Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[RMJK]

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in. My daughter has a job on a Navaho reservation. They have flea markets where you can buy guns. So I could get what I wanted on and go back to ny and supposedly sell them for a profit if I desired. I'm sure this is happening every day.

You go to the Hood and guns are sold in the projects to drug dealers etc.

Somehow we need to stop this from happening.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Uh, gun grabbing morons of all nations unite?

According to lib geniuses, I mean the anti-American pukes here the laffs are coming at a rapid clip, fast and furious:

National Socialism = Right Wing

Ex post facto laws applied to guns are A-OK
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution be damned

FISA is scary - Islamokook phone calls to the Ummah are sacred

The 2nd Amendment has many, many restrictions not enumerated within

More guns in circulation makes us less free


*********

Criminalizing the legal and vice versa - what the left does best!

You'd have to wear blinders to not see the critical elements of National Socialism that are far right wing in the global sense of the word. There are powerful centralist elements as well. Our terms really fail when extrapolated to systems beyond our own.

Ex Post Facto wouldn't apply if a regulation was put in place that required the turn-in of all outlawed weapons after a given date. If someone chose not to turn the weapon in they would liable under current law, not Ex Post Facto. The failure of the previous automatic weapons ban was that it allowed retention of existing weapons purchased before the law was effected. That should not happen again.

FISA - well, this one is complicated indeed. Anyone who on the one hand is interested in a high bar for protection of personal rights and liberties will struggle a bit to simultaneously defend the Patriot Act in its various iterations, unless one has considerable implicit trust in government to use these powers very judiciously.

The Second Amendment does not provide detailed answers regarding the types of weapons that we can "keep or bear." It seems perfectly reasonable, as it has to the courts since the beginning of the Republic, to have some form of restriction on what is acceptable for personal use governed by state law. Weapons have come a long way since the beginning of the 19th century. Providing a threshold for possession of weapons seems perfectly logical. You need a license to drive a car or motorcycle; you should at least need the equivalent to own and operate a deadly weapon.

As to the last point, who knows? In the U.S. I have not seen an instance where the possession of guns by any individual or group has led to their or anyone else's increased freedom. I can think of a number of examples where the possession of weapons by thugs in some of our communities has severely restricted or impaired the quality of life of their neighbors. Guns as a political tool to defend freedom are a last resort and frankly unimaginable unless there was a coup or invasion.

[Warfish]

Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns

This time, the debate has to be about more than not offending the NRA's sensibilities.

2:59 PM, Dec 29, 2012

DesMoines Register

I’m glad I retired five months ago.

Think of it: I was spared writing about the presidential election, an event so vacuous it made reality TV seem interesting. If there was any serious discussion of an important national issue — global warming, obesity, transportation policy, the morality of drone
attacks on civilian populations, the environmental consequences of fracking, existential implications of the designated hitter — I missed it.

Instead, we got a campaign of misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies. The Republicans were by far the worst offenders, but President Barack Obama didn’t cover himself in glory either.

I was happy with the result of the presidential election, but I didn’t regret not covering it. And I was entirely content to go on not writing about things. (If I could make a living at that, life would be perfect.)

But then Newtown happened. A misanthropic young man who never seemed particularly violent killed his mother then broke into an elementary school and massacred little kids, teachers and the principal.

And the very air changed. The holiday season suddenly turned somber. You looked at the small children around you differently, as fragile, precious gifts to be cherished and, above all, protected.

Obama struck that note in his moving speech at the memorial service. Speaking for us all, he said: “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”

Nice words, but somehow not enough. Not nearly enough.

That’s when I figured I should write a column about it. During my 50-year career, every time some demented soul would take a semiautomatic gun and clean out a post office, a school or a picnic, I’d get up on my soap box and let loose with a withering diatribe about guns, the National Rifle Association and weak-kneed politicians. Did it about 75 times, give or take.

And in every case the main effect was a spike in gun sales.

Still, I thought I’d give it one more shot ... er, chance.

Obama’s speech was fine as far as it went, but it didn’t go very far. Neither have any of the other responses I’ve heard.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she was going to introduce a bill to ban the sale and importation of assault weapons. Great, but the bill wouldn’t apply to weapons already out there, and in defining illegal weapons, it listed more than 900 exceptions.

Nine hundred!

The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.

That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

[Warfish]

Also just read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/02...ite-to-attend/

And I don't understand something. It says the families of the victims in aurora (some) are suing the Theatre.

What is the basis for that, that the Theatre is somehow liable for the mass shooting?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Warfish

=========================================

To that, I would answer with this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/

With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral
Harry Binswanger

Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would deny Ayn Rand’s point that “the government is the means of placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.”

On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend themselves? What about people who aren’t ever going to fly into a rage and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn’t a few armed adults have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been spared? We don’t need statistical studies to know that banning guns from cities doesn’t stop criminals from getting them.

Note that this “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” does not arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting). The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from accidents with guns).

Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think about this issue?

The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost? That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve the herd. Mankind is not a herd.

Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is the principle governing the individual’s relation to the state?

The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine.

Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the Declaration states, government is established “to secure these rights.”

To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns, clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors.

The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive–as rights-violating–as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in more detail in Ayn Rand’s articles “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government.”) The government may use force only against an objective threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation.

In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.

The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining issue is: what constitutes an objective threat?

An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and present danger to someone’s person or property. For instance, waving a gun around (“brandishing”) is an objective threat to the individuals in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as “clear and present danger,” can be set.

Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That’s collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make.

People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do.

The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And The tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school personnel.

The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force.

Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by RMJK

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in. My daughter has a job on a Navaho reservation. They have flea markets where you can buy guns. So I could get what I wanted on and go back to ny and supposedly sell them for a profit if I desired. I'm sure this is happening every day.

You go to the Hood and guns are sold in the projects to drug dealers etc.

Somehow we need to stop this from happening.

==================================================

Without the use of a time machine I don't see how we stop this.

I read some where that Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by gunnails

==================================================

Without the use of a time machine I don't see how we stop this.

I read some where that Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country.

I thought that gun store was next to it, not in it?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Soberphobia

I thought that gun store was next to it, not in it?

=========================================

Ha Ha, well played my friend from down under.

[crasherino]

Originally Posted by gunnails

==================================================

Without the use of a time machine I don't see how we stop this.

I read some where that Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country.

I'm pretty sure he meant stopping "this" as people easily buying guns in a certain place (in this case a Navajo Reservation), transporting them to other places (where its harder to purchase fire arms) and selling them. The Navajo Reservation could also be replaced with "Gun Show in VA".

I agree that its basically impossible to stop senseless massacres like some of the ones we've seen. Unless you can make guns magically disappear, someone will always have the capacity to commit a devastating act of violence. But, if sensible gun laws are enacted on the heels of the Newtown tragedy, I'm OK with that.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=========================================

Ha Ha, well played my friend from down under.

Cheers, happy new year as well.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=========================================

To that, I would answer with this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybin...sis-is-amoral/

Using this argument then, all weapons, including automatic rifles, grenades, bombs, etc. should be completely unregulated.

Incidentally, the author of this piece also believes in completely open immigration and that the U.S. should immediately engage in total, offensive war against all "regimes that sponsor terrorism."

In other words, he's a crackpot.

[gunnails]

crasherino
I'm pretty sure he meant stopping "this" as people easily buying guns in a certain place (in this case a Navajo Reservation), transporting them to other places (where its harder to purchase fire arms) and selling them. The Navajo Reservation could also be replaced with "Gun Show in VA".

================================================== =
That's pretty much what I took him to mean also

I agree that its basically impossible to stop senseless massacres like some of the ones we've seen. Unless you can make guns magically disappear, someone will always have the capacity to commit a devastating act of violence. But, if sensible gun laws are enacted on the heels of the Newtown tragedy, I'm OK with that.

===============================================

Tht's pretty much what I was saying, except for the part about passing more sensible gun laws.
IMHO and what I argue is that Gun bans, restrictions on magazine size, gun free zones, all fail to deliver what we hope they would.

It's up to us to protect ourselves individually. How we do so is a personal decision we all must make. Restricting my firearms rights and there by restricting my right to life because some loony murder commits an atrocious act is foolish.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

Using this argument then, all weapons, including automatic rifles, grenades, bombs, etc. should be completely unregulated.

Incidentally, the author of this piece also believes in completely open immigration and that the U.S. should immediately engage in total, offensive war against all "regimes that sponsor terrorism."

In other words, he's a crackpot.

==============================================

Is that a straw man thing?

I don't think machine guns should be commonly available, although less then 2 miles from my house there is a gun range that rents a full auto Tommy Gun, and at least one other machine gun for use on there range. So they are in fact present and legal in the US. But they are regulated.

Grenades, bombs, certain chemicals, etc. I agree should be regulated also.

I am unaware of the writers other views, as you explain them , and I certainly do not share those views.

The following quote is why I posted his article.

People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by gunnails

I don't think machine guns should be commonly available,

Why? I've never understood why everyone is so afraid of "assault rifles". Automatic weapons are very ineffective in single shooter situations. The last time the United States used an automatic weapon as a main battle rifle was in WWII. And by the end of WWII it was already being phased out for the far more deadly (in most situations) semi-automatic rifle.

Unless you're trained to use an automatic weapon for the purpose suppressive fire, or using a lightweight sub-machine gun (think Uzi) in a CQB situation, a semi-automatic rifle is almost always deadlier, and less prone to mechanical problems to boot.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by BushyTheBeaver

Using this argument then, all weapons, including automatic rifles, grenades, bombs, etc. should be completely unregulated.

Incidentally, the author of this piece also believes in completely open immigration and that the U.S. should immediately engage in total, offensive war against all "regimes that sponsor terrorism."

In other words, he's a crackpot.

And the author of the Des Moines article?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by Axil

Why? I've never understood why everyone is so afraid of "assault rifles". Automatic weapons are very ineffective in single shooter situations. The last time the United States used an automatic weapon as a main battle rifle was in WWII. And by the end of WWII it was already being phased out for the far more deadly (in most situations) semi-automatic rifle.

Unless you're trained to use an automatic weapon for the purpose suppressive fire, or using a lightweight sub-machine gun (think Uzi) in a CQB situation, a semi-automatic rifle is almost always deadlier, and less prone to mechanical problems to boot.

========================================

I did not say machine guns should be illegal, I agree with your post.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by gunnails

========================================

I did not say machine guns should be illegal, I agree with your post.

I know you didn't. I'm just not sure that someone owning (for example) AK-47, should be more concerning to the public than someone with a high capacity semi-automatic weapon, or even a high caliber hunting rifle.

Hell, some untrained lunatic killing soft targets is probably most dangerous with a handgun, as it's easiest to conceal, and get to the location in the first place.

*edit* and in case i'm not being clear on my overall point. I don't think there should be any special requirements (beyond being an adult with no felonys sane enough to live within society) to own a handgun. And thus i don't think there should be any special requirements to own an AK-47

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Axil

Why? I've never understood why everyone is so afraid of "assault rifles". Automatic weapons are very ineffective in single shooter situations. The last time the United States used an automatic weapon as a main battle rifle was in WWII. And by the end of WWII it was already being phased out for the far more deadly (in most situations) semi-automatic rifle.

Unless you're trained to use an automatic weapon for the purpose suppressive fire, or using a lightweight sub-machine gun (think Uzi) in a CQB situation, a semi-automatic rifle is almost always deadlier, and less prone to mechanical problems to boot.

Really no difference between semi and fully auto. Just a matter of trigger squeeze. I have fired both types of weapons and I own both fully and semi weapons. I can actually get a 240B and 249 SAW down to a single shot per squeeze. And btw fully auto M-16A1's were used by the US Army in Vietnam, Panama and Desert Storm.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by gunnails

==================================================

Without the use of a time machine I don't see how we stop this.

I read some where that Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country.

Please. You can buy anything you want in Mexico. I don't think gun control is effective and it contradicts the intent of our founding fathers. This is the one issue that the right-wing conservatives are actually right about.

[BushyTheBeaver]

Originally Posted by Axil

I know you didn't. I'm just not sure that someone owning (for example) AK-47, should be more concerning to the public than someone with a high capacity semi-automatic weapon, or even a high caliber hunting rifle.

Hell, some untrained lunatic killing soft targets is probably most dangerous with a handgun, as it's easiest to conceal, and get to the location in the first place.

*edit* and in case i'm not being clear on my overall point. I don't think there should be any special requirements (beyond being an adult with no felonys sane enough to live within society) to own a handgun. And thus i don't think there should be any special requirements to own an AK-47

There was a scene in The Basketball Diaries where these kids go into a basement to snort some heroin. Down there they run into a junkie who tells them, "If you're gonna snort it, you might as well pop it. And if you're gonna pop it, you might as well mainline." Your post reminds me of that.