells me two things.

1) You are well read, intelligent and extremley articulate.

2) You have absolutely no empathy with the victims or their familys. What seems to concern you, is that someone might take your guns away. The little bit of lip service you pay to those kids is sadly pathetic to the concerns you show for your guns.

At least you will be able to snuggle with 'dem good ole' shootin' irons this holiday, screw those survivors and the rest of them. I'm surprised Charlton Heston isn't holding the NRA's annual meeting at this new beacon of the Second Ammendment.

You have to see there is a problem. You must! Last we talked, or the last time you acknowledged my existense was the movie theatre shooting. I asked you if there was an upper limit death toll before you and the NRA would believe there might, and I emphasize the might, be a problem.

I eagerly await you/Ecks response.


Comrade Misfit said...

I gather that the post about the need to rebuild the mental health treatment system didn't register with you.

Charlton Heston died four years ago.

I have one of those "evil black rifles". If the judgment of the nation is that I must give it up, I shall. But I insist on being fairly compensated for the taking of property that I legally acquired.

Show your compassion, Allan. Let's see you start a buy-back fund. Let's see a program to rebuild the system of mental hospitals.

All I see from a lot of the so-called concern trolls is a lot of gum-flapping and a total lack of interest in putting down any money.

Eck! said...

Of course they have no idea what the property cost.

The inverse of "we" mentioned is the last post, "you". As in you (the global you
who you represent) are the cause of this and "You" not me should do something about it.

Well Allen, here is one a your for you. People die from drunk drivers, you might have even driven drunk at one time. As a result of that drivers need to give up their cars. I insist you give your car to one of those charities as a way to fix that.

See, very simple. Now I resort accuse you of being hard hearted or worse for not respecting that people have died by drunks driving autos. People I know. Get how it works now. And before you bark about it is a crappy way to communicate
when done inadvertently or deliberately.

It's not about the guns, anymore than cars, or homes. Its about our rights as citizens to own and retain legally obtained property. I also feel is if you can
erode the constitution whats next the right to complain about it?


Allan S said...

About two months ago the wife and I were driving to work and came across a man who was hit by a car. All we did was hold this misshapened wreck of a humans hand until he died. That taught me life is sacred, not in a theoretical way where the proper words are mouthed with false piety, but when the blood and the rain mix, the deformed head doesn't even look human way. But you can tell the second the last bit of life ebbed away forever. I love life, and I beleive with all my heart that everone should be able to live it. I think a persons right to live should trump your right to own fucking assault weapons.

But I digress. How is this for a solution? Now I am not saying we ban weapons, oh no, that would be selfish of us. But we have mandatory insurance on them?

-Assault rifle? Higher premium.
-Anyone with a mental problem in the house? Higher premium.
-Any hand gun? (There only good against people anyways). Higher premium.
-Increased capacity magazines? Higher premiums
-Long gun, bolt action? Lowest, if any premium.

Are you willing to even consider that EB? We can bring this up at the next eventwhen it happens.

Eck! said...

Life is precious. The most precious is my family and mine. Do I deserve the right to defend it?

How about we make your car so expensive and then make the insurance such that only the rich can have one. Your not rich, so walk. your rich then 10K a year for insurance is nothing for you muscle car, you drink, occasionally $20K.

What would the insurance be for a box cutter, paring knife, butchers knife, maybe machete [no joke criminals here use them]??

Yes, making things hideously expensive is the other tactic of course its discriminatory toward the poor and the criminals still will not have it.

Same dance. First face the fact criminals exist, they break the law and will
not comply. Next move.


Joe said...

The car argument works the other way, too. Cars used to be a lot more dangerous. Once the manufacturers were held liable for the deaths (and we added a boatload of Federal safety regulations), cars got safer in a hurry.

CenterPuke88 said...

Can I ask a few questions for the more savvy shooters here:

Is there a compelling need for a magazine capacity above about 10 rounds for a handgun?

Is there a compelling need for a magazine capacity above about 3-5 rounds for a shotgun or long gun?

These questions are asked in the context of civil ownership of these weapons. I find it unlikely that such limits would ruin the capacity to enjoy the weapons. Ownership of higher capacity magazines could be addressed in a similar manner to automatic weapons now, if there is a compelling need in individual cases.

I pick a higher capacity for the handguns because it is more likely to be used for self-defense and is inherently less accurate in it's usual role.

Certainly, police and the likes would be allowed higher capacity magazines (I say that knowing that it is a double edged sword with our current issues with rights abuses) in limited numbers.

A change to these rules would likely require a mandatory buy-back program, with purchases at a fair market value (probably an average long-term market value) over a year or two period. After that, possession would be a criminal offense? I'm sure there are plenty of arguments on this, I'd just like some reasonable discussion to see what I'm missing. And, yes, I have magazines I'd have to surrender.

Comrade Misfit said...

I have owned handguns for most of my adult life. I have used them for hunting, plinking, informal target shooting and match-level target shooting. I have shot in pistol matches with weapons ranging from a snub-nosed .38 to a Colt Gold Cup.

Nice to know that those guns are "only good against people".

Notwithstanding your obvious biases, as to insurance: Payable to whom? Most insurance polices will not pay out to cover liability for criminal acts. If you accidentally shoot someone in your home, you may be covered by your homeowner's policy. But if you assault or murder someone, not so much.

Even traditional tort law generally does not hold people responsible for the criminal acts of others.

Comrade Misfit said...

To make this point again" Gun ownership in this country is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Which means that it is government which much justify restrictions on the right-- exercisers of the right do not have to demonstrate a "compelling need".

Like it or not, self-defense is a recognized reason to own a firearm, and a 5-round limit does not satisfy that. And if I choose to defend myself with a shotgun or a rifle, why can I not make that choice?

And if anyone seriously thinks that by banning something, that particular problem will go away, I challenge you to try and find a community where you cannot buy pot, meth or smack.

CenterPuke88 said...

I'm not arguing the Constitutional point, I agree.

Self-defense, I agree.

The need for more than 5 rounds in a shotgun, I don't see since most shotguns are already at this limit. Please enlighten me, and I'm serious on this.

On long guns (which are poor self-defense weapons, in my opinion, for a homeowner), what is the need for more than 5 rounds? Let's face it, a long gun is suicidal to use in hunting your house or around your house for an intruder. It's too bulky and too slow, that's why handguns and short-barrel shotguns (and sub-machine guns, for that matter) are the choice for clearing operations. (That does pose the question of what capacity is necessary for SMG's, but I'm not going there right now.)

On handguns, is 10 rounds insufficient? I only keep about 10 rounds in my 13 round magazines because I buy the argument that it'll increase the working life of the unit. Would this make me keep 7 or 8 in a 10 round magazine, perhaps.

On the compelling need, I'm simply asking for a reason for needed a 15 or 30 round magazine for an AR-15, for instance. For shooting for fun, what's the harm in reloading after 5 or 10 rounds. If you are in a place when 30 rounds of 5.56mm is necessary for self-defense, I'd be rethinking where I was going/staying.

On the insurance note above...at first it sounds OK until you consider we risk creating a class of people who can afford self-defense versus those who cannot (see CA and NY concealed carry).

Comrade Misfit said...

Your insurance point is correct. There is a long historical thread of gun control being used to keep weapons out of the hands of "those people." The 1960's campaign against "Saturday Night Specials" was illustrative of that.

Long guns include most civilian semi-auto versions of submachine guns. Beyond that, I am not terribly fond of telling people how they can live their lives. A farmer or rancher may have a need for a rifle. (I've used an AR-15 for livestock protection.)

I cannot predict the future. There have been a few instances in the last 20+ years of societal order breaking down, at least temporarily, on a local level. Maybe a good rifle and some magazines for them might be useful. Maybe not.

But consider this: There are as many guns as there are motor vehicles. The carnage from cars is greater. Nobody seems to give a shit about that, unless, as with guns, a large number of children die in a crash. And even then, the 'we gotta do something" impulse passes, other than increasing criminal penalties (DUI is a felony in many states if a child is in the car).

Eck! said...


What about long guns like the M1 Garand, A collectable and the magazine is not easily scaleable and is fixed by design at 8 rounds using an enblock clip. (Please don't tell me about the rare 5 round ones).

Some standard hunting shotguns at 28 or 30" barrel, awkward around the house but they can be had with any barrel longer than 16 inches (maybe 20) and that does
shorten it a lot.

Is 10 rounds enough, no. Ask any cop of FBI sort about meth or PCP crazed sorts that a small cannon will not stop. If I encounter one of those trying to invade
my home I should be limited? Also not all firearms carry 10, some 9. Is a handgun that carries nine or even 5 suddenly safer?

The other argument is the really absurd 50 and 100 round drums and the like are not standard and even the military doesn't use them, reason they jam. Whatever the firearm was designed for is standard. The argument that negates that is one can always pack multiple magazines (normal military loadout is 10 mags,sometimes more).

Assault rifle, a weapon that has select fire or fully automatic mode.
Assault weapon, a made up term for something that may look like above but
does not and cannot fire in fully automatic or burst mode. The later was
made up by the anti-gun lobby.

The whole AR15 thing is a shorter (defined by barrel length and limited by law to not less than 16"), lighter rifle, that is more easily maintained (cleaned) and able to withstand considerable abuse. There is a longer list of rifles that do not fit the "assault weapon" model. That model includes collapsible stock, barrel shroud, and or other features. The best example is the Ruger mini-14, in wood
trim (wood stock) its a sporting hunting rifle, remove the wood add barrel shroud
and a military style stick its and EBR. One is more tightly controlled in MA the other isn't. Guess which.

As to cars, yes they are now safer for the occupant. However as a weapon the are actually better as the occupant has better survival. As a pedestrian, no improvement since the model A, if you get hit you will be injured or killed.


CenterPuke88 said...

OK, so lets look at some of these:

Cars – Cars are a tool with a primary purpose of transportation. Certainly they can injury, maim and/or kill, but that is secondary to there primary purpose and proper use. Guns have a primary purpose of “stopping” in individual from an activity or killing an animal. They have secondary uses for recreation and enjoyment.

Cars have become safer over time. At first the improvements were focused on safety for the occupants, then on occupants of other vehicles, and now on pedestrians and cyclists. Lower hoods, removal of hood ornaments, crush space below hoods, etc.

Cars are used by most people in the country every day, guns are not. Guns are chosen for mass killings, cars are not. There's a good bit of the difference.

Livestock protection - A good point, but would perhaps about 10 rounds (the current meaning of 'high capacity”) be enough? The crux of many of the proposals on limiting rounds seems to derive from the statistic (I'd like to see the data to see how it pans out) that the average mass murder is over in 20 seconds. Thus, limiting the number of rounds a perp can unload is seen as a partial solution. Also, more frequent stops to reload make the actor more vulnerable to counter-attack (yes, I know he had two handguns too).

Is 10 rounds enough? Well, the cops and military wouldn't be restricted. The trade-off is the limit on the everyday gun-owner. A practiced handgun owner should be able to hit and stop an intruder with 10 rounds, but “practiced” and “an intruder” are the stumbling blocks here. The comment about guns being safer with less rounds is a straw-man. For years I kept a Glock Model 20 (with Corbon +P rounds) for home defense. But I had to worry about over-penetration, so it worked because I knew my safe fire lanes. Moving houses and getting a child meant a new set of issues. The Glock is not safe with a child around (and I mean that even with the Glock in a Gun Vault, due to it's lack of a physical safety other than the questionable trigger switch) and the new house had much less clear fire lanes. I switched to a XD45 with a physical safety, a much heavier slide pull, and less penetrating ammunition. Another factor was the cost of keeping current with the 10mm Auto. The shooting was great fun, but the price per round became crazy.

The Straw-man - Let's remember that a revolver can fire as fast as a semi-automatic, as can some long-guns (the SMLE comes to mind). It isn't a function of less equals safety as much as it's a search for a compromise that heightens the chances of these mass shootings not reoccurring while maintaining the Second Amendment rights as much as possible (and yes, I know that's a very concerning way to phrase it). If we simply sit still, the inevitable result of increasing population will make these things happen over and over and you will eventually get a population that will tolerate the gutting of the Second Amendment (given how little it took to kill the Fourth and Fifth, we're closer than you think).

Assault Weapon - This is indeed an anti-gun fantasy creation, but one well crafted to grab public attention. After all, why does a hunting gun need a bayonet lug, right? That's how you do things with public messages, you appeal to people in a way that grabs attention and is simple to understand. Hunters that think they need to shoot and stab Bambi was an easy image to project and to get people to react to, even if it is a bunch of crap.

CenterPuke88 said...

Forgot a couple of things:

Collector rifles - I'd forgotten about the M1 and such, and I suspect an licensing scheme would be the result, much like for current full autos.

Insurance - That would be seen, probably correctly, as a backdoor to registration.

Is there a way to work around limits? Perhaps private clubs to store the non-conforming weapons? That'll bring calls of plans to confiscate weapons and limit access. Maybe those that want to have a black gun will have to live with small magazines but be able to go to a club and rent a large magazine to play with. I don't know, but something is gonna change, just like Comrade said.

Comrade Misfit said...

I am against registration. NYC requires registration of all weapons. When the City outlawed "assault rifles" and large-bore rifles, they used the registration records to enforce confiscation.

Any limits on the use of legally-acquired weapons over what is now permitted will likely be legally viewed as a partial taking. It will be litigated.

This is what gripes my ass: Somebody uses a lawful product, X, to commit a crime. Every lawful user of X then has their usage rights restricted. Why not just mandate breathalyzer interlocks on all cars, for example? That might go a long way to reduce the incidence of DUIs.

Frank W. James said...

Re: the use of the word "need", every time I hear that I ask WHERE in the Constitution of the United States is that word specifically mentioned?

Is it mentioned in the Bill of Rights that enumberate a number of our individual rights?

Do we have a physical 'need' for Freedom of Religion or a 'need' for the Freedom to NOT be Religious?

Do we have a physical need for Freedom of Speech?

Is there a human gene that requires the Right To Assembly or a Redress of Grievances based on a physical need?

I don't think so, but I do know a number of places where people have their physical needs guaranteed each and every day and that's in PRISON!

Penal institution inmates are guaranteed 3 square meals, a warm, dry place to sleep, adequate oxygen to breath and for the vast majority they have better legal representation than the average common citizen.

Sooo, whenever I hear someone ask why i 'NEED' something that I possess as a reult of my Rights I know immediately they want to imprison me, either consciously or sub-consciously, for what I either do, say or because of what I believe.

My rights as spelled in our Constitution are NOT based on 'Need', but rather they are acknowledged as liberties and part of the American definition of Freedom!

Get Over It!!!...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Allan S said...

I understand that you folks are not going to change your minds on anything, regardless of the death toll. You will dance around the issue and fillibuster the airwaves ad nauseum.

But how about this; begin gun control now...Wait EB, get your finger away from that delete button, and listen. Start it now but invoke a Grandfather Clause concerning the legal and registered weapons out there. Any new purchases would be covered under new legislation but you guys can keep what you have. Hey, just how many tens of millions are out there today? Enough to keep the most insecure feeling a touch secure I imagine.

EB, you, or was it your alter ego Eck (We know you're one and the same), accused me of flapping my jaws, or something to that effect. What this jaw flapper is trying to do is think of a solution. Maybe you could xpand on this abit.

BTW, using an alter ego to reinforce your argument is a Republican tactic and not worthy of you.


Comrade Misfit said...

Allan, Eck is a friend of mine. I have known her for over 20 years. At one point, we were co-workers.

She is a real person. And to be blunt about it, you have deeply offended me and pissed me off.

So, with all due respect and mindful of the holiday season: Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous prig.

Comrade Misfit said...

In over five years of blogging, I have never said this before to any other reader: Go read someone else's blog. Your eyeballs are not welcome here. Any future comments of yours will be zorched as soon as they come to my attention.

Your plate is broken. Asshole.

Eck! said...


Don't ever call me a republican! Them's fightin words.

Briefly, there is no filibuster here. you got to say your piece. You became
abusive and made yourself history. If you want to see true moderation go
visit ANY anti-gun site. Say one gun positive word that does not fit their
rubric you will not be seen, ever.

First, your not creative. Second, You are doing nothing useful. Third, if you wish to surrender rights I can suggest a number of countries that might suit you need. Forth, learn what the existing laws are both federal and state and then
say whats inadequate before you suggest things that if anything are law now.
Fifth, argumentum ad hominem, is a losers attack.

Why do anti-gun people become so edgy and aggressive?


CenterPuke88 said...

Comrade, on the Product X issue. I'm on board, but concerned that we let a genie out of the bottle here. I'm far from anti-gun, but I'm not sold on the only guns will save us from our own government argument some make (not accusing you).

I suspect that some of the weapons out there shouldn't have been distributed as widely as they have, and yes I'm very uncomfortable with the slippery slope here. The simple fact is that Republicans opened Pandora's Box when they pushed for as much freedom in weapons as they could WHILE destroying our Mental Health System. They are now reaping what they sowed, and unfortunately we are all in the line of fire.

I cringe when I listen to Gov. Perry pronouncements on guns in schools and such. The simple fact is that it is very likely that armed teachers would result in more injured or killed student than attacks like Sandy Hook. Gun handling is an inherently risky business, and one that can be managed by strict handling procedures but not made completely safe. The problem is most teachers or administrators are not trained to do this, those that would be willing and were trained would then fact a very difficult schedule to maintain proficiency and skill. Even then, human nature takes over and eventually an error is made in handling.

For examples see police officer, federal officers, and airline pilots who carry and discharge weapons in error. Then multiply those numbers because of the paucity of these personnel vs the number of teachers that would be likely involved.

But I think we have exhausted the gun question and we both understand that the mental health issue is the elephant in the room on this matter. Eck!, thank you also for your well reasoned comments.

I must also say that I find Allan's explanation reasonable and after re-reading his posts I find them only mildly offensive and reasonably well composed...perhaps he's worth keeping, his jab wasn't unreasonable after looking at the data (and after all he only suggested it was a Republican tactic, he didn't directly call either of you republican). HOWEVER, I will also say to Allan that I find making that comment publicly was unwise and at least moderately offensive, but at least he took his spanking like a man.

Comrade Misfit said...

When I started high school, they had a rifle club. Some of the participants brought their rifles to school, on the school bus, when they had practice and/or events. You could buy anything from handguns to anti-tank rifles by mail-order, with as much paperwork as buying a set of tires or two pairs of blue jeans. So no, I don't concede the point that the GOP has "expanded the freedom" to purchase weapons.

(On a side note: There are other blog administrators who allow people to post on their blogs. FWIW, Eck! has posting privileges here for emergency reasons, something I thought about after William the Coroner's untimely passing, not to mention Neptunus Lex. Lex is a good example, for he had granted another person blog-writing rights for just such an occurrence.

(But the discussion on this particular matter is closed.)

Comrade Misfit said...

I don't believe that the Banished One was an American citizen.

CenterPuke88 said...

I understand, your ball...your rules...and I like the rules.

I'm not trying to get a concession on the loosening, I just phrased rather poorly my believe that the Republican view and push on guns has greatly expanded the number of people who own "black guns" of some sort. I'd like a better term, but Assault Weapons is, as pointed out, a made-up, very inaccurate, term. I know because I work with a whole bunch of them, and while most are relatively rational and normal, I suspect the FAA deliberately likes borderline whack-jobs as controllers.

I read a study that showed pilots and controllers had similar results on psychological tests, with the pilots a little more extreme. The one big difference was that controllers, as a group, were much more likely to indicate a strong preference to be a member of a sheriff's posse, chasing down a wrong-doer.

I cannot match your legal knowledge and background, but I just wish we could have a safer society. However, I also remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on that matter. The suggestion that an armed society is a polite society is, I suspect, a libertarian pipe-dream. We see then number of people who cannot be trusted to resist impulses increase and consequences seem to be a distant dream.

On that note, and back to planes, have you ever visited one of the Centers?