The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[trish]

Love the passion; although I’m probably not prepared to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor ban the NRA I agree with the spirit of the proposals.

Libertarians are all over the map when it comes to the legitimacy of the ‘State.’ I can understand that because the legitimacy of a State depends upon which State is under discussion. The USA is a democratic republic that grew out of collection of colonies seeking mutual support both in throwing off British rule and in creating an infrastructure of law to protect and aid communication, transportation, and trade on a relatively isolated continent. Our laws are not those of an invader nor a monarch whose power was inherited. Our laws are negotiated, drawn, passed and interpreted through a democratic process to which, through our active participation, we lend our consent; a process most of us our proud of. Not to say it doesn’t require a lot of tweaking and vigilance. To assert there should be less government is to say that we the people should diminish our own power: that we should not address societal issues, nor attempt to solve environmental problems, nor address meaningful conflicts, nor redress injustices, nor seek to make life better for ourselves and others. These sorts of things, the libertarian says, should be left to individual people - not the government. But what if the government is the people?

Back to guns.

The 2nd Amendment apparently addresses the need to be able to quickly organize a armed militia to rally to the defense of the Nation, when that Nation is without a standing army.

It seems to me the amendment is simply no longer applicable to any real situation. It seems to me there is no Constitutional support for gun ownership. Nor is there any Constitutional support to prohibit it. So I suppose I agree that repealing the 2nd Amendment should have no logical or legal bearing on any particular case. All the relevant law is elsewhere. However, the political fallout of demanding the repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be ( in fact is ) devastating. I do not see anything in the 2nd Amendment that should obstruct regulation of firearms. I think more practical efforts would be to establish better background checks (Why should one man who is not a dealer be able to buy 33 firearms in a single year without raising a single alarm? - which was the case for the Vegas shooter), require sellers to keep records, computerize the system, establish waiting periods, define then ban assault weapons, rescind concealed carry (the public has a right and a need to know who around them is carrying a lethal weapon) etc.

“The National Rifle Association is a terrorist organization and should be banned.” As much as I like the rhetoric, I think we probably both agree it would be a poor political move if not an illegal one. But I’m curious, if this actually came up how would the NRA argue that they are not a terrorist organization? Perhaps they would say they are not directly contracting terrorists, just encouraging them. Not arming them, only making sure arms are available.

[Stavros]

Thanks for this Trish, an eloquent defence of US democracy that puts it in context and undermines the arguments of the libertarians.

I know I was pushing the envelope as far as terrorism goes, but on the other hand, we don't actually know yet what motivated the Las Vegas murderer, and if mass murderers with mental health problems are set aside, you are still left with armed people, individuals or groups who engage in acts of murder which are intended to attack the USA, using individuals as victims to make their case. This was the context in which the Oklahoma City bombing took place, and there is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices were terrorists.

The problem with the NRA is that it does not distinguish between a Constitutional right, and the 'arms' referred to in the Amendment, so that it makes no distinction between a farmer who has a practical need to own a gun to shoot predatory foxes that eat his chickens, and an individual who need offer no reason at all to the vendor and can amass an arsenal of guns be they pistols that fit into a purse or large weapons that in most cases are only used in military combat. At some point, the NRA should either accept that it is facilitating terrorism by opposing gun control, or concede that it must do so in order to prevent terrorist attacks as best it can, identifying weapons themselves as items to be banned from ownership, and finding exacting methods to screen individuals who wish to buy a gun. As far as I can see, whether they call themselves the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Liberation Angels of America, or Ma Rainey's Gang, there is nothing to stop a group of individuals from purchasing enough weapons to threaten an entire town in their attempt to overthrow the State or cause immense damage to it.

What is the point of the NRA condemning acts of terrorism if it then does nothing to stop them, but does protect the means whereby those acts of violence are inflicted on innocent civilians?

[MrFanti]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......

Drunken driver who killed mother visiting premature newborn twins had blood alcohol level of .21

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3574102

[trish]

You're right: we won't ban guns, we won't ban alcohol, nor will be ban tobacco. For one thing, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. We do however, regulate all three (arguably alcohol more stringently than guns). There is a distinction between alcohol, tobacco and firearms as was pointed out by many other posters: firearms are designed specifically to kill, alcoholic beverages are to be sipped and enjoyed. Can we do more to prevent the abuses of alcohol? Probably. Name something other than banning. Of guns? Definitely.

[filghy2]

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...check-in/page8

[Stavros]

Ban the thing that kills almost 3x as many people as guns: ALCOHOL.

Of course, this will never happen because non-gun owning hypocrites want to have their drinks.......

-Except of course that banning alcohol has already happened, namely in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, passed in 1920, subsequently repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

As for guns, the issue for responsible Americans is not the total ban on guns but removing from the market place military grade weapons. I take a different view, and would ban all weapons in the UK, and think in time the US will have to consider this option.

[MrFanti]

, no serious persons are asking for total bans of any of these. .

There are a LOT of people wanting a total ban on guns.....Meanwhile, the thing that kills more than guns (alcohol) continues to wreck havoc..
Yes, you are hypocrite if you don't want alcohol banned in the same swipe with guns....

5 killed on their way home from church by suspected drunk driver

http://www.kltv.com/story/18677579/5...d-drunk-driver

[MrFanti]

You might as well debate with a dalek, trish. We went through this on another thread, where MrFanti just kept repeating the same point ad nauseum. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...check-in/page8

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti,
Is there literally no point at which you are able to stop shouting the same misproven point for long enough to ask yourself if that point is relevant.
Don’t just respond (yet again) with your relentless comments about alcohol until you have a think about it.

The purpose of alcohol is to enhance ones enjoyment. If it is abused, people can get killed.

The purpose of assault rifles is to kill people. If they are used correctly, people get killed.

If your able to think about this and come back with some points for debate, brilliant.

If you just respond as previously by sticking your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and shouting “Alcohol, Hypocrite, Alcohol, Hypocrite” then I’ll assume you’re an idiot.

[fred41]

And I showed in the other thread where alcohol has been shown to kill at least 2x more people per year than guns...You can't hide from the facts...

Out of curiosity, do you want alcohol banned?