Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem


Prompted by another posting here I ran this down

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743


I intended to Rule 5 it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals )

But on the way I found some internet flotsom that beat me to it:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2168850/posts


not sure what to make of the professors intent.

best money shot so far :

"What we need is Law Professor control."

but this may be unfair.

Some commentators think this is a reductio ad absurdum

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and I am inclined to agree, but it is long established that liberalism is immune to further reduction ( that means it already as absurd as it can get ).

Good luck Rule 5 ing this ..

The interesting thing it brings up to me is that, hypothetically speaking, townships and states that wish to enforce more gun control could just be outright legislative assholes to gun/accessory manufacturers in their state.

Think of what's going on with Magpul currently, and imagine if the state of Colorado were actively trying to push Magpul out of state. They could totally screw them on zoning laws, business inspections, tax audits, or even just new legislation that made gun manufacture illegal within x miles of a school zone (where x is a number 1 less than the number of miles from a school they actually are.)

I'm surprised Illinois hasn't done anything like this.

bmelton said:

The interesting thing it brings up to me is that, hypothetically speaking, townships and states that wish to enforce more gun control could just be outright legislative assholes to gun/accessory manufacturers in their state.

Think of what's going on with Magpul currently, and imagine if the state of Colorado were actively trying to push Magpul out of state. They could totally screw them on zoning laws, business inspections, tax audits, or even just new legislation that made gun manufacture illegal within x miles of a school zone (where x is a number 1 less than the number of miles from a school they actually are.)

I'm surprised Illinois hasn't done anything like this.

Click to expand...

I am not. Such laws are often on thin ice in general,and if you show malice it makes it hard to claim legitimate interests. And the jobs will go somewhere like Texas.

Often the threat of action is enough to get them out anyway.. so no need.
Personally I think all gun related industries should relocate to friendly states, but I do not want employee hurt. In time it will happen on its own.

I couldn't get a bead on this guys position either. At first I thought he was anti but the more I read through it the more he seems to make the case against gun control. I like the objectivity and seemingly impartial perspective.

A lot of very interesting points were covered but these stood out to me.

"If confiscation produces quick and dramatic reductions in gun crime, it will make less sense to risk buying or keeping a contraband gun. But if confiscation tracks the curve of similar efforts in other countries and actually correlates with an increase in violent crime, then many will calculate that the state has not provided an adequate substitute for private firearms, and they will more likely defy confiscation."

And the pertinent matter of SB281:

"However, for people who believe they will resist confiscation, registration is the ball game. They should view registration as the precursor to confiscation for several reasons. The progression from registration to confiscation actually has occurred both domestically and internationally. The evolution of supply controls in Washington, D.C., New York City, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, England, Canada, and Australia illustrates that registration is an important precursor to any viable confiscation plan.

Without registration, confiscation ultimately requires a house- by-house search—a tactic that seems unworkable, both logistically and constitutionally. Registration avoids affronts to the Fourth Amendment. An official record of title connecting an individual with a particular gun is a fair basis for demanding surrender of the gun and perhaps for searching the record owner’s home if the gun is not turned in.

Imagine a confiscation scheme not preceded by registration. How do we determine who has the guns? The best uniform information now available is in the federal Firearms Transaction Record form (form 4473) filled out by retail purchasers."

You listening Mr Frosh? We know what you're up to.

This article is a MUST READ...it says everything you wanted to know about the current MD legislation SB281 and HB294.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743

Registration = Confiscation

Great Find.

Brooklyn said:

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem


Prompted by another posting here I ran this down

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743


I intended to Rule 5 it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals )

But on the way I found some internet flotsom that beat me to it:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2168850/posts


not sure what to make of the professors intent.

best money shot so far :

"What we need is Law Professor control."

but this may be unfair.

Some commentators think this is a reductio ad absurdum

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and I am inclined to agree, but it is long established that liberalism is immune to further reduction ( that means it already as absurd as it can get ).

Good luck Rule 5 ing this ..

Click to expand...

it also outline the practical real world steps and challenges the antis would have to take, and the generarions of effort it would require, to get all the guns from law abiding citizens and do it right the first time.

yesn the article describes some of the gun control proponents holy grails as difficult and impractical, but that is the reality of enslavement. its does not stop at those points, but continues to outline the steps needed to accomplish their goal.

there is a long thread on this article iirc from years ago here on md shooters.

hogrider said:

This article is a MUST READ...it says everything you wanted to know about the current MD legislation SB281 and HB294.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743

Registration = Confiscation

Great Find.

Click to expand...

Was not me, first reference here was another member he should get the credit...

I will try and find the reference.....

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=107131&highlight=imagining

And it was jaybeez above

Good find.

Brooklyn said:

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem


Prompted by another posting here I ran this down

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743


I intended to Rule 5 it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals )

But on the way I found some internet flotsom that beat me to it:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2168850/posts


not sure what to make of the professors intent.

best money shot so far :

"What we need is Law Professor control."

but this may be unfair.

Some commentators think this is a reductio ad absurdum

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and I am inclined to agree, but it is long established that liberalism is immune to further reduction ( that means it already as absurd as it can get ).

Good luck Rule 5 ing this ..

Click to expand...

So far his purpose remains opaque


As a counter factual he desolves Heller, but somehow thinks the constitution can stand untouched, this suggests,twice, ( once for Heller, and once for the 2a,that he can not be serious.Which provides support for the "Law professor Control" thesis i shared with you before.I presume that "overcoming all political obstacles to confiscation" would include 2a repeal so I need not mark him down a third time. As a short vesrion " if the U.S, were some other country' would cover the first few pages nicely.

Then he proceedes to prove, via a thought experiment worthy Searle's Chinese room argument ( in which he 'proves' that a man in a room speaking Chinese is not the same as a room without a man that is speaking Chinese an that therefore rooms can never be said to speak Chinese -- a vote in favor of philosophy professor control; and no I am not making this up), that a gun crime without a gun is not a gun crime. Those of us to use the term logic its conventional and correct way know this a proving a tautology. And we know not to bother. In real life this is called circular reasoning. Yet he declines to prove the one point that would help the case he may or may not be making ; the claim than non gun crime is somehow better than gun crime. Here he may be falling into the trap of 'guns are more deadly', but a lack of proof or offer of proof leaves open the possibility that the professor only feels it necessary to prove non empirical claims. If he is serious, this a strong argument for 'law professor control". At this point I was compeled to check that the publication date was not 1 April, but I still do not know his intent. If he his on our side of the debate I am not sure how much help he will be as he has conceded a great deal. Our opposition loves to quote selectively and out of context.

<work in progress>