Gun control

[Member 21058]

We've got lots of very small states with de minimus gun laws. But the most populous states, with the exception of Texas, are fairly strong gun control states. It may be coincidence, but those states also have higher crime rates. I would imagine because of the higher population density, but that's just a hunch.

And that's the curious thing...the more strict the gun control laws, the higher the higher the crime rate. I won't suggest causation, but what I do suggest is that "strong" gun control do laws do not result in lower crime rates.

The main reason for the lack of correlation is the "gun show loophole" (link). States that have strict gun control laws are often bordered by states that don't. It's big business to import guns from those states and sell them at high premium to criminals, all without back ground checks. Growing up in the inner city I've seen this countless times first hand.

And of course the NRA/GOP are both totally against addressing this huge loophole in the background check system. As long as this blatant end around exists background checks are pretty much worthless.

 

[Nucks]

At the time, the right to bear arms was essential, and in response to an attempt by the British to prevent colonists from arming.

Today, it's the only check against domestic fascism we have, the biggest armed fighting force in the world is the American people.

Maybe one day we'll found a real democracy.

Anyone interested in police attitudes should look up what happened to MOVE in Philadelphia.

Wait, what? Militia's armed with assault rifles. How is that working out for Palestine? Sorry to break it to you, but Militias can and would accomplish absolutely nothing in the advent of an armed insurrection against the government. Either active duty military units with all the logistical support inherent of an active duty military unit supports said uprising, or said uprising gets mowed down by jets, guided bombs, tanks and drones.

The largest armed fighting force in the world? Would accomplish absolutely nothing against the military of the United States of America. The only hope armed civilians would have in such a situation, is that the military refused to mow down chuckleheads with AR-15's and Saiga .223's.

It is absolutely delusional to think that even for one second a massive insurrection against the US government (that would have to be spontaneous and immediately and efficiently organized) would have any chance whatsoever without the support of the majority of the military.

 

[Nucks]

Must have made quite a mess if all gun owners were responsible for shooting that.

I wonder what farmers or those who depend on farming or wildlife in these areas think of efforts to reintroduce wolves.

People love the convenience of being able to wander into their local supermarket and pick up a pack of burgers for $2, a carton of milk or slice pan for .75c, I dont see many refuse to on the grounds that the areas where the these products are produced are the natural habitat of animals who have not only been run out of town long ago but who have also had their natural habitat destroyed meaining their population will never recover.

I also don't know many who refuse to own a domestic cat (or who can be arsed to go to the trouble of putting a bell on one) on the grounds that they kill in the region of 200-300 small animals each per annum and, are in large part, responsible for decimating the population of many species or wild birds and small mammals in many areas all over the world.

Well done cat owners.

There are plenty of people, a few billion too many. Surely we can make room for a few wolves.

 

[berbatrick]

Once again, how does the 2nd amendment allow unregistered guns (gun shows, free trade of guns, etc.)

Bad enough that the first clause (militia being essential to the security of a nation) is ignored completely, at least the "well-regulated" part should allow the federal government to basically keep a gun registry, monitor sales, restrict hugely the types of guns available, etc.
I personally feel that if the issue had come before the Supreme Court earlier (Warren/Burger between the 50s and the 80s), gun control advocates might have won based on the well-regulated militia part.

 

[berbatrick]

I was going through the wiki page of the Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia vs Heller) - shambolic!
The justifications include:
1. a "self-defence" component in the 2nd amendment, which does not exist
2. "common use": since guns were in common use to defend homes, ownership of guns is ok
3. asserting that guns can be banned from 'sensitive places' with no justification - does this not infringe the 'right to bear arms'?
4. since machine guns are not in "common use", they are not legal. This is just ridiculous. Rights are not supposed to depend on things like this.

What if machine guns/tanks/grenades were in common use / become commonly used. Will the right to own them be protected?

 

[Wibble]

Must have made quite a mess if all gun owners were responsible for shooting that.

I wonder what farmers or those who depend on farming or wildlife in these areas think of efforts to reintroduce wolves.

People love the convenience of being able to wander into their local supermarket and pick up a pack of burgers for $2, a carton of milk or slice pan for .75c, I dont see many refuse to on the grounds that the areas where the these products are produced are the natural habitat of animals who have not only been run out of town long ago but who have also had their natural habitat destroyed meaining their population will never recover.

I also don't know many who refuse to own a domestic cat (or who can be arsed to go to the trouble of putting a bell on one) on the grounds that they kill in the region of 200-300 small animals each per annum and, are in large part, responsible for decimating the population of many species or wild birds and small mammals in many areas all over the world.

Well done cat owners.

An idiot gun owner shot an endangered species. Why isn't that worthy of adding to the list of murder, mayhem and misery that guns cause?

For what it is worth I also don't approve of people allowing cats outside although the 2 aren't connected.

 

[Eyepopper]

An idiot gun owner shot an endangered species. Why isn't that worthy of adding to the list of murder, mayhem and misery that guns cause?

For what it is worth I also don't approve of people allowing cats outside although the 2 aren't connected.

Idiot farmers run over thousands every year, and many, allegedly, will purposefully eradicate species where and when it suits them regardless of whether its legal or an endangered species.

Also far more animals are killed by cars each year than by hunters.

Isolated cases like this will always hit the headlines but the reality is it was an accident. The hunter himself reported it as soon as he realised his mistake, it could just as easily been hit by a car.

Hunters have a far more positive than negative impact on introducing, promoting and maintaining a variety of species. Within ten miles of where I live I could show you at least 4 species of deer, and easily another half dozen species of birds that have been introduced by hunters.

I'm all for laughing at the ridiculousness of US gun laws like but there are for more valid things to cite.

I doubt the hunter was using a semi auto assault rifle or 9mm for example

 

[Gannicus]

The main reason for the lack of correlation is the "gun show loophole" (link). States that have strict gun control laws are often bordered by states that don't. It's big business to import guns from those states and sell them at high premium to criminals, all without back ground checks. Growing up in the inner city I've seen this countless times first hand.

And of course the NRA/GOP are both totally against addressing this huge loophole in the background check system. As long as this blatant end around exists background checks are pretty much worthless.

But the City of Chicago is surrounded by the rest of Illinois, whose gun laws can't be all that relaxed. But your point is well taken that if you can't get a gun in, say, California, all you have to do is drive to Wyoming or wherever to pick up what's re you need.

Still,

I was going through the wiki page of the Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia vs Heller) - shambolic!
The justifications include:
1. a "self-defence" component in the 2nd amendment, which does not exist
2. "common use": since guns were in common use to defend homes, ownership of guns is ok
3. asserting that guns can be banned from 'sensitive places' with no justification - does this not infringe the 'right to bear arms'?
4. since machine guns are not in "common use", they are not legal. This is just ridiculous. Rights are not supposed to depend on things like this.

What if machine guns/tanks/grenades were in common use / become commonly used. Will the right to own them be protected?

Keep in mind what laws the Heller (and McDonald) decisions do not preclude:

• A ban on weapons of mass destruction.
• A ban on "military-style" weapons, ranging from conventional bombs to grenades and heavy artillery.
• A ban on semiautomatic weapons.
• A ban on bringing weapons of any kind to any number of places outside the home.
• A ban on any number of uses of the firearm, such as shooting as stationary vehicles, firing bullets into the sky on New Year's Eve and so on.
• A ban on the ownership of any firearm by a variety of classes of individuals, such as convicted felons and mentally ill individuals.
• A requirement that firearms be registered with the proper authorities.
• A "bullet tax", should any jurisdiction decide to enact one.

What you seek is a complete ban on the private ownership of all "arms", but it is not accurate to suggest that Heller (and McDonald) cripples the ability of government to enforce a wide range of restrictions on the ownership of use of a wide range of "arms", from nukes all the way down to semiautomatic weapons.

The more serious complaint is not with the Constitution, but with the American people, a substantial majority of whom oppose a complete ban on private gun ownership.

As for the reasoning of the Heller and McDonald decisions taken together, the only way to have come to a different holding would have been to determine that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual right. The problem with reaching such a holding is that it would have required upending over a century of jurisprudence in which rights are determined to inhere to the individual, not to a collective group. We do not assign rights to groups, at least we haven't done so since the abominable decision by Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sanford (wherein the Court basically said that that blacks have no rights which the white man must respect), which was effectively invalidated by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the latter of which provides the foundation for the incorporation doctrine, which is fundamental to this entire discussion.

Any freshman English major can read that the prefatory clause does not control the scope of the operative clause of the Second Amendment. If the Framers meant to assign the right to bear arms only to members of the militia (armed forces in today's world) they would have said so in explicit terms.

The legitimate complaint is with the American people if you oppose the private ownership of guns, not with the Constitution.

 

[senorgregster]

But the City of Chicago is surrounded by the rest of Illinois, whose gun laws can't be all that relaxed. But your point is well taken that if you can't get a gun in, say, California, all you have to do is drive to Wyoming or wherever to pick up what's re you need.

Still,



Keep in mind what laws the Heller (and McDonald) decisions do not preclude:

• A ban on weapons of mass destruction.
• A ban on "military-style" weapons, ranging from conventional bombs to grenades and heavy artillery.
• A ban on semiautomatic weapons.
• A ban on bringing weapons of any kind to any number of places outside the home.
• A ban on any number of uses of the firearm, such as shooting as stationary vehicles, firing bullets into the sky on New Year's Eve and so on.
• A ban on the ownership of any firearm by a variety of classes of individuals, such as convicted felons and mentally ill individuals.
• A requirement that firearms be registered with the proper authorities.
• A "bullet tax", should any jurisdiction decide to enact one.

What you seek is a complete ban on the private ownership of all "arms", but it is not accurate to suggest that Heller (and McDonald) cripples the ability of government to enforce a wide range of restrictions on the ownership of use of a wide range of "arms", from nukes all the way down to semiautomatic weapons.

The more serious complaint is not with the Constitution, but with the American people, a substantial majority of whom oppose a complete ban on private gun ownership.

As for the reasoning of the Heller and McDonald decisions taken together, the only way to have come to a different holding would have been to determine that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual right. The problem with reaching such a holding is that it would have required upending over a century of jurisprudence in which rights are determined to inhere to the individual, not to a collective group. We do not assign rights to groups, at least we haven't done so since the abominable decision by Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sanford (wherein the Court basically said that that blacks have no rights which the white man must respect), which was effectively invalidated by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the latter of which provides the foundation for the incorporation doctrine, which is fundamental to this entire discussion.

Any freshman English major can read that the prefatory clause does not control the scope of the operative clause of the Second Amendment. If the Framers meant to assign the right to bear arms only to members of the militia (armed forces in today's world) they would have said so in explicit terms.

The legitimate complaint is with the American people if you oppose the private ownership of guns, not with the Constitution.

I would add: and politicians who continue to ignore their constituents.

 

[Gannicus]

I would add: and politicians who continue to ignore their constituents.

Wrong. Polling data clearly shows that Americans support "gun rights".

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...-gun-rights-than-gun-control-poll-finds-video

By a margin of 52 percent to 46 percent, Americans say protecting the rights of gun owners is more important than gun control, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center released Wednesday. It is the first time Pew found more support for gun ownership than gun control in more than two decades of surveys on the issue.

A recent Gallup Poll confirms this poll by the Pew Research Center.

The problem, from point of view of gun control advocates, is with the American people.

Politicians in states with strong support for gun control have enacted strong gun control laws. Politicians in states where there is little support for gun control laws -- I'm guessing states like Idaho, Wyoming and Texas -- have not enacted strong gun control laws. One thing politicians don't do is ignore their constituents. Individual politicians, of course, ignore their constituents all the time; but collectively it's very rare for a state legislature to ignore their constituents.

 

[Rado_N]

90% of Americans supported the attempts to bring in universal background checks, but it didn't count for shit because the NRA bought the politicians and the NRA speak for gun manufacturers, not the people.

Popular opinion in America means jack shit when it comes to getting stuff done.

 

[senorgregster]

90% of Americans supported the attempts to bring in universal background checks, but it didn't count for shit because the NRA bought the politicians and the NRA speak for gun manufacturers, not the people.

Popular opinion in America means jack shit when it comes to getting stuff done.

This is the type of thing what I was referring to. @Gannicus The poll you cited is misleading due to the way the question was asked. The poll doesn't mean Americans don't want gun control of any kind.

 

[berbatrick]

Keep in mind what laws the Heller (and McDonald) decisions do not preclude:

• A ban on weapons of mass destruction.
• A ban on "military-style" weapons, ranging from conventional bombs to grenades and heavy artillery.
• A ban on semiautomatic weapons.
• A ban on bringing weapons of any kind to any number of places outside the home.
• A ban on any number of uses of the firearm, such as shooting as stationary vehicles, firing bullets into the sky on New Year's Eve and so on.
• A ban on the ownership of any firearm by a variety of classes of individuals, such as convicted felons and mentally ill individuals.
• A requirement that firearms be registered with the proper authorities.
• A "bullet tax", should any jurisdiction decide to enact one.

What you seek is a complete ban on the private ownership of all "arms", but it is not accurate to suggest that Heller (and McDonald) cripples the ability of government to enforce a wide range of restrictions on the ownership of use of a wide range of "arms", from nukes all the way down to semiautomatic weapons.

That's the point- there's no legal reason for these restrictions. The "in common use" argument seems made up on the spot and was rightly skewered by the defence (and ignored by you!). It seems like the justices decided to overturn the law, they said gun control is illegal, realised the implications, and made something up to stop anarchy.

As for the reasoning of the Heller and McDonald decisions taken together, the only way to have come to a different holding would have been to determine that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual right. The problem with reaching such a holding is that it would have required upending over a century of jurisprudence in which rights are determined to inhere to the individual, not to a collective group. We do not assign rights to groups, at least we haven't done so since the abominable decision by Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sanford (wherein the Court basically said that that blacks have no rights which the white man must respect), which was effectively invalidated by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the latter of which provides the foundation for the incorporation doctrine, which is fundamental to this entire discussion.

I am no expert, but has are other 'rights' prefaced with a clause like the 'well-regulated militia' one? It's an unusual right anyway- it's a big divergence between the rights granted by the US constitution and stuff like the UN declaration, other constitutions, etc.


I read a bit more (just wiki!)
Now according to the dissent, it is in fact the decision of the majority in Heller vs DC which violates precedent because, for example, some previous state laws did forbid storing gunpowder...

Any freshman English major can read that the prefatory clause does not control the scope of the operative clause of the Second Amendment. If the Framers meant to assign the right to bear arms only to members of the militia (armed forces in today's world) they would have said so in explicit terms.

I don't see why it's obvious that the first clause does not control the second clause. Viewed in the context of just having just kicked the British out and having no standing army, it makes a lot of sense that the right to bear arms was directly related to national security, not personal security, as the language of the amendment suggests. Also that the distribution of arms would be well-regulated to ensure their use for this. 4 supreme court judges apparently do not have the knowledge of a freshman English student?

The legitimate complaint is with the American people if you oppose the private ownership of guns, not with the Constitution.

No arguments there, though I'd say it's the politicians involved here, and they are far more beholden to the gun lobby than the public is to the gun lobby's views. Can't imagine most states passing a law like the one overruled in DC vs Heller (and not just because the courts would strike it down)

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

....
I read a bit more (just wiki!)
Now according to the dissent, it is in fact the decision of the majority in Heller vs DC which violates precedent because, for example, some previous state laws did forbid storing gunpowder....

Hmm...we might need to know more about those laws. Specifically the date they were enacted and the language used. There are two types of "gunpowder" in common use today. Modern smokeless powder, which is used in virtually all cartridge style ammunition, is relatively harmless but black powder, which is used for muzzle loading applications, is fairly explosive and governments would be remiss is they did not regulate the storage of it.

 

[Gannicus]

That's the point- there's no legal reason for these restrictions. The "in common use" argument seems made up on the spot and was rightly skewered by the defence (and ignored by you!). It seems like the justices decided to overturn the law, they said gun control is illegal, realised the implications, and made something up to stop anarchy.

There's every reason for these restrictions. The presumption is that a man has a right to defend himself with a firearm, but he has no right to present a grave threat to millions of other Americans by owning a nuclear weapon or a rocket launcher. There is no right to bringing a gun to a school. If the right exists in any form (if the Second Amendment didn't exist there would be no discussion on this point), it has to exist in the home, the ideological roots of which go back well before the American Founding. I cannot find a way to make this point more clear.

I am no expert, but has are other 'rights' prefaced with a clause like the 'well-regulated militia' one? It's an unusual right anyway- it's a big divergence between the rights granted by the US constitution and stuff like the UN declaration, other constitutions, etc.

What you're arguing, I think, is that the Second Amendment would only apply to what we would today call members of the Armed Services, presumably including the National Guard. But even a strict interpretation of the prefatory clause requires reading the operative clause as an individual right, as every adult (white, not black) male in the 1780s was considered part of the "militia". Of course today we recognize no distinctions in fundamental rights between the races and sexes (blacks and women are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, per the 14th Amendment), but in the context of the 1780s, the right to to keep and bear arms was considered to be "universal" among adult white men.

The Second Amendment didn't appear out of thin air in the 1780s. Its origins go back to Athens and Rome, which understood that free men had a right to arm themselves. There were no guns back then, of course, but it was understood that individuals (always assume I'm referring to the small class of free men, which excludes slaves, women and foreigners) had a right to arm themselves with whatever they felt necessary to secure their safety AND join an army, but not just the latter to the exclusion of the former.

In Great Britain before the Civil War, every free man armed himself, or at least was allowed to arm himself in his own home. There were no gun controls, at least none that we would recognize as such. There were no police forces. As most Brits probably know, Catholics in the post-Henry VIII era were allowed to have guns to defend themselves in their own homes, but they were not allowed keep weapons of militia-grade power in their homes. In short, the right of self-defense goes back to Athens, Rome and London there is no reason to believe the Framers would have suddenly abandoned two thousand years of precedent.


I read a bit more (just wiki!)
Now according to the dissent, it is in fact the decision of the majority in Heller vs DC which violates precedent because, for example, some previous state laws did forbid storing gunpowder...

Justice Stevens imputes a motive for which there is no documentation whatsoever, that the Framers abandoned the common law right of self-defense when it drafted the Second Amendment. Perhaps they SHOULD have, but there is no evidence that they did. Further, it would be absurd to think the Framers would have insisted on DISARMING citizens who were NOT members of a militia. Most American adult men had firearms of various kinds and it would have a political catastrophe were the Framers intent on disarming adult white men who were not members of the militia. And it should no go unnoticed that they, nor succeeding generations of American politicians, never attempted to disarm adult white males. Gun disarmament, as we understand the term today, did not become a serious political issue until the 1970s, about 180 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.

The overwhelming history of "gun rights" in the United States supports an individual right, though peterstorey and others are well within their right to suggest that because circumstances are so much different now than in the 1790s, 1880s and even 1950s that we would be well-advised to abandon our history and customs and do away with "the right to keep and bear arms".


I don't see why it's obvious that the first clause does not control the second clause. Viewed in the context of just having just kicked the British out and having no standing army, it makes a lot of sense that the right to bear arms was directly related to national security, not personal security, as the language of the amendment suggests. Also that the distribution of arms would be well-regulated to ensure their use for this. 4 supreme court judges apparently do not have the knowledge of a freshman English student?

Because if the Framers meant what you say they meant, they would have had to abandon the right of self-defense in common law AND they would have written the Second Amendment with words that said that. I'll take my stab.

The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No arguments there, though I'd say it's the politicians involved here, and they are far more beholden to the gun lobby than the public is to the gun lobby's views. Can't imagine most states passing a law like the one overruled in DC vs Heller (and not just because the courts would strike it down)

There is no doubt that the gun lobby has its sway with politicians.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote and unquote to make this easier to read.

 

[Gannicus]

I'll try to sum it all up here in a short post.

Whether you agree or disagree with the "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, the majority of the American people agree that there exists an individual right to keep and bear arms.

More importantly, even if there were a majority willing to repeal the Second Amendment, it would be a logistical nightmare for the government to attempt to confiscate the hundreds of millions of firearms currently in private ownership.

According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country), is estimated that there are 90 weapons in private ownership for every 100 American residents. The latest population estimate for the United States is 320 million, which means that there are roughly 288 million privately owned firearms in the United States. Even if that number is wildly over the top, there are at least 200 million firearms in private ownership in the United States.

Who, exactly, would confiscate all 200m privately owner firearms?

If the Democrats included a gun confiscation plank in their 2016 platform Hillary would not only be defeated in a landslide, but the Democratis Party would risk going the way of the Whig Party.

 

[peterstorey]

Who, exactly, would confiscate all 200m privately owner firearms?

We had this convo on the caf 5-10 years ago and the consensus was that the US would do nothing on gun control and we'd have this convo in 5-10 years. Rinse and repeat. Just get on with it.

 

[Member 21058]

But the City of Chicago is surrounded by the rest of Illinois, whose gun laws can't be all that relaxed. But your point is well taken that if you can't get a gun in, say, California, all you have to do is drive to Wyoming or wherever to pick up what's re you need.

I think you misunderstand how it works. One "dealer" drives a couple states over and loads up on guns then comes back to the "'hood" and sales them at a huge markup to criminals, without back ground checks, using the private seller loophole. It's big business. The profit margins are so high that the "dealers" have no problems with driver a couple miles per trip.

Wrong. Polling data clearly shows that Americans support "gun rights".

You're cherry picking data to support your argument. 90% of Americans, 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents, support closing the private seller loophole to the background check requirement (link). The only reasons it hasn't been closed is because the GOP blocks it everytime on behalf of the NRA

 

[Wibble]

I doubt the hunter was using a semi auto assault rifle or 9mm for example

Big call.

 

[Gannicus]

We had this convo on the caf 5-10 years ago and the consensus was that the US would do nothing on gun control and we'd have this convo in 5-10 years. Rinse and repeat. Just get on with it.

I'm not the one who demands we repeal the second amendment.

I believe this round of posts arose after the tragic incident in Idaho, which has renewed demands for stricter gun control laws and which has morphed here into a discussion of the meaning of the second amendment and whether it should be repealed.

The same answer is that most Americans do not support repealing the second amendment.

 

[Gannicus]

I think you misunderstand how it works. One "dealer" drives a couple states over and loads up on guns then comes back to the "'hood" and sales them at a huge markup to criminals, without back ground checks, using the private seller loophole. It's big business. The profit margins are so high that the "dealers" have no problems with driver a couple miles per trip.





You're cherry picking data to support your argument. 90% of Americans, 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents, support closing the private seller loophole to the background check requirement (link). The only reasons it hasn't been closed is because the GOP blocks it everytime on behalf of the NRA

On the first point, a gun dealer has to be registered in California. You just can't bring in a truckload of all kinds of weapons without any registration and sell them at swap meets, at least not here. Laws in other states are all over the map, but it's up to each to state to enact whatever laws they wish, subject to federal requirements and constitutional restrictions. If Illinois wants to enact similar laws that California has, they are free to do so. Or not, as it wishes.

On the second point, I'm not cherry picking anything. I completely acknowledge, and almost entirely agree with, strong public support for most of the restrictions and requirements discussed on this thread. No semiautomatics, no firearms at all for felons and the mentally ill, background checks, dealer licensing, and firearm registration. I'm even for bullet stamping and taxation, which is pretty far left stuff. No right to carry. I'm for prohibitions on bringing firearms to public accommodations such as shopping malls, universities and stadiums. But I'm ok with shooting ranges and hunting preserves.

I grew up in one of the most, if not the most at the time, violent neighborhoods in the United States (near downtown LA long before gentrification and Staples) and lost my cousin to a brutal race gang fight. I've witnessed a murder with a gun when I was 8 years in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. I was attacked and almost strangled to death by a mentally ill student in high school before two priests peeled him off me...hours later, stricken with grief, he shot himself to death with a handgun. (Clean through the mouth.) I witnessed a suicide (knife) on my driveway just 18 months ago with my terrified wife and kids hiding in the bathroom. I do not like guns and will not have them in my house.

All that I oppose, and all that the courts have found to unconstitutional, is a complete ban on the ownership of handguns and other small arms.

 

[Member 21058]

On the first point, a gun dealer has to be registered in California. You just can't bring in a truckload of all kinds of weapons without any registration and sell them at swap meets, at least not here. Laws in other states are all over the map, but it's up to each to state to enact whatever laws they wish, subject to federal requirements and constitutional restrictions. If Illinois wants to enact similar laws that California has, they are free to do so. Or not, as it wishes.

On the second point, I'm not cherry picking anything. I completely acknowledge, and almost entirely agree with, strong public support for most of the restrictions and requirements discussed on this thread. No semiautomatics, no firearms at all for felons and the mentally ill, background checks, dealer licensing, and firearm registration. I'm even for bullet stamping and taxation, which is pretty far left stuff. No right to carry. I'm for prohibitions on bringing firearms to public accommodations such as shopping malls, universities and stadiums. But I'm ok with shooting ranges and hunting preserves.

I grew up in one of the most, if not the most at the time, violent neighborhoods in the United States (near downtown LA long before gentrification and Staples) and lost my cousin to a brutal race gang fight. I've witnessed a murder with a gun when I was 8 years in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles. I was attacked and almost strangled to death by a mentally ill student in high school before two priests peeled him off me...hours later, stricken with grief, he shot himself to death with a handgun. (Clean through the mouth.) I witnessed a suicide (knife) on my driveway just 18 months ago with my terrified wife and kids hiding in the bathroom. I do not like guns and will not have them in my house.

All that I oppose, and all that the courts have found to unconstitutional, is a complete ban on the ownership of handguns and other small arms.

It happens all the time, said "dealer" is not an official licensed reseller. He buys the guns in one state, maybe 5 to 10 at a time, and then sells them out of his house/car/truck to criminals using the private seller exemption. Often he will deface the serial numbers but a lot of time won't even bother because there is so little enforcement in this area.

 

[Ramshock]

I like Chris Rocks take

 

[Gannicus]

It happens all the time, said "dealer" is not an official licensed reseller. He buys the guns in one state, maybe 5 to 10 at a time, and then sells them out of his house/car/truck to criminals using the private seller exemption. Often he will deface the serial numbers but a lot of time won't even bother because there is so little enforcement in this area.

Then he would be breaking the law. Individuals, unfortunately, break laws all the time. We have laws against murder, for example, yet murders continue to be committed.

 

[Member 21058]

Then he would be breaking the law. Individuals, unfortunately, break laws all the time. We have laws against murder, for example, yet murders continue to be committed.

Weak argument. It's only because of the private seller/gun show loophole that it's able to happen. And in many states its not "breaking the law" because a private seller is allowed to sell his or her guns to whomever they chose without any background check or paperwork.

 

[Gannicus]

Weak argument. It's only because of the private seller/gun show loophole that it's able to happen. And in many states its not "breaking the law" because a private seller is allowed to sell his or her guns to whomever they chose without any background check or paperwork.

How is that weak?

If a state chooses not to enact strong dealer licensing laws then they're creating their own problems. The complaint you're expressing is with the fact that each state enacts whatever gun laws they wish, which is an core feature of our federal system. The US is a huge country with over 320m people living in 50 states, 35 of which have fairly small populations. There are widely different perceptions of how guns should be regulated from the extreme of California to the other extreme of Texas. We view this diversity as an inherently good thing, so that the experience of one state can inform the decisions of other states.

Right or wrong, a significant number of states have concluded, at least for now, that California's gun control laws have had no positive effect on homicide rates. The data contradicts common sense, but the data is undeniable. What's important to Americans on this issue is that each state gets to decide what works best for them. If Califiornia decided to weaken its gun licensing and registration requirements it can't blame Nevada for what follows.

 

[Wibble]

We have a federal system here in Australia with larger distances and a smaller population. It is idiotic and needs to be abolished. Replicating functions so many times is ludicrously wasteful.

 

[Wibble]

I don't see why it's obvious that the first clause does not control the second clause. Viewed in the context of just having just kicked the British out and having no standing army, it makes a lot of sense that the right to bear arms was directly related to national security, not personal security, as the language of the amendment suggests. Also that the distribution of arms would be well-regulated to ensure their use for this. 4 supreme court judges apparently do not have the knowledge of a freshman English student?

It could also be interpreted as individuals allowed guns but only to form militias. Of course the whole thing is a historical artifact that has no relevance to modern needs and should just be deleted.

 

[Member 21058]

How is that weak?

If a state chooses not to enact strong dealer licensing laws then they're creating their own problems. The complaint you're expressing is with the fact that each state enacts whatever gun laws they wish, which is an core feature of our federal system. The US is a huge country with over 320m people living in 50 states, 35 of which have fairly small populations. There are widely different perceptions of how guns should be regulated from the extreme of California to the other extreme of Texas. We view this diversity as an inherently good thing, so that the experience of one state can inform the decisions of other states.

Right or wrong, a significant number of states have concluded, at least for now, that California's gun control laws have had no positive effect on homicide rates. The data contradicts common sense, but the data is undeniable. What's important to Americans on this issue is that each state gets to decide what works best for them. If Califiornia decided to weaken its gun licensing and registration requirements it can't blame Nevada for what follows.

Just because criminals break the law that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or make them harder to break, that's why it's a weak argument.


You still seem to be ignoring the fact the 90% of Americans want the loopholes in background checks closed yet the GOP continues to block it just to please the NRA.

 

[Maagge]

This is a bit off topic:
I'm almost through reading Bill Bryson's 'Notes from a Big Country'. The articles in it were written from 1996-98. It's quite interesting to see how much of the stuff he wrote about back then is still relevant. Obesity, guns, environment to name a few.
Anyway, back when Germany (probably West Germany) got rid of capital punishment it was against the will of the voters. 70-odd perfect wanted to keep it. In the late nineties only a minority wanted it. Bryson's point was that politicians at the time of writing just went along with what the population seemed to want regardless of whether it was better for society to do the opposite (I realise that this isn't clear cut). It still seems to be the case. Politicians trying to remain popular as opposed to solving problems. That's how it is in Denmark anyway.

 

[Balu]

Anyway, back when Germany (probably West Germany) got rid of capital punishment it was against the will of the voters. 70-odd perfect wanted to keep it.

That's surprising. We already tried to abolish the death penalty through a constitution in 1849, but failed. It finally was abolished with our new constitution directly after World War II in 1949 and after all the killings, I thought that the people in general would have supported it. As far as I know the Western Allies still inflicted the death penalty for war criminals in Germany after 1949, which lead to a lot of protest until they finally stopped a few years later.

If I remember correctly it wasn't abolished in Eastern Germany until the late 80's, shortly before reunification. If you're refering to that, I wouldn't trust the poll to actually represent the opinion of the people though.

Is the book worth reading?

 

[Maagge]

That's surprising. We already tried to abolish the death penalty through a constitution in 1849, but failed. It finally was abolished with our new constitution directly after World War II in 1949 and after all the killings, I thought that the people in general would have supported it. As far as I know the Western Allies still inflicted the death penalty for war criminals in Germany after 1949, which lead to a lot of protest until they finally stopped a few years later.

If I remember correctly it wasn't abolished in Eastern Germany until the late 80's, shortly before reunification. If you're refering to that, I wouldn't trust the poll to actually represent the opinion of the people though.

Is the book worth reading?

I'll look it up. I was just going off memory. Might have been East and not West.

The book is very funny. And since it's just his columns from back then it's just a matter of ~4 pages at a time. Which inevitably leads to the 'just one more'-situation everyone knows from FM. I got it for 8 AUD at a market.

 

[Maagge]

That's surprising. We already tried to abolish the death penalty through a constitution in 1849, but failed. It finally was abolished with our new constitution directly after World War II in 1949 and after all the killings, I thought that the people in general would have supported it. As far as I know the Western Allies still inflicted the death penalty for war criminals in Germany after 1949, which lead to a lot of protest until they finally stopped a few years later.

If I remember correctly it wasn't abolished in Eastern Germany until the late 80's, shortly before reunification. If you're refering to that, I wouldn't trust the poll to actually represent the opinion of the people though.

Is the book worth reading?

This is what it says in the book:

Writing in the New Yorker in 1992, Richard L. Nygaard noted that West Germany outlawed the death penalty in 1949 even though 74 per cent of people approved of it. By 1980, the proportion in favour had slumped to 26 per cent. As Nygaard observes: 'Among people who don't grow up with it, capital punishment comes to be seen as a barbaric relic, like slavery or branding.'

 

[Balu]

This is what it says in the book:

Seems to be true, yes. I just read up on it and there were also two attempts to get it back until it was finally settled in 1952. The main reason behind it seemed to be that the people wanted it as a punishment for war criminals.

 

[langster]

The death penalty debate probably deserves its own thread, and probably already has one. The above comments make interesting reading though and do raise some questions.


'Among people who don't grow up with it, capital punishment comes to be seen as a barbaric relic, like slavery or branding.'

The above quote is spot on and is just like the old adage "If someone has something for so long then they don't want to lose it, yet when they haven't had it for a while they don't miss it"

Although i'm not so sure how that could apply to America and guns or the death penalty. Most of Europe has had decent abortion laws for a while. You always hear Republicans (especially) arguing against abortion in America, yet if a UK politician used that in an election campaign they might as well not bother running. My point being that the religious right still holds tremendous power in the US. That fact is proved by morons like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Both of them seem to worship the Constitution as much as the Bible, it's almost as if they were written at the same time by the same people and both are to be taken literally and still hold true today. When you have idiots like these two who see waterboarding as an acceptable interrogation tactic, then how the hell do you expect to get sanity when it comes to gun laws, or anything else for that matter?

 

[Gannicus]

Just because criminals break the law that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or make them harder to break, that's why it's a weak argument.


You still seem to be ignoring the fact the 90% of Americans want the loopholes in background checks closed yet the GOP continues to block it just to please the NRA.

But I never argued that we shouldn't have laws against murder because murders will be committed anyway. The point is that strict gun control laws have no positive effect on homicide rates. I support strict gun laws anyway, at least in densely populated areas, but anyone who thinks that strict gun control laws will lead to reduce homicide rates simply wishes to ignore the verified data that they do not.

I haven't ignored anything. States choose to enact or not enact background check laws as they please. I as a Californian cannot condemn the people of Wyoming for not having a background check law (if that's the case) any more than a resident of Wyoming can condemn California for having a background check law. And I'm quite sure that the presumed absence of a background check law in California explains why California continues to witness homicides.

As for the Republicans, it's no doubt true that most gun rights advocates are Republicans. That's the way it goes in our political culture. Most gay rights advocates are Democrats. That's the way it is. But you make it sound as though evil Republicans conspire against the wishes of the rank and file voters of the Republican Party, which is absurd. I guarantee you that if most Republicans were opposed to gun rights laws that the Republican Party would have a serious problem if it supported gun rights, just as the Democratic Party would have a serious problem today is it opposed gay rights.

That said, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize Republicans for supporting gun rights laws and I hope I've never written anything here that suggests that you are not within your right to criticize Republicans, gun owners or anyone else you wish to criticize, but it is not reasonable to suggest that Republicans are somehow undermining the Constitution or subverting democracy by supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Also, quite a few Democrats who represent rural states and districts also oppose stricter gun laws - that is their choice and they may well have to face eternal judgment from the Big Man in the sky, but that is their choice in this world.

The problem, ultimately, is the American people, who by a substantial majority support the right to keep and bear arms and oppose repealing the Second Amendment.

 

[Pimpmofo]

Just because criminals break the law that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws or make them harder to break, that's why it's a weak argument.


You still seem to be ignoring the fact the 90% of Americans want the loopholes in background checks closed yet the GOP continues to block it just to please the NRA.

The biggest problem with gun control right now is not all the laws already on the books are enforced like they should be. We'd be better off strictly enforcing what laws we already have before adding more that are hard to keep track of. I would love it if we could enforce what we have then add more but the reason background checks aren't a big issue, is because it isn't a big issue. It looks good for some to preach about it but there's not a whole lot they could do to make the background checks better. They could require me to get a background check buying a gun from a private seller but there's no way for anyone to know I bought or sold a gun when they have no idea how many guns I own or what they are.
Here's a Washington Post article explaining some of that better than I can.

The fact we don't have any kind of registry already leaves us in a bad spot to start something like that. A big and common joke among gun owners and collectors is 'The Boat Accident' where all of their guns fell overboard and sank in a boat accident and are lost forever. There's no way to prove that didn't happen and a lot of gun owners would use excuses like that if we were required to register guns or if they were banned.

 

[Gannicus]

The biggest problem with gun control right now is not all the laws already on the books are enforced like they should be. We'd be better off strictly enforcing what laws we already have before adding more that are hard to keep track of. I would love it if we could enforce what we have then add more but the reason background checks aren't a big issue, is because it isn't a big issue. It looks good for some to preach about it but there's not a whole lot they could do to make the background checks better. They could require me to get a background check buying a gun from a private seller but there's no way for anyone to know I bought or sold a gun when they have no idea how many guns I own or what they are.
Here's a Washington Post article explaining some of that better than I can.

The fact we don't have any kind of registry already leaves us in a bad spot to start something like that. A big and common joke among gun owners and collectors is 'The Boat Accident' where all of their guns fell overboard and sank in a boat accident and are lost forever. There's no way to prove that didn't happen and a lot of gun owners would use excuses like that if we were required to register guns or if they were banned.

That's absolutely correct. Even if Idaho decided to enact California-style gun control laws it's very unlikely that their Attorney General or county sheriffs would be of the mind to rigorously enforce such laws. There's a real cultural attachment to guns in the United States, or at least in large swaths of the United States, even among law enforcement officers. I personally know deputy sheriffs who oppose strict gun control laws.

To paraphrase Pogo* somewhat, the problem is with the American people.

*Pogo is the name of the central character in a comic strip that ran from the 1940s to the 1970s. The immortal phrase, "We have met the enemy and he is us" comes from Pogo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)#mediaviewer/File:Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg

 

[Member 21058]

Lets just agree to disagree because personally I feel you both are unreasonable. I mean honestly what's the point of having background check requirements if the loopholes are so big? I'll just take solace in the fact that 90% of Americans agree with me and continue to be horrified that the NRA/GOP so completely disregards the will of the people.

 

[gooDevil]

Wait, what? Militia's armed with assault rifles. How is that working out for Palestine? Sorry to break it to you, but Militias can and would accomplish absolutely nothing in the advent of an armed insurrection against the government. Either active duty military units with all the logistical support inherent of an active duty military unit supports said uprising, or said uprising gets mowed down by jets, guided bombs, tanks and drones.

The largest armed fighting force in the world? Would accomplish absolutely nothing against the military of the United States of America. The only hope armed civilians would have in such a situation, is that the military refused to mow down chuckleheads with AR-15's and Saiga .223's.

It is absolutely delusional to think that even for one second a massive insurrection against the US government (that would have to be spontaneous and immediately and efficiently organized) would have any chance whatsoever without the support of the majority of the military.

It's not that simple, imho. There are a lot of variables and situations where an armed populace can play a part in a movement of the people to overthrow tyranny.