Disarming America: How it would go down

[seamusTX]

The retail price of gasoline is a lot more complicated than the number of new U.S. domestic wells drilled. Actual production from a particular well is not predictable.

U.S. production has increased over the past year, mostly from existing terrestrial wells.

Refining capacity is also an important factor. When the retail price of gasoline was below $3 in 2010, the refiners openly stated that they could not earn a profit at that price, and they began to curtail production. (It stuck in my mind because they were so forthright about it.)

The nationwide average retail price of gasoline was about $1.40 the day that George W. Bush took office. It peaked around $4.11 in July 2008 and was about $1.85 on Pres. Bush's last day in office.

I don't think he had the power to control pump prices. I don't think anyone does.

Pres. Obama may well want to see higher gas prices, decreased gas consumption, and increased use of public transportation. However, public transportation is largely local, municipal or county level. Most of the funds are local. They are supplemented by federal block grants that are determined by formulas legislated under previous congresses.

This would be largely irrelevant to the discussion of gun control except to illustrate how difficult it is for the federal government to accomplish goals across multiple administrations and congresses controlled by different parties and personalities (speakers of the house, etc.) every eight years or more frequently.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

The retail price of gasoline is a lot more complicated than the number of new U.S. domestic wells drilled. Actual production from a particular well is not predictable.

U.S. production has increased over the past year, mostly from existing terrestrial wells.

Refining capacity is also an important factor. When the retail price of gasoline was below $3 in 2010, the refiners openly stated that they could not earn a profit at that price, and they began to curtail production. (It stuck in my mind because they were so forthright about it.)

The nationwide average retail price of gasoline was about $1.40 the day that George W. Bush took office. It peaked around $4.11 in July 2008 and was about $1.85 on Pres. Bush's last day in office.

I don't think he had the power to control pump prices. I don't think anyone does.

Pres. Obama may well want to see higher gas prices, decreased gas consumption, and increased use of public transportation. However, public transportation is largely local, municipal or county level. Most of the funds are local. They are supplemented by federal block grants that are determined by formulas legislated under previous congresses.

This would be largely irrelevant to the discussion of gun control except to illustrate how difficult it is for the federal government to accomplish goals across multiple administrations and congresses controlled by different parties and personalities (speakers of the house, etc.) every eight years or more frequently.

- Jim

There are people in his administration, particularly in the area of energy policy, who have publicly stated the exact goal I have postulated. We may be extracting more oil from existing wells, but it isn't keeping up with demand, is it? We are not drilling new wells on active oilfields, and we are drilling no wells on undeveloped oil fields. If we were doing all these things, we would soon be importing no oil ("soon" meaning like in the next decade or so). We possess the untapped reserves and the technology to reach them, but we aren't doing that. Under an Obama presidency, we never will. Sadly, Dubya wasn't much better in that regard. That doesn't change the current reality. Rather than using energy policy as a means to grow the economy, create jobs, lower energy prices (in a general way) across the entire spectrum of energy types, including oil and gas, the current administration is using energy policy to tear down capitalism and remake the nation's economy according to their socialist vision. Res ipsa loquitur.

Edited to add: I didn't mean to derail this thread's topic. But my energy illustration points to the simple fact that the Obama administration may not have been willing to overtly tackle the 2nd Amendment third rail of politics, but is anybody foolish enough to believe that they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it? I don't think so. Their stated goal is to remake America. ALL of it. I don't like what they stand for.

[seamusTX]

We may be extracting more oil from existing wells, but it isn't keeping up with demand, is it?

Sure it is. I haven't seen a gas line since 1979.

Like most people my age and older, I remember going on joy rides in a V-8 that got 10 MPG when gasoline cost 33¢ a gallon. That is ancient history now. Then we had the two oil embargoes, true shortages, gas lines, and even fights and shootings at gas pumps.

Supply and demand doesn't mean that the price is what you want to pay—we all want to pay as little as possible—it means the price you are willing to pay. In many cases that also implies more economical driving patterns and more efficient vehicles.

The U.S. imports roughly 50% of the oil that it consumes. Much of that comes from Canada and Mexico, which for logistical reasons may make more sense than drilling new wells in remote U.S. territory (just as Alaskan oil is exported to the Far East).

We would have to double domestic production to eliminate imports. Every administration since Nixon has had the goal of reducing oil imports, and every one has failed to do more than nibble around the margins. (However, we now get far more passenger miles per gallon, and consumption of other types of energy is also far more efficient. We would be in deep Kimchi if that were not the case.)

Neither the federal government nor the president can control these things neatly. There are too many competing interests and individual people and businesses making billions of separate decisions every day.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

We may be extracting more oil from existing wells, but it isn't keeping up with demand, is it?

Sure it is. I haven't seen a gas line since 1979.

Are you seriously saying that we import no oil, and domestic production meets all of the nation's demand? When I say "WE," I mean domestic production. WE are NOT keeping up with demand; hence our need to import oil.

When our domestic prices are no longer directly tied to what a bunch of desert sheiks want to collectively extort from us, WE may not be completely insulated from price surges, but neither will WE be entirely at their mercy. And it isn't just drilling issues, we have refining issues also. And we're behind in developing nuclear plants, or "clean coal" plants, or any of that. Luddites have us at their mercy, FAR out of proportion to their actual voting numbers.

[seamusTX]

Are you seriously saying that we import no oil, and domestic production meets all of the nation's demand?

Of course not. I'm not stupid.

The U.S. has been importing oil since people figured out oil was good for something. We import a lot of other things—including firearms and ammunition. Often the imports are more economical for many reasons.

If it made economic sense to eliminate oil imports, it would have happened already. Inflation-adjusted energy costs may well be lower now than they were when gas cost 33¢ a gallon. It takes fewer hours of work to pay for a $50 tank of gas now than it did decades ago to pay for a $10 tank of gas.

This discussion seems to be getting off topic.

- Jim

[Gyrogearhead]

We may be extracting more oil from existing wells, but it isn't keeping up with demand, is it?

Sure it is. I haven't seen a gas line since 1979.

Are you seriously saying that we import no oil, and domestic production meets all of the nation's demand? When I say "WE," I mean domestic production. WE are NOT keeping up with demand; hence our need to import oil.

When our domestic prices are no longer directly tied to what a bunch of desert sheiks want to collectively extort from us, WE may not be completely insulated from price surges, but neither will WE be entirely at their mercy. And it isn't just drilling issues, we have refining issues also. And we're behind in developing nuclear plants, or "clean coal" plants, or any of that. Luddites have us at their mercy, FAR out of proportion to their actual voting numbers.

The question is do we want to be self sufficient producers of oil?

Consider that oil is a "non-renewable" resource. When it's gone, it's all gone. Yet we can't keep Betty Bimbo and Joe Sixpac from hauling four tons of iron two miles to the 7-11 for a pack of smokes when they should have waited for a weekly trip to the grocery for everything else. A lot of people are just "users" and cannot be changed. I see the same thing all over Europe every summer where gas is upwards of eight-fifty a gallon (Nov 2011 in Germany). Fuel price and the consequencies to future generations doesn't ever enter into these peoples stream of consciousness. The fact that wasting oil on frivilous trips now means no more plastic for cell phones or rayon for clothes when the oil runs out is not on the radar. On the other hand when it all runs out there will be a lot fewer "T-shirt" bags drifting around and caught in treetops.

With that in mind I'd rather be the last nation that runs out of "home grown" oil than the first to run out.

Just a thought.

Gerry

[tacticool]

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the political will existed to "ban guns" in the United States (which it does not), the deed would not be done by storm troopers going door to door. This would cause a constitutional crisis; and after the first week, no one could be paid enough to go on a likely suicide mission.

They didn't go door to door when they passed the National Firearms Act originally, and they wouldn't have to go door to door if they added all firearms to the registry, especially if they did it step by step. Many residents of this country have lost the American spirit and would comply with the unconstitutional law, same as they comply with the millions of other unconstitutional laws already on the books.

Make a few high profile examples. Maybe Horiuchi can teach a seminar on how to mow down women holding babies in their arms.

[seamusTX]

They didn't go door to door when they passed the National Firearms Act originally, and they wouldn't have to go door to door if they added all firearms to the registry, especially if they did it step by step.

This is pretty much the point that I am trying to make.

They never went door-to-door for booze or drugs, either.

After making something illegal, they can just pick up the people who become visible to law enforcement. That would include those who protest, talk too much, use a firearm to defend themselves, or possibly end up with LEOs in their home for another reason, such as a fire or medical emergency.

- Jim

[ELB]

WRT to trying to back-door ban guns by restricting where guns can be fired, taxing ammo, and he like...

This of course has already been tried, and is in effect in some areas. US Army Corps of Engineer lands come to mind, as does federal property in general. Cities bannin shooting ranges in the city. etc etc, and many places charge outrageous fees for gun licenses, ammo registries, banning internet sales/requiring face-to-face sales, banning gun shows etc. (Texas among them). So far this has not progressed far enough to stop gun ownership, altho it severely crimped in some locations.

However, the post-Heller push in both lawsuits and laws are pushing not only to expand what guns can be had where, but to tackle back-door efforts to burden the exercise of 2A rights. The law allowing concealed carry in national parks and wildlife refuges was a modest step, but in the right direction. McDonald expanded Heller beyond DC, and Ezell vs City of Chicago is a significant effort (which I posted about but seemed to elicit little attention -- not sure why, this is a biggie, I think). In Ezell, Chicago tried to ban shooting ranges and is not only getting sued for it, but the 7th Circuit actually lectured them pretty heavily about trying to burden an individual right. (A key point is that the Court itself compared restrictions on the 2A to restrictions on the 1A.) The effort to keep CA counties from banning gunshows on county property didn't payoff, IIRC, but also IIRC this was pre-Heller, and probably something that can be tackled again. I believe that Illinois is being challenged in court for its ban on concealed carry.

While I think what was in the OP was in fact the most likely/effective scenario towards banning guns, I don't think it is likely to be effective in the near future. Currently, the tide is running the other way. The Brady bunch keeps trumpeting that somehow they are "winning," Charlie Sheen style I guess even as their organization shrinks and their budget runs dry.

The danger of the tide turning lies with the possibility that Obama gets a second term (or we get another Dem for prez) and he gets to replace some of the more coherent members of the SCOTUS with Laurence Tribe or worse. Even now the left is trying to get Ginsburg to throw herself under the bus, or at least check into an old folks home, President Perry/Palin/Cain/Whoever can't get another righty on the court.


Oh, WRT to oil: The US does not actually rely on a bunch of sheikh for its imported oil. Most imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico, I think Saudi Arabia is next, Nigeria and Venezuela. (The problem for the US is that Europe and Japan DO rely on a bunch of sheikhs for oil). As a long term strategy I think it makes sense to burn everyone else's oil before our own, but the problem is we need to have our own robust oil supply system so we have buffer against foreign upheavals and problems, but we don't. The Democratic Party has done everything in its power to hamstring "Big Oil," mostly using environmental laws and regulations. For example, we haven' built a new US refinery in about 30 years, and the ones we have run fairly close to capacity, so when a fire or Katrina happens, it really jerks the domestic chain. Just to make it more interesting, the patchwork of local and state environmental laws dictate something like 57 different blends of gasoline, so when there is a shortage in one part of the country, any surplus elsewhere cannot be used to make it up. And many other problems abound, most of which are of our own making, not the sheikhs.

[ELB]

Oh,btw, I do not think the $200 NFA tax is what keeps private citizens from owning handgrenades. $200 was a huge some in 1934, but not now. There are lots of NFA firearms, mostly SBRs I think, out there, and if anything they are more popular than ever.

The NFA is something the needs to be eliminated, however,along with the ATF.

[seamusTX]

However, the post-Heller push in both lawsuits and laws are pushing not only to expand what guns can be had where, but to tackle back-door efforts to burden the exercise of 2A rights. The law allowing concealed carry in national parks and wildlife refuges was a modest step, but in the right direction. McDonald expanded Heller beyond DC, and Ezell vs City of Chicago is a significant effort (which I posted about but seemed to elicit little attention -- not sure why, this is a biggie, I think).

I agree that progress, while frustrating in some areas, has been on the side of the RKBA.

I think it's most important that it has gone in three areas: public opinion, legislation, and court decisions. That is a much more solid basis for social change than a narrow court decision.

While I think what was in the OP was in fact the most likely/effective scenario towards banning guns, I don't think it is likely to be effective in the near future.

I don't think it's likely even to be attempted in the foreseeable future. The political climate is very much against it.

I only wanted to point out that it would not likely be brute-force disarmament.

I agree that the weakest point in the pro-RKBA strategy is the narrowly divided U.S. Supreme Court. However, they have created precedents, and precedents tend to stand until a change in federal law or a constitutional amendment (unlikely) makes the ruling irrelevant.

I do not think the $200 NFA tax is what keeps private citizens from owning handgrenades. $200 was a huge some in 1934, but not now. There are lots of NFA firearms, mostly SBRs I think, out there, and if anything they are more popular than ever.

Short-barreled rifles and shotgun have a legitimate civilian use (not that being useful is a legal requirement), and the tax is paid only once. They also come through the same channels as other civilian weapons.

Hand grenades can't be used anywhere except a large parcel of private property, and they cost $200 per bang. Even if legally owned under NFA, they are strictly illegal under many state laws. I have never seen or heard of them for sale anywhere.

In other words, they are virtually banned for all but a few people who can jump through the hoops to own one.

- Jim

[Gyrogearhead]

For those of us who are semi-literate, what does RKBA stand for???

[seamusTX]

The right to keep and bear arms.

I prefer to use RKBA because "gun rights" is inaccurate, referring to a thing rather than a right of persons. Also I avoid using "2nd amendment" as a catch-all term for the right to keep and bear arms, because the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution is only one acknowledgment of the God-given right to self defense. Other states had (and still have) stronger RKBA clauses, and the RKBA existed in common and British law centuries earlier.

- Jim

[Weg]

Let me try to explain this in different terms.

People don't like it when the state takes away something that they possess. Americans are not too fond even of getting their cars registered or inspected, renewing their driver licenses, filing income tax returns, etc.

However, the government can more easily crimp off the supply of something that is difficult or expensive to manufacture or import. This does not always work. It did not work with alcohol, marijuana, heroin, etc.; but you can't find DDT or absinthe these days.

- Jim

DDT got a bad rap.