Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYBURBS
even if firearms are removed from the picture. I don't think that is a sufficiently justifiable reason to attempt to remove another person's right to keep and bear arms.
You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..
The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Hey look, that guy's got a gun. Let's go shoot him & steal it.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
On the news tonight they said more people are shot in Chicago alone than all of Afghanistan. If the NRA wants to spout bullshit, fine. All that means is they're full of shit. Self proclaimed protectors of the second ammendment. Jefferson is spinning in his grave.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..
The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.
Great post. The paranoia that the NRA has created around Obama since his election is silly really. In his first 4 years in office he avoided even touching the issues we face in the US with responsible gun ownership. In fact the only measure involving guns Obama signed in his first term gave people the right to carry firearms in National Parks.
The NRA has turned the conversation into any change is a deal breaker.
Nobody has advocated for the prohibition of guns and only NRA pretends that threat exists because it serves their purposes.
What are the measures we can take to not infringe on citizens who wish to own firearms while addressing the carnage we see today?
The 2nd Amendment taken literally means every citizen can own H-Bombs, F-10 fighters, drones, tanks, subs etc. Now while idea is ridiculous, so is prohibition. So what can we do to make the existance of firearms within our society safer.
This is the conversation that needs to place and the sooner the better. If somebody with an Arab name had attacked that school in Newtown many parts of the Bill of Rights would be flushed down the toilet jsut like they were on 9/11. Let's try to not go to the extreme of the Patriot Act but try and mitigate in some way the 11,000 plus deaths that happen every year via forearm in our nation.
We can't end every one of those deaths bt shame on us if we don't find sensible ways to mitigate them.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.
A major problem I have with guns is cultural. Those who are obsessed with them are expressing values that are selfish, hostile, and paranoid. They have decided to forego all the refinements of modern living in favor of the false sense of relevance they get from their guns. Instead of accepting the vagaries of life, they've decided to forego living like decent human beings.
Some might think that's a stretch, but if you really think about the value preferences of gun owners who so strenuously object to any gun control it's not. These are individuals who have placed an inordinately high value on something only beneficial in the most extreme and apocalpytic scenario. That doesn't sound very balanced does it? Wouldn't you know it by listening to Alex Jones?
I hope that you realize that someone can own a gun without necessarily going about being armed day in and out. It's a judgement decision, but there is something to be said for having the option available. I knew plenty of cops who didn't carry off-duty because they viewed it as a potential headache waiting to happen. However, they would carry if going to a dangerous neighborhood.
Moreover, a lot of people keep banding about how they only want some reasonable restrictions, but I think the issue is their definition of reasonable. Some call for only 7 bullets, some for 5, I've even heard the fringe talking about 1 bullet. Yet the police typically carry 46 rounds on them at any given time, 2 fifteen round clips in a belt pouch, 1 fifteen round clip in the weapon and 1 round already chambered. These are people that train several times a year with their weapon, but typically need multiple shots to hit someone during an actual shooting.
Most people I know don't have an issue with background checks and some other provisions such as people that have been committed or deemed mentally defective from owning a weapon (so long as their is a way to receive judicial review of that determination).
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thombergeron
You continue to tilt against windmills. No one is proposing that firearms be removed from the picture. No one is proposing repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of firearms in the U.S..
The measures being proposed are attempts to improve public safety within the context of a guaranteed right for private citizens to own firearms. Universal background checks do not ban the private ownership of firearms, they enable it. Universal firearm registration does not ban the private ownership of firearms, it enables it. The assault weapons ban targets a specific class of weapons that are a demonstrable threat to public safety and which have no civilian application.
This is not an all or nothing proposition. Most civil rights described in the Bill of Rights have limits under certain circumstances. Felons generally see their First Amendment right to free assembly limited. The Ninth Amendment's right of privacy is still being hashed out. And despite the "simplicity" of the Second Amendment's language, the private ownership of firearms is, to a certain degree, regulated. No court has affirmed a citizen's unlimited right to bear arms.
Well, I think the issue is that people see some of the proposed or instituted measures as a back door means to effectively disarm people. Background checks don't seem to be opposed by many people that I converse with, though registration is more contentious due to historical issues. The definition of an assault weapon is also contentious for good reason. Many of the features used in the New York law to define what is an assault weapon appear to be rather arbitrary, designed to make a broad list of weapon prohibited. As I've said before, if these weapons are really so destructive than why do we arm the police with them?
I have actually fired many types of weapons, and all in the service of either the United States or as a cop. Machine guns, grenade launchers, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are all weapons that I have actually trained on, so I am coming at this debate with first hand knowledge of how each works and what they are capable of. On the other hand, it has been my experience that the majority of people that favor strict gun controls have never even held a weapon, and perhaps that is part of the problem here.
PS- Felons generally do not have their right to free assembly limited after they have served their sentence, and if you mean during their incarceration then that is a horrible comparison. Privacy is still being hashed out because it's an unenumerated right, so it's going to require a lot of hashing out. The best analogy in my opinion would be the laws that sought to "regulate" the handing out of political pamphlets and restrictions on small groups assembling in public, laws that were very popular during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Many of them were eventually struck down as a backdoor attempt to ban unpopular speech.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
I think that in choosing to be civilized and to not go out in public armed to the teeth one takes a leap of faith. Yes, there is the risk that others do not take that leap with you! Maybe you are risking your individual safety in the name of public safety and doing so because you aspire not to live in a primitive culture of violence.
I think this is an interesting comment and gets to the core of how I feel. Life is inherently risky so I go out into the world and make decisions almost every day that weigh that risk and reward balance. The # of Americans with guns is something like 35% of the population. The # of those who carry is an even smaller figure. So I really feel the risk of venturing out into the world unarmed is pretty low, and if I am caught in an altercation that involves guns, my survival instincts will kick in and lower the odds of harm even further.
I'm an engineer, by education. I'm constantly computing things in my head on the fly. On balance, it keeps me healthy and alive. The sad thing to me about opinions aired from gun proponents is how little computation, logic, or even common sense thinking lies behind their boldly proclaimed opinions. This is just one of those arguments where emotions rule the day.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NYBURBS
The definition of an assault weapon is also contentious for good reason. Many of the features used in the New York law to define what is an assault weapon appear to be rather arbitrary, designed to make a broad list of weapon prohibited. As I've said before, if these weapons are really so destructive than why do we arm the police with them?
Well I would assume because the police should be able to bring greater firepower with them to altercation with a bad guy.
You are right that many gun owners and even some gun advocates do not object to background checks, though in a moment of either shear flex of NRA power or tone deafness (or both) Wayne LaPierre just testified before congress that background checks are ineffective.
As for registration, if the owners of guns are worried about the government will come to their homes with 18 wheelers and take away their guns, it is a theoretical argument, but when the government decides to squash the citizens, their power is far greater than the guns held by citizens. And if you have to register a car, a dog, why not a gun.
You are right at least in my case that I have never owned a firearm, though I have held and operated firearms, both shot guns as a civilian and an M-16 in basic training in USAF, though my service never called for me to operate the weapon again.
I respect the fact that there are hunters (though I would never hunt). I respect that people collect weapons like stamps or coins or sport memorabilia. And I accept that some folks actually feel more secure having a firearm in their homes even though many studies show that far more tragic consequences come from a weapon being in a home than are prevented by that weapons presence.
So I am not suggesting we eliminate guns, simply that we make weapons harder to acquire and that we limit the firepower that the average citizen can walk around with.
In no way this is pointed at you but I do find it troubling that so many citizens that feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment applauded the trashing of other parts of the Bill of Rights from internment of Japanese Americans, to Red Scare of the 50's, to Patriot Act.
And what frustrates me the most is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment if you read all 27 words certainly indicate that intention was for states to have a militia, what we today call the National Guard. It is quite debatable that they thought that every American should be have the fettered right to own weapons that were unimaginable in the 1790's.
And most of the NRA makes me puke. If the actual were dedicated to rights of gun owners and not gun industrialists, they never would have endorsed Romney over Obama. Obama had no record of adverse gun actions, in fact his only action as President was to allow firearms to be carried in National Parks (gun rights v. gun control). Romney OTOH as Governor had signed very strict gun control legislation. They are a manipulative group that makes themselves a pretty penny appearing to represent Average Joe when in fact they are a pro Capitalist PAC with a winning wedge issue.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
I live in a country where the police are unarmed. Do I feel safer? You can bet your life on it.
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robertlouis
I live in a country where the police are unarmed. Do I feel safer? You can bet your life on it.
I envy you but that very fact probably makes it hard to understand just how complex this issue is in the US any more than I ever got what the heck was going on in Ireland all those years and why it tok so long to resolve...
There is no way that our police officers can be armed with rubber bullets and pepper spray at this stage of the Republic's history. It is something I am not proud of as an American but I accept as part of having been born and raised here and a trade-off for the very many wonderful things about the US.
