By now, I hope you are aware of threats by California Democrat Rep. Swalwell to use nuclear weapons to enforce gun control laws (newsletter subscribers will get an early look at a detail column on the subject; others will wait until Tuesday).
He’s trying to walk back the threat as sarcasm (it wasn’t) or hyperbole to demonstrate that the government has gun owners out-gunned.
Nonetheless, he is working on the assumption that military personnel will be willing to — illegally — exercise overwhelming military force, including Weapons of Mass Destruction, against American civilians to enforce gun control laws.
Swalwell has now upped the ante by suggesting that military personnel would go so far as to conduct nuclear weapon strikes against Americans for the sake of gun control.
I would like to limit this poll to current military personnel and veterans. I suggest reviewing the Posse Comitatus Act before taking the poll.
Please share this poll, to reach as many people as possible. If limited to regular TZP readers, I expect I’ll see a strong bias in responses.
The Question: “The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms (“assault weapons”). A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.”
Our new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, has been sworn in after a highly contentious confirmation process. The majority of the media attention — Left, Right, and that which tries to limit bias — was focused on his character, as defined by — admit it — unsubstantiated allegations.* To the extent that his judicial history has been adressed, that has largely been limited to Roe vs. Wade, and to a lesser degree Second Amendment issues. For better or worse, Kavanaugh will be ruling on cases.
Update: PollDaddy keeps duplicating the 2A response for some reason. I’ve even gone back and deleted the one, and it comes back. On another poll, it deleted all my answers; I had to go back and reenter them. I think it’s time for a new poll service.
Recently, I’ve put a fair amount of my time into tracking bump-fire bans, new rulemaking and legislation alike. I’ve noticed thatrelatively few people seem to be speaking about the subject, and the majority of those who bring it up at all indicate that bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks, etc.) aren’t worth bothering with.
It has been noted that telephone surveys are probably a poor way of determining firearms ownership rates as gun owners are hesitant to tell random strangers what valuables they have in their homes, and — in the face of ongoing threats of more restrictive gun ownership laws — even less likely likely to tell the government.
Yet companies are marketing devices like smart televisions and electronic personal assistants that act as 24/7 audiovisual monitoring devices, and people appear to be snapping them up. Facebook is releasing “Portal,” a personal assistant optimized for social media and instantly communicating with family members like big brother.
All the data collected — potentially including imagery of personal possessions in your home, or discussions of such — by these devices is subject to scrutiny by the provider and “authorized” third parties, and to court subpoenas and warrants. As Internet-connected computers, they are also potentially vulnerable to third party hacking.
As a gun owner, would you buy and use one these devices?
When Donald Trump first started campaigning for President, many people were dubious of his new-found commitment to the right to keep and bear arms given his history on the subject: gun bans, preemptively prove your innocence, waiting periods, and more.
But once he hit the campaign trail he started talking a good game. The question was, could he walk as well as talk?
Assuming that the Trump administration is serious about draining the DC swamp (and we here at TZP disagree among ourselves on whether they’re serious or whether it’s even possible), at least some gun laws and regulations have got to change.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (of Aaron Zelman’s home state of Wisconsin) has introduced a bill to kill the ATF. But as TZP-friend Kit Perez points out, this poses extreme dangers from the ruthless, corrupt agency at the same time it creates hopes.
Others would like to focus on sending the NFA or GCA ’68 to well-deserved obscurity.
Still others are putting their best expectations and hard work into the increasingly popular (and brilliantly named) Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors from NFA status.
But one of the very biggest changes a lot of gun owners would like to see is legislation ensuring national CCW permit reciprocity. New Jovian Thunderbolt, on his popular gunblog, says if there can only be one pro-gun law included in the vast job of swamp draining, let it be this one.
Even if a reciprocity law didn’t bring all the benefits NJT hopes, there’s no doubt it would affect millions of gun owners and reduce the outrages that have been committed against innocent people who crossed state lines believing that their carry permit, like their drivers license, was valid anywhere.
Others (like yours truly) are suspicious of national reciprocity legislation for various reasons.
But given that a reciprocity bill probably has a decent chance of being passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Trump, what do you think? Is it a good idea? A bad idea? And why?