Thursday, January 10, 2013

Sure, You Can Own These Guns

By Keith R. Schmitz

For sure the gun problem -- and it is a problem -- can be solved and at least pushed towards sanity. But the fix will not be just one law and this will take years of dedication by people of good will.

Vice-President Joe Biden is getting the ball rolling and soon will have some ideas on gun management, a term which I think is better than "gun control" because it sounds less oppressive.

We need to throw ideas in from all parts.

Here's mine.

There is no sane reason why military-style assault weapons need to be available to the general public except in comic book minds.

And why do we have them? Jim Fendry last month explained that his buddies love firing them off. Nice. His hobby is more important that the lives of those at Sandy Hook or the Aurora movie theater.

So how about a 2nd amendment solution? How about we let Fendry and his gun-firing friends keep their weapons.

They can fire them off at the range all they want and get their jollies. The only difference is that rather than bringing them home where someone can break in and steal the guns, or someone could flip out and mow down the neighborhood, the guns would have to locked up at the firing range.

Now this could not be just any firing range, but it must be a government sanctioned and inspected facility, just like an airport which is regulated and inspected.

Failure to store these weapons would result in a hefty fine and jail time. Think of it. We'd have an Al Capone tax-fraud style law that would enable us to round up the gang bangers if they fail to keep their guns where they belong.

So there's one idea. Got a better one? Let's hear it.

52 comments:

  1. thats what hitler did, after he took all priately owned weapons. i challange you to come up with an original plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, um actually no, he didn't. Please see Article 169 of The Treaty of Versailles. Then, check out the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition, signed into law under the Weimar government (not the Nazi party). finally, actually try reading The 1938 German Weapons Act, which most certainly did NOT "take all privately owned weapons". If you're going to make a sad attempt at a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, have the good graces to spend a minute or two doing a little research to ensure that the ridiculous comparison you're about to attempt at least has a basis in reality. I challenge you to come up with a statement that is factual.

      Delete
    2. Hitler also broke up all the unions. What were you saying when Walker did that?

      Delete
    3. Let's tamp out this crap about Hitler and guns once and for all.

      Try facts next time.

      http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/01/sorry-gun-nuts-hitler-actually-relaxed.html

      Delete
  2. If these weapons truly serve no purpose, then does that mean the ban would also apply to the police and military?

    Seriously...I totally understand your fears & concerns, but I gotta ask: Would you accept any of these limitations/restrictions on any of our other basic rights that are protected, by name, in the Constitution?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I love about those assertions is that those commando role players would be squashed like bugs by our military, the same military that they vote for every time they walk into the polls to put the GOP in office.

      Delete
  3. There are 20,000 drunk driving deaths each year in this country, so maybe we should keep our cars at the police station and sign them out only after proving we are not drunk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cars serve another purpose rather than killing. What other purpose do guns serve?

      Delete
    2. The gun industry pulls in about six billion a year. Medical care along with other costs come to about three billion. Throw in LaPierre's armed guards and you wipe out any economic benefit. A massive number of jobs are connected with the auto industry.

      Kindly give that line a rest because it only makes the user look stupid.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, if only we could find a way to make it so that a car wouldn't start if the operator was intoxicated... oh wait.
      http://usdotblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551eea4f5883401543294fd4b970c-600wi

      Delete
  4. Ban sales of any new firearm loading more than 5 rounds without a manual user action to chamber a projectile.

    Ban full automatic new sales completely.

    Raise taxes on ammunition basing rates by grain of powder (higher caliber and higher velocity = higher tax)by an astronomical rate.

    Gun Licenses should be PER GUN (with all associated fees).
    Ban import of ANY firearm, all firearms for U.S. sale must be of U.S.origin (100% parts, materials, and assembly).

    ReplyDelete
  5. My suggestion is to prosecute irresponsible gun owners for the crimes their firearms commit. So, if you own a gun and it is stolen or used by someone other than you (the registered owner(s))in a crime, you are also subject to prosecution for that crime (a la the getaway driver being prosecutable for crimes committed by those s/he transports). The "get out of jail free card" waiver of potential prosecution is having a biometric trigger control device installed on the firearm.

    I'd also suggest applying the same approach to gun sales...if you sell a gun without mandated background checks, waiting periods, etc., you are potentially prosecutable for any crime committed with that gun, but are shielded from prosecution if you do.

    I have friends and family members who are gun owners (a couple with quite extensive collections), who store their firearms unloaded in impregnable safes. Such legislation would not affect them because they already store and handle their firearms responsibly and with great care.

    No more "what me worry" attitude from those who do not sell and/or own guns responsibly.

    No gun control necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I've not seen anything like it mentioned elsewhere...granted the series of tubes that make up the Internets are largely a mystery to me, so this may be a much-discussed idea somewhere unbeknownst to me. I'd be very interested in hearing a critique of it...or, more honestly, critical refinements to it. It strikes me as a means to circumvent a fair amount of NRA obstructionism, though the Obama-is-taking-our-guns crowd would likely still characterize it as a tool for The Man to target supposedly responsible gun owners.

      Delete
    2. I have seen similar on Facebook, but hadn't traced it back to the origin. It's got all the things conservatives love - guns, personal responsibility, money - that is they love it until it's up to them to be responsible and spend their own money.

      Delete
    3. Setting aside their complete disregard of the "well regulated militia" part, my personal view is to let Second Amendment invokers have as many barrel-loaded muskets as they'd like and tell them the STFU. I can be an "Originalist," too! However, I'm rational and mature enough to realize that it is unlikely (and probably inappropriate) for my personal views to become the whole cloth of public policy. Accordingly, it seems important to develop policy that speaks to the concerns and interests of those for whom the Second Amendment is paramount...and I'm with you in thinking this kind of legislation largely does.

      I'm also with you in thinking that such a policy would not fly without government subsidy to cover any personal expenditure to comply with its provisions (folks don't have a lot of discretionary funds left over after dropping a few hundred or more on guns).

      Though those who live responsible gun ownership, rather than just giving it lip service, would be generally unaffected by this kind of legislation, I'd foresee major push back from the gun lobby during the first wave of prosecutions of irresponsible gun owners and sellers, as irresponsible gun owners constitute a not insignificant percentage of the gun industry customer base (even numbers in the single digits can translate to some serious profits). Unfortunately, the NRA's mission to increase sales for the gun industry supersedes any of its efforts to represent responsible gun owners.

      Delete
  6. (1) Require passing a mental health evaluation for anyone who wants to own a gun, for starters. (2) Require the registration of all existing guns, and, new guns sold. (3) Require death by firing squad -- using automatic assault weapon -- for anyone...ANYONE not following those rules.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Love the references to Hitler whenever gun management comes up -- or Obama's name..

    I dunno. Germany in 1933 elects a guy who promises to sit on certain minority groups and who is going push for security at any cost.

    Sounds like the perfect T-Party candidate to me.

    And don't forget. I mentioned you can keep the guns.

    And yes, we could do a better job of controlling drunk driving, which we strive for all the time. What then makes guns any different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If true why are there twice as drunk driving deaths than gun deaths?

      Delete
    2. Actually, gun deaths are to surpass traffic accidents in two more years. What were you saying?

      Delete
    3. "If true why are there twice as drunk driving deaths than gun deaths?"

      I'm glad you brought that up, mostly because it's false. Hey, why let reality get in the way of a great narrative though!

      http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

      Actually, there were three times as many firearm related deaths as dunk driving related deaths (in 2010). Not quite the twice as many as you claim.

      In actuality, gun deaths are on pace to exceed traffic deaths (all, not just alcohol related)as the leading cause of non-medical deaths in the U.S. by 2015. Why is that? You see, recognizing the inherent danger present in operating a motor vehicle , we, as a society, have decided to put in place sensible regulations regarding the manufacture and operation of motor vehicles. Guess, what, it's working. What a concept! If only we could come up with some sensible regulations regarding the manufacture, sale, and use of firearms. But hey, who am I kidding. Then we wouldn't be free to resist government tyranny.

      Delete
  8. "I mentioned you can keep the guns"

    Kinda like saying that people are still allowed to blog, but first they have to pass their background check, have a 48 hour waiting period before posting, and can only post from the Public Library. After all, our Founding Fathers surely never envisioned the Internet when they wrote the First Amendment and everyone knows that the pen is mightier than the sword. Rest assured, folks can still blog...just as long as they follow these reasonable restrictions.

    (I ain't sayin' I'm actually in favor of such a thing...rather I'm just sayin')

    "we could do a better job of controlling drunk driving, which we strive for all the time. What then makes guns any different."

    Driving is a privilege, while bearing arms is a right. If you are gonna make comparisons, make 'em to other basic rights.

    Which is why I ask: Would you accept any of these proposed restrictions on any other basic rights that are protected by our Constitution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Driving is a privilege, while bearing arms is a right. If you are gonna make comparisons, make 'em to other basic rights.

      Which is why I ask: Would you accept any of these proposed restrictions on any other basic rights that are protected by our Constitution?"

      Driving is a necessary reality of our daily lives in ever expanding urban and suburban environments, bearing arms is in no way necessary. No right is absolute. Please name for me one right that doesn't have some form of restriction, including first amendment rights. So to answer your question, yes, we accept restrictions on all basic rights as a matter of necessity. To suggest otherwise is silly.

      Delete
  9. Your first paragraph is nonsense, which leads me to point out that among the grown ups we realize that with rights comes responsibilities.

    None of the rights in the bill of rights are unlimited.

    People have had enough and are calling out the pro-gunners for their fantasy version of the 2nd amendment. That amendment was designed to protect the people back then against the possible return of the British and the native Americans that we managed to piss off.

    Thank God people are starting to call out the fantasy interpretation of the 2nd amendment. As Chief Justice Warren Berger put it, "the 2nd amendment is one of the worst frauds perpetrated on the American public."

    Yeah, times have changed. Now we have the professional police and military to defend us that we couldn't afford then. (Cue the dystopian response).

    After Sandy Hook America is moving on, except for those who have the unreal psychological dependence of having their being defined by gun ownership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shane, I totally understand that some of our rights are already restricted. But the right to bear arms is already the most heavily regulated & restricted of the basic rights protected by the Constitutions, and ya'll are demanding even more restrictions and limitations. So I'm curious to know if folks are willing to accept the same kind of limitations on any of the other Bill of Rights.

      For instance, what would you say about felons automatically losing their first amendment rights for life? Or if the President decided that medical marijuana users no longer have a right to a speedy trial? Should there also be a waiting period (ie, no same-day registration) when it comes to voting?

      Please don't misunderstand me...while I do understand your concerns and intentions, a gun ban (or "management" or "control" or whatever) will be no more effective than the marijuana & cocaine ban has been.

      And yes krshorewood...having those type of heavy restrictions on a Constitutional right is nonsense. That was the exact point I was trying to make. We don't accept those kind of draconian restrictions on our other basic rights, so why should they be acceptable on this one?

      That aside, if you honestly think that the Second Amendment is a fraud then perhaps you should work to repeal it rather than try to work around it.

      Delete
    2. "For instance, what would you say about felons automatically losing their first amendment rights for life? Or if the President decided that medical marijuana users no longer have a right to a speedy trial? Should there also be a waiting period (ie, no same-day registration) when it comes to voting? "

      Is there a demonstrable societal risk to felons having first amendment rights? Or Medical Marijuana users having the right to a speedy trial? Or to same day voter registration? Your entire assertion is a non sequitur as it is in no way equivalent. Just naming arbitrary rights lost for no corresponding reason is not in any way the same thing. Yes, all rational people realize there are limitations to rights. Although it's an oldie an example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. We place reasonable limitations on rights when they impose upon the rights, safety, and freedoms of others.

      "a gun ban (or "management" or "control" or whatever) will be no more effective than the marijuana & cocaine ban has been. "

      First, no one has suggested a "gun ban". Second, again you draw a false equivalency. For one, criminals can't grow firearms in their basement grow room. Firearms are manufactured under rather exacting specifications rendering them unlikely candidates for underground or cartel black market manufacture. Furthermore, gun manufacturers would still have a legal, legitimate market, (law enforcement and military.) There exists no equivalent in the cocaine and marijuana world (no Ruger, or Sig Sauer of cocaine if you will). There is no question that an all out gun ban would be effective if implemented. After all, how many T.O.W. missiles or LAWS do we see in public use? The problem with an all out ban is in the implementation and confiscation of current legally owned firearms. There is no feasible solution to that that doesn't create far more problems then it solves. A ban is not a feasible and realistic solution, and no one is honestly suggesting it.

      Delete
    3. "Is there a demonstrable societal risk to felons having first amendment rights? Or Medical Marijuana users having the right to a speedy trial? Or to same day voter registration?"

      Well...we're told that all felons are so dangerous that they need to have the basic right to bear arms stripped from them for the rest of their life, so why is it so absurd to think that they should be trusted with the more powerful pen? Especially in this day&age of the internet.

      And many folks are saying that same-day registration makes voting fraud too easy...not to mention the whole voter ID issue.

      *shrug*

      Also, it is very easy to make a firearm with a basic machine shop, and it would be easier to hide than a grow room. Gonna be even easier as the prices of 3D printers come down & the tech improves. (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/21/click-print-shoot-guns-made-on-3-d-printers-not-as-farfetched-idea-as-it-sounds/)

      And actually, street gangs have been caught with LAW rockets before. (http://www.streetgangs.com/news/021310_chicago_weapons_seized)

      And yes, people...elected officials even...are honestly suggesting that some guns be banned. (http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22351788/white-house-sees-assault-gun-ban-one-part)

      Plus, justgottaaddrealquick, cocaine is manufactured by a company in St Louis and is used in legitimate medical procedures. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326142016AA4SU6S)

      But none of that is neither here-nor-there now...I was just wondering if you would accept any of the same kind of heavy limitations/restrictions on other basic rights that are on the Second Amendment. Safe to say that your answer is "no", eh?

      Delete
    4. The second amendment is not a fraud. The wild interpretations of it are.

      Let's face it. The NRA has never been able to have a gun regulation tossed out on the basis of the second amendment. On the Brady bill, they never went after it in court.

      Delete
    5. The second amendment does NOT mean you can have any weapon anywhere anytime with no questions asked....get over yourselves please.

      Delete
    6. "The second amendment is not a fraud.. The wild interpretations of it are."

      While I totally understand that you disagree with the Supreme Court's "wild interpretation" of the Second Amendment, I'm still curious to know exactly what you personally beleive it protects.

      Could you please point out any restrictions/regulations that you think would go too far?

      Delete
    7. When any of your asinine, completely arbitrary, and totally unrelated comparisons results in 30,000+ people being dead, then yes, I would support restrictions of the nature you suggest. Until that time, of course I don't support them as they're completely illogical and in no way germane to the particular conversation.

      If we get to the point where the only guns we have to worry about are personally manufactured zip guns and the like, then we likely wouldn't have to have this conversation as the problem would largely be solved.

      "And actually, street gangs have been caught with LAW rockets before. "
      Again, if all firearms become as rampant as LAWS, then we really won't have a problem.

      "And yes, people...elected officials even...are honestly suggesting that some guns be banned. "
      Which isn't what I said now is it? I said no one is seriously suggesting a total gun ban. Are you suggesting that no guns should be banned?

      "Plus, justgottaaddrealquick, cocaine is manufactured by a company in St Louis and is used in legitimate medical procedures. "

      Actually, not quite. Mallinckrodt doesn't manufacture it, nor do they use it in medical procedures. Your information is dated. It's used almost exclusively for clinical testing as safer, more effective alternatives exist for any medicinal use of cocaine. Furthermore, Mallinckrodt is hardly equivalent to a Ruger or Sig Sauer now are they? You love the false equivalencies don't you.

      Delete
  10. Hmmmm...wonder if my comments will be removed again...

    My suggestion is that if a gun is stolen or otherwise taken and used by someone other than the registered owner to commit a crime, the gun owner is prosecuted for that crime as well (a la the getaway car driver being charged with the same crime as those he transports to/from a the commission of a crime). Liability gets waived if the owner of the gun installs a biometric trigger control device.

    Same concept applies to gun sales...if someone sells a gun without applying the mandated background check, waiting periods, etc. and the gun is used in a crime, the seller is subject to prosecution for that crime as well.

    Don't want "gun control" or to close the "gun show loophole?" No problem, we'll just legislate responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing was removed. You were caught in the spam filter. That's the risk you run when you're too lazy to even come up with a pseudonym.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the snark...I'm not much of a commenter and don't know how these things work...the comment just looked "missing" to me.

      I didn't realize entering a pseudonym was an option, it looked to me like the alternatives listed were social media tools I don't use (or don't know)...but, you're right, coming up with a pseudonym after all the effort it takes to type these comments is far too much to bear...I'm tapped.

      Thanks for the explanation.

      Delete
    3. As long as I have been here we have never edited or deleted comments. We arent the right blogs we welcome debate from all sides...

      That being said...i actually agree with you. Gun owners actually taking responsibility would go a long way in easing the fears of my mind. yet the NRA has no interest in doing that, which is why everytime we pass a new CCW law they also have to pass a get out of jail free law (castle doctrine) right with it.

      If they had to actually pay the consequences of owning their guns the ywould be much more responsible with them.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately, the NRA's real function as the sales and marketing division of the gun industry is rarely mentioned, and those unwilling to recognize them as such too often bring them to the table to develop policy...much like bringing a used car salesman in to craft lemon laws. It's a shame that law-abiding gun owners don't really have an organization to support their interests and, instead, have been sold the NRA's bill of goods...it's disheartening to see the partipulation (participation in one's own manipulation) of gun owners whose earnest concerns have been co-opted by a group whose primary mission is to get people to spend more money on guns. How many astronomical quarterly sales reports from gun manufacturers do we have to see before folks realize the gun industry is laughing all the way to the bank while the NRA plays on the emotions of largely well-meaning people, and works actively to ensure (if not promote) the kind of fear and disorder likely to increase future gun sales?

      Delete
  11. "There is no sane reason why military-style assault weapons need to be available to the general public except in comic book minds."

    Such are, in fact, legally unavailable to "the general public" - and have been so for - oh - roughly three generations now - other than "in comic book minds", apparently including yours.

    "So how about a 2nd amendment solution?... ...rather than bringing them home where someone can break in and steal the guns, or someone could flip out and mow down the neighborhood, the guns would have to locked up at the firing range.

    Now this could not be just any firing range, but it must be a government sanctioned and inspected facility, just like an airport which is regulated and inspected."

    A. You clearly have a woefully flawed and/or misinformed concept of just what the Constitutional Second Amendment actually says, what its legal meaning actually is, just how wildly at variance what you propose is from it and how totally ineffective your proposal would be in any sort of prevention of incidents such as Newtown, the movie-theater assault, etc; B. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that actual, full-auto (selective-fire or not) assault weaponry would be either safer or more secure in a "government sanctioned and inspected facility" than if they were dispersed to individual owners' locked storage - in point of fact, such centralized "government facilities" (think: National Guard armories) have proven to ofttimes be far more vulnerable to theft than have individual collectors' (the few legitimate ones that exist) legally-regulated locked storage.

    You folks certainly do seem to specialize in beclowning yourselves on this subject - or didn't you realize that?

    You asked for suggestions. Here's one: Stop mischaracterizing the "problem" - the problem is not the guns; it IS criminal MISUSE (and, often-times, criminal POSSESSION) of SOME guns. Mostly, handguns (of all types), and occasionally rifles and/or shotguns - now and then, even a "scary-looking" semi-automatic rifle or two (NOT an "assault weapon" - despite Feinstein's political b.s., and any number of other people who misunderstand - either deliberately or through rank ignorance - the term). Guns - even the "scary-looking" ones - don't aim and shoot themselves; that requires people - and sometimes, some of those people do so for criminal reasons. Go after THEM - hey, some of us "good guys" (we're the ones who LEGALLY own and LAWFULLY use guns) may even be able to help with that.

    Second suggestion: Pursue the CRIMINALS - NOT legitimate, LEGAL owners/firearms users. Actually ENFORCE the laws and rules you've already got - Federal and State - and stop wasting time and money trying to pile up more such; that just confuses matters, and makes more of a smog of conflicting, counterproductive entanglement, which actually only threatens to make otherwise law-abiding people more vulnerable.

    Third suggestion: Staff schools - which have PROVEN to be vulnerable targets - with willing, CAREFULLY SCREENED and TRAINED armed staff members and VISIBLE armed guards. We guard other vulnerable public venues - and PRIVATE schools do this - why not schools? Stop posting "Gun Free Zone" or similar labels on schools - post "Armed Guards On-Site" or similar instead.

    Or don't you think your neighborhood's elementary/primary school should have at least as much protection as your average city football stadium or your nearby airport terminal?

    "And don't forget. I mentioned you can keep the guns."

    Gee, thanks - but, actually, those of us who actually obey the laws DON'T REQUIRE YOUR (or, lawfully, anyone's) PERMISSION. We have an inherent RIGHT to keep what we currently own.

    And that's the way we intend to keep matters - whether you or the politicians like it, or not.

    Cordially,

    An Informed (And LAWFUL) Gun Owner

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You clearly have a woefully flawed and/or misinformed concept of just what the Constitutional Second Amendment actually says, what its legal meaning actually is,"
      Please, enlighten us, just what does the "Constitutional Second Amendment" actually say, and what is its legal meaning? Clearly from your verbiage you're an accomplished constitutional law scholar. So yes, please enlighten us with its "legal meaning".

      "Stop mischaracterizing the "problem" - the problem is not the guns; it IS criminal MISUSE (and, often-times, criminal POSSESSION) of SOME guns."
      The problem is massively exacerbated by guns. Body counts in mass shootings are far higher (with greater lethality) because of guns. Suicides happen with far greater regularity because of guns. Accidental shootings have far more tragic results because of guns. Violent criminal encounters have increasingly deadly endings because of guns.

      You've laid out this world view that guns are this benign tool that only cause harm in the hands of criminals. This ignores the decidedly deadly nature of firearms, and the inherent danger present in a tool that's intended to kill. Not a week goes by where we seemingly don't hear a story about some child who was accidentally shot by a responsible gun owner while they were getting into their truck or while their gun was left unattended. We are demonstrably less safe in the presence of guns then not. That's a statistical reality.

      You claim that we should "Pursue the CRIMINALS - NOT legitimate, LEGAL owners/firearms users. Actually ENFORCE the laws and rules you've already got - Federal and State - and stop wasting time and money trying to pile up more such;"
      That sounds really great, there's a couple of issues with it though. First, where is it that you think criminals get firearms? Do you think they're fabricating them up in their garages? They get them from people that lawfully possess them. Theft, straw purchases, private sales/gunshow loopholes, and illegal sales from corrupt FFL's, are the primary ways in which criminals obtain the firearms they use. It is the enormous proliferation of lawful weapons in the U.S. that has lead to the increased ease with which criminals obtain guns. Ironically enough, gun rights lobbying and advocacy groups almost always oppose any legislation which might serve to reduce the avenues for criminals to obtain weapons. Closing gun show loopholes/private sales, repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, repeal of seller manufacturer suit immunity, increased background checks are nearly universally opposed by gun rights advocates. So, which laws aren't being enforced that you think should be?

      "Staff schools - which have PROVEN to be vulnerable targets - with willing, CAREFULLY SCREENED and TRAINED armed staff members and VISIBLE armed guards. We guard other vulnerable public venues - and PRIVATE schools do this - why not schools? Stop posting "Gun Free Zone" or similar labels on schools - post "Armed Guards On-Site" or similar instead."
      So, in the world in which you envision, children need to go to school in armed compounds rather than threaten the fragile sensibilities of the gun nuts? Of course this ignores the reality that we have examples of shootings occurring in schools that had armed guards. This further ignores the increased risk presented to children due to the presence of more guns. Has it occurred to you that the reason shooters target schools isn't because they're "gun free zones", but because they provide the greatest shock value? Or, in the case of youth shooters, schools serve as a symbol of their enmity? No, that can't be it, it must be because schools are gun free, even though some aren't.

      Delete
    2. "Gee, thanks - but, actually, those of us who actually obey the laws DON'T REQUIRE YOUR (or, lawfully, anyone's) PERMISSION. We have an inherent RIGHT to keep what we currently own."

      No, you don't require anyone's permission, but you do require society's continued acceptance of our permissive gun culture. See, one thing the gun nuts don't seem to understand is that the biggest threat to gun ownership isn't liberal hippies that want to take away your guns. It's their own unwillingness to even discuss the possibility that we may need to have rational discourse about sensible regulations of firearms. Every time another tragic shooting happens, gun nuts run the risk of society finally saying enough is enough. You may think you have an inherent right to keep what you own (shouting something in caps doesn't make it any more true), but there is plenty of precedent for the courts and legislators disagreeing with you. If the public decides that they want to see changes in our gun laws, sufficient public pressure can make it happen, regardless of your intent.

      Delete
    3. "Please, enlighten us, just what does the "Constitutional Second Amendment" actually say, and what is its legal meaning?"

      According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html)

      What do you think it means? (And it doesn't matter to me if you're an accomplished constitutional law scholar or not, I'm just curious about your point-of-view.)

      "Body counts in mass shootings are far higher (with greater lethality) because of guns"

      Not always. Sometimes there are far less victims because someone else had a gun. (http://www.infowars.com/total-media-blackout-on-shooting-where-private-citizen-stopped-mass-murder-by-using-gun/) (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-don-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272)

      "We are demonstrably less safe in the presence of guns then not. That's a statistical reality."

      If that is true, then should we disarm the police as well?

      "...gun nuts...gun nuts...gun nuts..."

      *sigh*

      Do ya really gotta go there?

      Delete
    4. Yeah we do, because that is the case. Time and time again, gun lovers prove that their objects are more important than people's lives. For some of them, there is pathological attachment to their gun. Like we've seen with George Zimmermann, a gun can make a putz like that feel important.

      Delete
    5. By the way, there is that pesky Heller ruling which stipulates assault style weapons have no on constitutional protection - http://tinyurl.com/bh87v27.

      You to keep forgetting we can read, we can Google, we can get outraged.

      Delete
    6. Correct Shane which is why they immediately send the echo chamber out to try and stifle any kind of discussion at all as being "too soon".

      Delete
    7. "Yeah we do, because that is the case"

      *sigh*

      No, you don't HAVE to call names...you're CHOOSING to. And that is some really weak sauce right there...can't your opinion stand on its own merits without having to resort to grade-school taunts and namecalling?

      Looks like Jeff was wrong; this blog ain't much different than the right-wing ones. Extremists on Althouse call me a "libtard" and "union thug" for expressing my point-of-view and here the extremists call me a "gun nut" and "zealot" for sharing my opinion. Two different sides of the same coin.

      Sorry for upsetting the echo chamber. Perhaps I should go back to only commenting on this blog about things we all agree about, eh?

      Delete
    8. "According to a recent Supreme Court ruling, "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html)"

      That same SCOTUS ruling you cite, also says that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
      That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited.

      Not always. Sometimes there are far less victims because someone else had a gun. (http://www.infowars.com/total-media-blackout-on-shooting-where-private-citizen-stopped-mass-murder-by-using-gun/) (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-don-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272)

      The NY daily news link is an Op-Ed that gives three examples. The first two, no one actually stopped the shooter. In both cases, the shooter was leaving the premises when they were confronted and taken into custody. The third example, the shooter was taken out by a SWAT sniper team after the shooting occurred and they were in a standoff. The Infowars piece is about the recent San Antonio theater shooting in which the shooter was confronted and stopped by an off duty officer who was working as a security guard. In none of these examples was a mass shooting stopped, or were there "far less victims". You could make a case that the San Antonio shooting could have turned into a mass shooting but law enforcement was already on the way, and the shooter appeared to be mostly firing randomly. At any rate, your links don't address how many fewer casualties would have undoubtedly resulted if NO ONE, including the shooter, had a gun. That's the point.

      Delete
    9. (Cont'd)
      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
      "In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

      "If that is true, then should we disarm the police as well? "

      That's a good question. Whether or not we should, there is evidence to suggest we may be safer. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

      Police are increasingly relying on non-lethal weapons over firearms anyway.

      ""...gun nuts...gun nuts...gun nuts..."
      *sigh*
      Do ya really gotta go there?"

      Yes, I really gotta. What would you call these people? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADIAStLQjOI

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ

      So yes, gun nuts.

      Delete
    10. "That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited"

      Where did I ever say that gun rights are unlimited? Where did I even imply it?!

      *rolls eyes*

      Ya know, you're just proving that the "gun nuts" aren't limited to the rightwingers...'cause you're pretty nutty about this issue yourself.

      Seriously. It is obvious that this is a very emotional issue for you, so emotional that you HAVE to call people names. But I don't get why you are using me as a proxy for any things said/done by others.

      Please, before you respond to something you think I said, double check to see if I actually said it. Thanks.

      Delete
    11. "That seems counter to your entire paradigm that guns rights should be unlimited"

      "Where did I ever say that gun rights are unlimited? Where did I even imply it?!"

      Go ahead and reread what you have there and tell me where the fail happened. Is this a case of intellectual dishonesty, or is it reading comprehension again?

      "Please, before you respond to something you think I said, double check to see if I actually said it. Thanks."

      Please, before you say anything, double check to see if you're saying it to validate an actual point, or if it's just to be an argumentative ass. You're welcome.

      "Seriously...I totally understand your fears & concerns, but I gotta ask: Would you accept any of these limitations/restrictions on any of our other basic rights that are protected, by name, in the Constitution? "

      "Which is why I ask: Would you accept any of these proposed restrictions on any other basic rights that are protected by our Constitution?"

      "Shane, I totally understand that some of our rights are already restricted. But the right to bear arms is already the most heavily regulated & restricted of the basic rights protected by the Constitutions, and ya'll are demanding even more restrictions and limitations. So I'm curious to know if folks are willing to accept the same kind of limitations on any of the other Bill of Rights."

      "And yes krshorewood...having those type of heavy restrictions on a Constitutional right is nonsense. That was the exact point I was trying to make. We don't accept those kind of draconian restrictions on our other basic rights, so why should they be acceptable on this one?"

      "But none of that is neither here-nor-there now...I was just wondering if you would accept any of the same kind of heavy limitations/restrictions on other basic rights that are on the Second Amendment. Safe to say that your answer is "no", eh?"

      Nope, you never implied that there shouldn't be restrictions on the second amendment at all. The entire crux of your BS false equivalency examples wasn't that there shouldn't be limitations on constitutional rights. You never once used ridiculous examples to try to show that we wouldn't accept limitations to other constitutional rights, so we shouldn't with the 2nd amendment either. Now, bring on your semantic argument where you try to backtrack and reinterpret your entire argument. That way, we can chuckle at you and move on to someone who's interested in a serious discussion.

      Delete
  12. I just chuckle every time a 2nd Amendment zealot spews portions of the 2nd Amendments verbiage. The one part the almost always tend to leave out is the "well regulated militia". Either they don't know what regulated means, or just like they do with bible verses, they only pick out the parts that help to enforce their hair-brained ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Go ahead and reread what you have there"

    I have re-read it, and nowhere in those words have I said nor implied that guns rights should be unlimited. I simply pointed out that the Second Amendment has the most/heaviest restrictions on 'em, and asked if you would also accept those same type of restrictions on other basic freedoms and rights.


    As I said before, obviously this issue is way too emotional for ya to discuss rationally. I guess that should've been clear when you said you have no choice but to call people names when talking about this, but I was holding out hope that if I kept it respectful that you could bring yourself around and have a mature convo.


    My bad for expecting too much of ya. I'll try not to let it happen again.

    ReplyDelete