gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:17 AM

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:54 AM (First off: Yes, yes, I understand that guns are constitutionally protected and cigarettes/ booze/whatever are not, so it’s not exactly apples to apples, but indulge me for a second&hellip

gearboy - 2012-12-12 9:38 AM

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

The big difference, I think, is that, unlike alcohol, the gun lobby staunchly and unwaveringly defends the position that guns are not, in and of themselves, dangerous at all. That is it only the user who is dangerous, and that there is no merit whatsoever to the suggestion that fewer guns will have any effect on the amount of gun violence. If anything, they and others (like JC in Cinci above, for example) frequently suggest that, if only there were more people with guns that tragedies like this one, or Colorado, or VA Tech or Columbine might have been prevented. The liquor lobby (to the extent that there is one), at least cops to the fact that alcohol when used irresponsibly, can have dangerous and even deadly consequences and they say so publicly, even in forums that are not necessarily targeted specifically to drinkers (“Please drink responsibly” appears on every beer commercial, regardless of when it runs, etc.) By contrast, the gun lobby seems to me to take the approach that every gun owner is a responsible citizen enjoying his constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and, it seems to me, that any discussion of limiting that right in any way, outside of banning military weapons and certain ammunition or modifications, is pretty much a non-starter. I’ve never seen an ad from the NRA or any other pro-gun group on any broad public medium saying something similar about guns.

What is interesting to me is that when I was growing up (in the last century), I thought of the NRA primarily as an organization that was focused on teaching gun safety (for all purposes - hunting, self defense, target shooting). It seems that it became more of a political entity focused on the most extreme positions some time later. Maybe I was just naiive in my youth? Can anyone else see a change in the role of the NRA in the last 50-60 years?

If they were doing what I thought they did in my youth, they would indeed be promoting the use of guns but also the safety isses (e.g. "guns are serious business and should always been treated as loaded. Please handle responsibly") instead of the more common approach of "The democrats are coming to take our guns away!" that they seem to be associated with now.

I can't answer your question but I can say at the gun range or gun store level the NRA is very much about gun safety. They sponsor a lot of gun safety and shooting classes for youth, women, and everyone in general.

And do you think those ads are said for public safety, or for liability and the law department? Do you think the line at the end of a beer commercial glamorizing alcohol use like everyone is a rock start actually has any affect what so ever compared to the prior 29 seconds of advertising barrage?

It is a right that can also be "well regulated".   (that is, if you read the entire 2A)

(Regulate (noun) to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning)

 The court ruled "machine guns are 'dangerous and unusual weapons' that are unprotected by the Second Amendment."

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog first reported the ruling Thursday.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling comes after Alaskan Matthew Wayne Henry was sentenced to two years in prison for illegally owning a machine gun.

Henry modified a .308-caliber rifle to make it a machine gun, which he then fired from the front door of his house, The Associated Press reported in July 2011.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9th-circuit-ruling-on-machine-guns-2012-8#ixzz2ErLdQXzP

Yes I know a machine gun was not used in OR.  But the point is the government does have the right to regulate (ie make laws) about gun ownership.  

Also notice I didnt use 'militia' (which is also in 2A).. just 'well regulated'. 

No, not everyone does so. And even your example is a poor one. An adult metabolizes one drink an hour. If you have a single beer, and spend an hour out to dinner, you no longer have significant alcohol in your system. But in my circle of friends and acquaintances, we rarely even do that. And we are not even self-identified as being in recovery, which would be the obvious reason not to do so.

That's the point though, I am not making the comparison, gun control folks are. By making gun control a "public safety" issue, or a consumer protection issue, then you open the whole thing up to public safety and consumer protection causes. So, my point is that there are other problems in our society that are public safety and consumer protection subject that most people don't get too riled up over, yet guns have to go. And every time some shooting happens we have to hear it all over again.

Seriously... if there were laws that would actually stop people from killing other people, I would be for them. Who in their right mind... 2A aside.. would not be for legislation to stop these tragedies from happening? If there were laws that prevented people from killing people with guns, who would other wise not kill anyone with anything else... then I would be for them. But there just isn't any law that is going to do that.

In the meantime you subject millions of other Americans to laws that accomplish nothing, but make them jump through hoops for permission to do something they were allowed to do in the first place just by being alive and law abiding.

If you want to solve public safety problems... go after the bigger ones first that are not Constitutionally guaranteed than we can talk about guns.

I think the problem I have is that the right to own a gun is granted under the Constitution, and therefore federal law.  But the rules and regulations are left to the states and it is a mess.  Do some reading on taking a gun across state borders and you'll see what I mean.  Or various special cases for gun shows and dealers than allow people to skirt the normal rules.

There should be a consistent set of rules nation-wide that everyone abides by.  I don't care if that means background checks or mandatory training classes, or whatever.  Just make it the same for everyone.

Right now you are more rigorously checked to get a passport than to get a firearm.  That's insane.

ratherbesnowboarding - 2012-12-12 10:33 AM

powerman - 2012-12-12 12:14 PM

Tony, seriously, that the point though. Gun are not a consumer product. It isn't a civil privilege. We can restrict and ban those things all we want. The 2a is a right, that no government can take away. Are you trying to be so obtuse you can't see that?

So then please tell me.... what gun control laws would you like to see, that would actually stop violent acts from happening?

It is a right that can also be "well regulated".   (that is, if you read the entire 2A)

(Regulate (noun) to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning)

 

 

Court: The Second Amendment Doesn't Protect Your Right To A Machine Gun

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is joining the ranks of appeals courts in the Third, Sixth, and Eighth circuits by declaring Americans don't have a right to own machine guns.

 The court ruled "machine guns are 'dangerous and unusual weapons' that are unprotected by the Second Amendment."

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog first reported the ruling Thursday.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling comes after Alaskan Matthew Wayne Henry was sentenced to two years in prison for illegally owning a machine gun.

Henry modified a .308-caliber rifle to make it a machine gun, which he then fired from the front door of his house, The Associated Press reported in July 2011.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/9th-circuit-ruling-on-machine-guns-2012-8#ixzz2ErLdQXzP

 

Yes I know a machine gun was not used in OR.  But the point is the government does have the right to regulate (ie make laws) about gun ownership.  

Also notice I didnt use 'militia' (which is also in 2A).. just 'well regulated'. 

Wow... that is the single biggest twist to the 2A I have ever seen... "a well regulated militia" turns into guns should be well regulated.... wow. Talk about selective.

For your information, owning a full auto machine gun is NOT against the law... you just have to pay a $50K tax ans apply for the licenses with the ATF. And you can own military weapons.

But actual full auto weapons are not really a feature useful to most folks. Ammo costs too much, it is not good for hunting, or for target shooting, and is not really necessary for defense. So most folks just don't have a problem with that because very few actually want it. And that feature does not restrict the intent of 2A.

Even rocket launchers and anti tank weapons... do we needs them, not really. If they were legal for ordinary citizens to own, how many do you think would own a rocket that costs $100K?

True it is more rare, but I'd have to wonder if that is because most places where mass shootings take place are "gun free" areas... schools come to mind.  However it isn't unheard of for an armed citizen to stop or limit a mass shooting:

New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007

Appalachian Law School in Virginia in 2002

Pearl High School in Pearl, MS in October 1997

Parker Middle School (dance) in Edinboro, PA in April 1998

Having relevant discussions about controversial topics isn't dumb. It's imperative. 150 years ago people prolly thought the discussion of racial freedom might have been a dumb topic, or women's rights, or child labor laws.

I am so glad people chose to have discussion and do something about it.

But federally, there is no real reason. It is a right that shall be protected. Under the 10th states are allowed to govern themselves and as long as they don't restrict the right, then they can. I mean I understand the legal tangles, but I do not really see how that is any different than anything else. There are lots of federal gun laws. Funny thing is, the issue you talk about actually drives people to get a CCW. Most states reciprocate and if you have a CCW in your state it clears up a lot of state to state problems.

I am not a historian, but wasn't the second amendment written in the 1790's???

What was the quickest loading gun in the 1790's?

Was it still black powder and flint locks?

I am pretty sure in 1790's they had no idea of what kind of guns would be available.  Should the laws not change to adapt to the times accordingly?  Cars were not to be until the late 1800's and if they were in place in the 1790's would they have their own amendment?

Just adding fuel to the fire probably, but I also have no problem with people owning guns.  I wish that some of the people that owned many guns did not own any because they are not safe with their guns or smart when they hunt.  I know others that have multiple rifles and pistols and shotguns, but are super safe with their guns.

But there are advantages.  One place to manage background checks and verification could speed things up significantly.  And one rule of law would give legal gun owners less headache and more confidence that they aren't accidentally violating a regulation.

As mentioned earlier, almost all places now (except District of Columbia, I think?) allow CC.  But there are minor variations in state laws that could probably be unified / streamlined.

I'm typically in favor of states' rights but in this case I think it would be helpful for them to concede a little to the federal side.

Kate, gun ownership is a right in this country.  There is NO controversy about that. I don't see this as a controversial topic by any stretch of the imagination.  Your other examples, sure, I agree.  But in the case of gun ownership nobody is taking away anything from anyone. The constitution grants us the right to bear arms....and we shall....that's pretty much the end of the topic as a conversation piece.  Argue all you want......but it's a done deal. 

In response to a post from a few pages ago, I found an example where someone with a concealed weapon (carried legally) has fought back and protected individuals...

?http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/07/customer-defends-internet-cafe-from-two-thieves

Discussion is fine.  I know a constitutional amendment is almost impossible on this topic with the gun lobby in this country, but our Constitution is not a fixed document.  It has even been amended in my lifetime.

And how would you propose we get the 1 billion + guns back from their owners? 

I remember that.....the suspect wasn't there to kill everyone....he was there to rob them.  Mass shooters only have killing in mind.  It's not easy to find an incident where a citizen stopped a mass shooting.  Sous could be right.....maybe it's because they typically happen in "gun-free" zones.

Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected.

What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years.

You are talking about amending the Bill of Rights? 

Sure.

Pretty limited view there Lefty. Yes, gun ownership is currently a right in this country, but there is plenty of controversy around what that really means and if it should continue as is.

There really isn't.  It's not "currently" a right.....it's basically been a right since the country was founded.  Guns in this country are not going anywhere.......ever.  You can call that a limited view, and I get it, I look at it as a practical view.  Who's going to rid the country of guns?  The government?  That's absurd.

I'll say it again.....there are over 1 billion guns in the hands of private citizens in this country....forget about it, it's done.  My best advice if that makes you feel unsafe is to arm yourself.  Personally, it doesn't make me feel unsafe at all.

ETA - actually, there are closer to 400,000,000 guns in the U.S.  I was using the often stated 4 guns per gun owner avg. to com eup with 1 billion ..But only 1 in 4 actually owns a gun......according to the last best guess...that number is rising for sure.