tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8474013399277915690..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Tucson and the "Magazine Problem"David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41042502282951764312011-01-29T21:08:56.421-08:002011-01-29T21:08:56.421-08:00Transit Glenn,
"The real problem with 'ta...Transit Glenn,<br /><i>"The real problem with 'tagged' rounds is that someone could simply mine a range" [...] I know it is cliche, but the "if you outlaw..." line applies here."</i><br /><br />That is possible, and I had considered it, but how many criminals manufacture their own ammunition? ID-hoaxing would likely only occur when someone is trying to frame a rival for a capital crime.<br /><br />(And I'm not dismissing it, even if those cases are rare, they need to be taken into account when weighing the pros and cons of the idea. There may be ways of getting the tags so they show if they've been re-used.)Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86217402044687518102011-01-28T21:30:09.403-08:002011-01-28T21:30:09.403-08:00The reason the 31rd mag was created was for the Gl...The reason the 31rd mag was created was for the Glock 18, a full auto pistol. It just happens to fit in the other 9mm Glocks. I keep one in my range bag so that I can load while someone is down range and spend more time firing when the range is clear, I find the mag a little silly otherwise (It is longer than the sidearm with the slide locked back.)<br /><br />The real problem with 'tagged' rounds is that someone could simply mine a range (collect lead from the trap or berm) and mold their own lead. Where is the tracking there? The lead I used, tagged to me is now in someone else's weapon.<br /><br />I know it is cliche, but the "if you outlaw..." line applies here. <br /><br />The rounds I use in my concealed sidearm are not the ones I target practice with. They are easily 5-6 years old. (Yes, I do use them, but slowly.)<br /><br />BSBG (big scary black guns) are just for 3 things, Military action, Target practice/fun, substitute penis. You shouldn't legislate away under-endowed men's penises. Hell, Viagra should be considered a 'recreational' drug right?<br /><br />Some caveats: I am a lifetime NRA member, I own a 31rd Glock mag, and consider myself Democrat/Libertarian/Independent in my political views.Transit Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076924326662692341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58947604614703111402011-01-26T20:02:57.088-08:002011-01-26T20:02:57.088-08:00The Tucson incident immediately brought to mind mu...The Tucson incident immediately brought to mind muckers from the brilliant book "Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35046239243735008062011-01-21T07:40:27.540-08:002011-01-21T07:40:27.540-08:00BBC article on knife crime controversy.
They may ...BBC article on knife crime controversy.<br /><br />They may not have meant to ban kitchen knives, but where do you draw the line?<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7497098.stm<br /><br /><em>After</em> they ban knives, they'll have to ban cricket bats, and then maybe rocks...BobWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60294388097254887872011-01-20T11:19:23.592-08:002011-01-20T11:19:23.592-08:00The what could it hurt argument is every bit as ba...The <i>what could it hurt</i> argument is every bit as bad as the <i>slippery slope</i> argument. <br /><br />To ban high capacity magazines would be a feelgood measure with no effect on the actual problem, but a real distraction from real solutions. It's also yet another straw added to the regulatory burden on the camel's back.BobWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84494158077937890522011-01-20T10:47:08.905-08:002011-01-20T10:47:08.905-08:00"I'm no huge fan of Michael Moore. But he..."I'm no huge fan of Michael Moore. But he was cogently surprised to find that Canadians are MORE armed than US citizens, on average. They are just more calm and likable... and less jibbering crazy.:"<br /><br />Could it be just just that Canada is less crowded? Crowding makes people crazy, just as much as isolation. It would be useful to plot gun crime against population density in each country.BobWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-980298919642505902011-01-18T02:46:28.208-08:002011-01-18T02:46:28.208-08:00It's often useful to obtain from a Second Amen...It's often useful to obtain from a Second Amendment supporter a theoretical point beyond which they will not go. That is, do they support the individual's right to possess one of these?<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scale_Rheinmetall_20_mm.JPG<br /><br />Or a SCUD missile?<br /><br />An atomic bomb?<br /><br />Let the arguer posit his own line of demarcation. Then it all becomes simply a question of scale. (Unless you are arguing with Vernor Vinge...)Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84389819789018829002011-01-13T09:09:52.382-08:002011-01-13T09:09:52.382-08:00"Tyler said, 'I still don't see how g...<i>"Tyler said, 'I still don't see how gun control takes away your second amendment rights. You can join a well-regulated militia at any time'"</i><br /><br /><br />This is in fact the interpretation that was most upheld by legal scholars and professionals until DC v Heller in 2008.<br /><br />Up until that point, NO private right to gun ownership was assumed to explicitly be anywhere in the Constitution. It was simply something people were allowed to do because no government had ever been elected that had taken that particular freedom away, much as can be said for driving, or owning pets, or flying planes, or playing sports, etc and so on.<br /><br /><i>Do you think that either of these are valid interpretations of the 2nd Amendment? Is gun ownership really confined to members of a "Well-organised militia"? Is there a "hunting clause" that I missed?</i><br /><br />There's no more a hunting clause than there is an insurrection clause. One is legal, the other is not. Both are addressed separately from the right to own firearms.<br /><br />What I "think", however, is irrelevant at this point.<br /><br />The relevant point is that you're making assertions about the correctness of various interpretations, treating them as fact, and then backing them up with absolutely nothing. This makes said assertions absolutely meaningless.<br /><br /><i>"Yet these two interpretations appear all the time, including in speeches by US congress-critters. It's widespread and goes largely uncorrected."</i><br /><br />You're right; it goes uncorrected because no one has presented the evidence to correct it. That includes you.<br /><br />In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was the one place in the Constitution that DID back a guarantee to the freedom to own firearms. Maybe the precedent will stick, maybe it won't, but even the Founding Fathers never had anything close to absolute agreement about the complete implications of the governing framework they set up, or how various laws and statements should be treated. <br /><br />Most simply give opinions and interpretations insofar as the framework allows. If you're going to claim that given opinions are <i>factually</i> right or wrong, however, then you are going to be held to the same standards as anyone else for backing up those facts. Thus far, acceptance of your thesis is not logically necessitated by anything you've presented.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10662962607798021332011-01-13T09:09:28.089-08:002011-01-13T09:09:28.089-08:00"Well, I'm not going to trawl through ano...<i>"Well, I'm not going to trawl through another country's constitutional law for a comment in a blog, and wouldn't expect anyone else to."</i><br /><br /><br />Nor would I, up to the point that one makes a comment that necessitates it.<br /><br />The nature of the forum isn't the issue here. It doesn't matter whether you're making an assertion in Nature, on CNN, on some random dude's blog, in a chat room, or even in an oral conversation (the last one being the most difficult); if you make an assertion, and treat it as fact, then you need to back it up with something more than "It's true, because I say so". If you do not, then you are committing a bare assertion fallacy.<br /><br />If you don't want to "trawl" through another nation's Constitution law, then you shouldn't be trying to make factual assertions about it in the first place. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />That isn't to say that you aren't welcome to discuss the topic, but regardless of the topic, or how any part of your origin may affect your familiarity with it, you are held to the same standards as anyone else, and must back any factual assertions you make, otherwise you shouldn't be making them.<br /><br /><br />It's no different than an assertion I made earlier about crimes committed with assault weapons. When asked for a source, I couldn't track down the source I originally read the claim from, so I retracted the claim, stating that I could no longer find the source. You are held to a standard that is no different.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74206704239388212342011-01-13T02:46:43.077-08:002011-01-13T02:46:43.077-08:00Corey,
"your weight of evidence is insufficie...Corey,<br /><i>"your weight of evidence is insufficient for you to characterize any other interpretation of the US Constitution as a "myth" or "misconception" "</i><br /><br />Well, I'm not going to trawl through another country's constitutional law for a comment in a blog, and wouldn't expect anyone else to.<br /><br />My original spiel was in response to two comments in a previous post:<br /><br />Tyler said, <i>"I still don't see how gun control takes away your second amendment rights. You can join a well-regulated militia at any time, Rob."</i><br /><br />Naum, quoting another writer, <i>"Every law-abiding citizen has the right to bear arms to hunt and protect his family. [...] and I don't think the Founding Fathers had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment."</i><br /><br />Do you think that either of these are valid interpretations of the 2nd Amendment? Is gun ownership really confined to members of a "Well-organised militia"? Is there a "hunting clause" that I missed?<br /><br />Yet these two interpretations appear all the time, including in speeches by US congress-critters. It's widespread and goes largely uncorrected.<br /><br />In the case of higher courts, I think it's a kind of knowing pretence, "rewriting" the text when making rulings. So bans on assault weapons are constitutional, but bans on handguns not. The literal text makes no such distinctions.<br /><br />(And that's not unusual. Australia has only two Constitutional rights. Trial by jury, and no-religious-test-for-office. There's nothing approaching a "Free Speech" clause. But the Federal High Court has struck down legislation on the basis that it violated the "Constitutionally implied" freedom of speech.)<br /><br />(Oh god my posts are getting longer and longer. Sorry, I can't do pithy. Wanna just let it die?)Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62912332446732701912011-01-12T22:37:25.312-08:002011-01-12T22:37:25.312-08:00I would add, that because your statements are noth...I would add, that because your statements are nothing more than valid opinion statements, at best, your weight of evidence is insufficient for you to characterize any other interpretation of the US Constitution as a "myth" or "misconception", that weight of evidence being essentially nonexistent.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85194978774593478942011-01-12T22:25:49.758-08:002011-01-12T22:25:49.758-08:00Paul, I think the bigger point here is simply that...Paul, I think the bigger point here is simply that your making assertions, treating them with certainty, and not offering one iota of backing beyond your own personal opinion on the matter.<br /><br />What you're doing here is a textbook case of a bare assertion fallacy.<br /><br />You can rationalize it any way you like, but nothing you've presented logically necessitates the acceptance of your thesis, and so while a valid opinion, insofar as any opinion is, your statements are far from anything that must be accepted as fact.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68374695254759048052011-01-12T21:32:33.186-08:002011-01-12T21:32:33.186-08:00@Paul
"...you insisted on the separate meanin...@Paul<br /><i>"...you insisted on the separate meaning of "Army" and "Militia" ..."</i><br /><br />There is no evidence to your claim that I "insisted on" such a distinction, just as there is no evidence backing up any of your other claims. <br /><br />On to other things.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19183747897649499672011-01-12T20:55:23.927-08:002011-01-12T20:55:23.927-08:00(Fourth attempt to post... I'll try killing th...(Fourth attempt to post... I'll try killing the link...)<br /><br />rewinn,<br /><i>"Don't quibble. A militia is a band of armed citizens. When some or all of the people take up arms, they are or become "a" militia."</i><br /><br />Now who's quibbling. When I previously used "army" in the generic sense (including the article 1 militia) you insisted on the separate meaning of "Army" and "Militia" in Article 1, Section 8. Okay fine, I'll use that. Now you want to use militia in the broadest dictionary definition. Not cool.<br /><br /><i>"You argue that the 2nd Amendment is about setting up a militia other than the Article 1 militia."</i><br /><br />Sigh. No, that's one of the two myths about the 2nd. Half claim it's about "hunting" or "home defence", or the other half talk about "forming a well-organised militia". I've seen both versions from commenters in the last two topics (hence my rants.)<br /><br />Because neither interpretation is consistent with the text.<br /><br />(Coincidently/spookily, today on my YouTube homepage recommended videos, Penn Jillette on the 2nd. Same interpretation; less prolix, more shouty. Penn & Teller, that's like a constitutional precedent isn't it?)<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM<br /><br /><i>"Do *I* go on and on about how *your* constitution mandates turning to stone when you are exposed to sunlight?"</i><br /><br />Sunlight interferes with our constitutionally guaranteed flooding. Though it aids our constitutionally guaranteed bushfires. Opinions vary.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6663995270952434232011-01-12T14:18:51.540-08:002011-01-12T14:18:51.540-08:00"My point is that there is no "2nd Amend...<i>"My point is that there is no "2nd Amendment Militia." The 2nd amendment is about the people taking up arms against the militia."</i><br /><br />Don't quibble.<br /><br />A militia is a band of armed citizens. When some or all of the people take up arms, they are or become "a" militia. <br /><br />You argue that the 2nd Amendment is about setting up a militia other than the Article 1 militia. It is uncommon and indeed refreshing to see such a wholly novel concept, but it would be even better to have a shred of proof to back it up.<br /><br />The major point is this: contrary to the claims of soi-disant constitutionalists, Article 1 specifies that the function of the people, armed, is to suppress insurrection. The Constitution authorizes revolution through the ballot box; any other means is unconstitutional.<br /><br />Most especially including the Palin/Angle "2nd Amendment Remedy."<br /> <br /><br /><i>"...Nor am I American"</i><br /><br />Well then what the heck are you doing making up stuff about our Constitution? Do *I* go on and on about how *your* constitution mandates turning to stone when you are exposed to sunlight?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46005708090692041282011-01-12T10:18:26.755-08:002011-01-12T10:18:26.755-08:00Corey,
"I'm curious, Paul, as to where yo...Corey,<br /><i>"I'm curious, Paul, as to where you're getting this information."</i><br /><br />Well, I'm sitting on it, if that helps.<br /><br /><i>"because what you're saying is that the Bill of Rights upholds the right of a person or people to commit treason"</i><br /><br />No, not actually committing.<br /><br />The moment you act, the government has just-cause to request warrants, conduct searches, make arrests, etc. All perfectly legit.<br /><br />Likewise, once a corrupt government stops paying at least lip-service to the constitution, it's either game over or civil war.<br /><br />But if you look at examples of factions usurping power, there's a period where they use existing legal structures to excise their opponents. Rounding up opposition politicians on trumped up charges. Seizing property, media, businesses. Removing unsympathetic judges, etc etc.<br /><br />The US Founding Fathers had just finished a revolution, just created a brand new system of government. They knew about the abuse of power, they knew that whoever controlled the military could control the country. But they couldn't ban the government from raising an army since you had loyal British colonies in the north, French and Spanish colonies in the south, and the whole European continent that would happily end your little experiment if you let them. So they needed a way of ensuring that domestic usurpers were restrained. That's the BoR. And that's why I believe it should only be interpreted in those terms.<br /><br />Now, I don't think the BoR (as I've interpreted it) is necessary <i>now</i> to protect US democracy. It could be scrapped or re-written to reflect modern democracy. But people (including the highest courts) have "re-written" it by simply pretending it says something it doesn't, and that pretence has led to some weird and convoluted rulings.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41120546155230517582011-01-12T09:20:29.888-08:002011-01-12T09:20:29.888-08:00I'm curious, Paul, as to where you're gett...I'm curious, Paul, as to where you're getting this information.<br /><br />It's certainly not a paradigm upheld by mainstream legal scholars. I actually just took a political science course only about six months ago, with a professor who loved to cover various perspectives on Constitutional law, and he didn't even so much as mention the idea that any of the Bill of Rights exists for the purpose you suggest.<br /><br />The Surpreme Court has also never issued a ruling that supports this interpretation. In fact, they never issued any kind of clear ruling until DC v Heller, which says nothing of the sort.<br /><br /><br />I'm not surprised that the Supreme Court has made no such ruling, because what you're saying is that the Bill of Rights upholds the right of a person or people to commit treason, as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.<br /><br /><br />The Clear and Present Danger test established in Schenck v United States clearly shows that the First Amendment cannot be used to incite lawless actions, and while the case was overturned by Brandenburg v Ohio, that case simply established the Imminent Lawless Action test, which still says that the First Amendment cannot be used to incite lawless actions, merely a slightly clarified way.<br /><br /><br />There is no indication, at all, that the Bill of Rights supports mass treason, insofar as I'm aware. Furthermore, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. No government who's actions warrant armed revolution in the first place is going to say "Oh, okay guys, I guess we have to let you rise up against us, because the Bill of Rights says so". The Founding Fathers honestly had a hard time agreeing on much of anything, but none of them were THAT oblivious.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14876148108428557132011-01-12T02:00:19.411-08:002011-01-12T02:00:19.411-08:00rewinn,
"and another set of 2nd Amendment Mil...rewinn,<br /><i>"and another set of 2nd Amendment Militias to be [an] insurrection."</i><br /><br />Errr, either you misread what I wrote, or I miswrote what you read.<br /><br />My point is that there is no "2nd Amendment Militia." The 2nd amendment is about the people taking up arms <i>against</i> the militia.<br /><br />The first part of the text, "A well-organised militia being necessary..." is not prescriptive, it's apologetic.<br /><br />The 2nd amendment (in fact, the whole freakin' bill of rights) is about ensuring that You The People have the tools to rise up against the government if democracy fails; if the government, the courts, and the militia are used against you.<br /><br />The myths around the bill of rights have allowed people to pretend that the amendments refer to comparatively minor issues. Like porn, hunting, traffic-stops, etc. Whereas the <i>actual</i> limits inherent in the BoR are so far beyond, those other issues shouldn't even be in question.<br /><br /><i>"And as a practical matter, if you can't win with ballots, you're not going to win with bullots,"</i><br /><br />I agree. As I said, I'm to the left of most or all posters here. Nor am I American. So I don't "believe" in the US Bill of Rights, particularly not the 2nd Amendment. But I think people in the US are in a state of denial, pretending that the BoR doesn't say what it says.<br /><br />If the US actually had to live with the BoR <i>as intended</i>, I think most people (left and right) would be calling for its removal.<br /><br />(Sigh. Another long boring rant...)<br /><br />Re: Pigeon Season.<br /><br />Hmmm, with the advances in aerial robotics, a reusable self-guided kinetic skewer should be possible in a few years. It'd work like one of those robo-vacuums, just turn it on when you head to work. And periodically clear out the dead pigeon bin.<br /><br />(When I say I'm to the left, obviously I took three rights...)Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83965137547966922232011-01-11T23:50:37.776-08:002011-01-11T23:50:37.776-08:00"we are crazy"
Probably. But it was en..."we are crazy"<br /><br />Probably. But it was entirely predictable. In anecdotal news, I can't find an online retailer that still has high-cap Glock magazines in stock in any caliber, and quite a lot of the Beretta and Sig-Sauer equivalents are getting hard to find, as well. Some gun-nut forums I follow indicate that at least some of them are being snapped up in speculation that not only will there be a ban, but it will be like the last one (where only new ones were prohibited, and pre-ban models were still legal), and they'll sell for 5x as much on eBay and at gun shows.<br /><br />According to the same forums, at least one manufacturer has already started ramping up production, trying to crank out as many as possible. And I'd expect KelTec Sub2000 and Beretta CX4 pistol-caliber carbines to get snapped up, as well.<br /><br />There's been a bill submitted in the House by a New York dem to ban the high-cap magazines, but I doubt very strongly it makes it out of committee. Another by a Republican to ban carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a member of Congress if you're not law enforcement.Dave Rickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02567136316289610947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76374419522329565752011-01-11T17:17:08.458-08:002011-01-11T17:17:08.458-08:00One of the more interesting videos I saw was the u...One of the more interesting videos I saw was the use of a slinky as a squirrel repellent device. It took the squirrel a dozen tries before it finally was able to bypass the slinky. Damn but those critters are tenacious and getting smarter all the time. ^^;;<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38684107674566362792011-01-11T15:12:17.734-08:002011-01-11T15:12:17.734-08:00What you need against squirrels is a point defence...What you need against squirrels is a point defence system on the bird feeder. Something like that wasp killing thingummy from 'Earth'.<br /><br />(I remember a UK documentary on the tenacity of squirrels when faced with an increasingly complex system of getting at the goodies.)<br /><br />pestrac: see aboveTony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12606956261961221102011-01-11T14:42:52.517-08:002011-01-11T14:42:52.517-08:00eek
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock...eek<br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-11/glock-pistol-sales-surge-in-aftermath-of-shooting-of-arizona-s-giffords.html<br /><br />we are crazyDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13907286161704511762011-01-11T12:34:38.634-08:002011-01-11T12:34:38.634-08:00Semiautomatic weapons are useless against pigeons....Semiautomatic weapons are useless against pigeons. For those I advocate the use of fully automatic shotguns to spray an entire region with steel buckshot to ensure that the airborne vermin are exterminated. ;)<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60750923672635986982011-01-11T12:23:18.829-08:002011-01-11T12:23:18.829-08:00@Rob H - I'm with you on the squirrels. Cheeky...@Rob H - I'm with you on the squirrels. Cheeky devils get away with it only because they're cute. But at least they don't poop like pigeons. Would you consider expanding the Assault Weapon Hunting Exception to include pigeons?rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81491411157614290072011-01-11T12:20:50.256-08:002011-01-11T12:20:50.256-08:00@Paul - nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment s...@Paul - nothing in the text of the 2nd Amendment supports your claim.<br /><br />In fact, the phrase "well-regulated Militia" is opposed to your claim, as is the explicit purpose of Militia as originally specified in the Constitution, Article 1. Section 8: “…to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”<br />That’s right – the 2nd Amendment’s “well-regulated Militia” is *not* to protect The People against an oppressive central government but to suppress insurrectionists and to fight off the Russkys (“Wolveriiiines!).<br /><br />It seems very unlikely that our Founders were so stupid as to set up one system of Article 1 Militias to suppress insurrection, and another set of 2nd Amendment Militias to be insurrection. Surely so extraordinary division of powers would have been explicitly evidenced *somewhere*. To the contrary ... odd as it may seem in this era of shouting ... our Founders really did seem to believe in democracy.<br /><br />And as a practical matter, if you can't win with ballots, you're not going to win with bullots, especially when the government has such a huge head start. We won our Revolution thanks to the Atlantic Ocean and the French Navy, neither of which would help domestic insurrectionists against D.C..<br /><br />===<br />Otherwise, with respect to RFID or ID, it sounds like you’re proposing “taggants” which IIRC, were proposed after Oklahoma City terrorist attack and defeated by the NRA. It might be worth trying again only because it’s a rational measure, although not really applicable to the question of mentally ill people with 30-shot magazines.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.com