For proof of a registration leading to an eventual ban. See California law AB 43. California residents in the early to mid 1990s were forced to register all “assault” rifles including the SKS. The SKS is a semi-automatic rifle with a non detachable 10 round magazine. In 1999 California determined that the SKS was too great a threat to the average Joe. It was later decided that all SKS rifles would be confiscated. I have a link for the letter provided to all law enforcement agancies in the state:
Now in your post, you did ask for an example of a successful ban. Since less than 10% of all SKS owners registered their weapons, and became overnight felons, I don’t think I can call this ban a success. However, it is a classic, recent example of what we as gun owners know will happen once our guns are registered.
SPOOFE, Here is what you said that led me to believe that you were arguing against laws that are hard to enforce.
“Impossible to enforce. We can PUNISH violators, after-the-fact…”
So I think it’s bit strange for you to say that you “never said anything remotely like that.” But I do understand that
your larger concern is what might be done to enforce such a law.
Which brings me to your most recent post…
“1. Do you deny that, in order to rigorously enforce trigger locks, one of the few ways to do so would require search and seizure?”
Searching people’s homes might also be one of the few ways to “rigorously” enforce laws against smoking pot, but the laws against pot-smoking (much though I disagree with them) don’t seem to have led to a reign of search and seizure. Why should gun safety regulations be any different? Why assume a leap from a safety law–the primary purpose of which is to protect children and lessen domestic violence–to a spree of “randomly-instigated searches and seizures” that “are a violation of our constitutional rights.” As I said before, I see no possibility of that kind of unprecedented authoritarianism arising simply because we enact the same kind of regulations for guns as we do for cars.
I would add that were the police to start randomly entering people’s homes to seize unlocked guns, liberals like myself would be just as outraged as NRA members.
On the matter of whether you were or weren’t being disingenuous. I think I misunderstood your comments on rhetoric (i.e. “socialist”) being part of the “fun.” Sorry. OTOH, your post did seem to me not quite straight. For example, saying the difference between licensing and registration is “probably” just semantics. Is it or isn’t it? Gore claimed it was a real difference. This is your issue, no? Shouldn’t you either find out or admit you aren’t sure? That and a few other things made me feel, rightly or wrongly, that you weren’t really serious.
I think you’ll find that the rest of the points that you made are more or less covered in my replies to the other posters. (Unless you really want to take up the issue of whether the Million Mom March was or wasn’t “fanatical.” It’s really hard for me to see it in that light but to say why I’d have to begin repeating myself.)
Just on a general note even though I now understand that I misunderstood your “socialist” remark. This is also directed at Freedom2 and Crafter_Man. From a liberal’s point of view, it’s kind of ridiculous for people like yourselves to present yourself as the sole proponents of “freedom” as though “freedom” were something you and you alone valued or strove for. Have you noticed that the word liberal shares the same Latin root as the word liberty? Have you considered that a lot of the people who got themselves pepper-sprayed by the Seattle police last year were self-identified liberals? Do you think they were doing that because they hate the idea of freedom?
To put things in extremely crude terms, libertarians envision freedom in terms of individual rights while liberals envision freedom in terms of social justice and equality of opportunity. Sometimes those views put us on opposite sides of the political fence, sometimes not. But what really pisses me off if when either side pretends that they have a monopoly on virtue.
JJohn, thanks for providing the links which I will look at tomorrow.
I’m not really going to get in on this… In fact I stopped reading about half way down. I just want to point out a couple things to JJohn and Oblong:
First of all, do not assume AK-47s are illegal to own or shoot, buy or sell. There is no Federal Law against them. If they happen to be illegal where you are from ([cough]California[/Cough]), well that sucks for you I guess. But keep in mind that is a State Law against Assault Rifles- Not a Federal Law. Also like JJohn said, in those places with laws agains “assault rifles” one only needs to buy the ‘sporter’ version. One without a pistol grip, bayonett lug, collapsable stock etc. It gets more complicated than that. A certain percentage of the the gun parts need to be made in this country and lots of other garbage laws. All of which are easily accomplished.
Anyway, just so you know: Fully Automatic machine guns-which include ak47s, m16s, m60s, G18s, mp5s- are all perfectly legal in the US provided you live in a gun friendly state like me in Florida and have no stupid LOCAL LAW against them!!!
I work at a gun range one day a week here. I sell firearms and I am a certified armorer. People (rich, but otherwise like you and me) come into this range all the time with machine guns. Rifles, sub machine guns, belt fed, everything!! These people are ordinary citizens, doctors, dentists, lawyers, sandwich shop owners, etc. All of them own their weapons legally and none of them have any law enforcement ties whatsoever and none of them are Federal Firearms Dealers. They are just normal people who can afford machine guns. You would not believe how many people own machine guns around here. And probably where you live too.
Oh geeze, give me a break. “Crafter Man, because your Ph.D. thesis didn’t contrast Montesquieu’s theories with those of John Locke’s, you do not have the intellectual capacity to discuss the notion of natural rights.” Your elitism is making me ill.
Natural Rights is an extremely simple concept; even a dope like me can understand it. But I suspect that, in your eyes, I do not have enough horsepower in my cranium to comprehend it. Grrrrrr…
This kind of thing comes up in a lot of gun control debates as “proof” that trigger lock laws won’t work.
I have to wonder how many cases of kids killing kids involve a child from a crack house, and how many involve kids from more ordinary circumstances.
I don’t know if locks are an answer, butif there had been a trigger lock on that gun, the child would still be alive.
Peace,
mangeorge
Crafter_Man, I do sound a bit snitty in my brief reply to you. I was answering about 9 posts at one time and, as with SPOOFE’s, yours got short shrift. I wasn’t trying suggest that you need to take a degree in philosophy or intellectual history. I was suggesting that the concepts you are bandying about have developed historically.
Here was your original post:
"The right to keep and bear arms is just that - a right. (It is not a “privilege”.) It is a natural,inalienable right granted not by the Constitution, not by Bill Clinton, not by Janet Reno, but by our Creator (whoever or whatever that may be). This right pre-dates government, and as such does not
depend on government for its existence."
Crafter_Man, without the Constitution and the institutions that have upheld it, without its purview having been expanded over many years (to include non-property-holders, former slaves, women),without courts and, yes, even government officials, your so-called “natural, inalienable right” would be nothing but words. Your argument makes no sense. If the Creator guaranteed everyone a natural, inalienable right to bear arms, why would you be worried about a trigger lock law, or a licensing policy? Wouldn’t the Creator intervene to assure you the full enjoyment of your right? For that matter, couldn’t the Creator itself issue you a license? And why is that the Creator hasn’t guaranteed similar rights to people living under military dictatorships? Is the Creator only interested in certain land masses and not others?
YEESH, CM, it’s really sublime the way you value your freedom, but have no regard–even contempt–for the democratic institutions that made that possible for you.
As to natural rights pre-dating government, there again you are absurd. The concept of natural rights came about as a way to challenge authoritarian and hierarchical governments that were based on divine right (i.e. the Creator). Although Locke and other theorists who made claims for the rights of individuals invoked the stamp of Providence for their beliefs, the main idea was to demote arbitrary claims for God’s authority (which can be used by anyone in power) and to promote the individual’s reason as the grounds for his (and eventually her) right to partcipate in his/her own self-government. It’s therefore beyond ignorance to say that natural rights is prior to and exclusive of government.
My point in mentioning the Zinn book wasn’t to force you to accept some elitist’s view of the world. It was to give you a bit of a clue, if you don’t mind my saying so. Zinn’s book is not a hard read and was deliberately written for a popular audience (hence, A People’s History…). If you did take a look at it, what you might realize is that the whole idea of looking back to the founding fathers as some kind of utopian past is befuddled. By the sound of it, I’m much more thankful to the guys who wrote the Constitution than you are. That said, colonial and early America was far from a haven of natural rights for the great mass of people. Democracy has thrived as institutions have developed to ensure that everyone’s rights, and not just those of the most powerful, can be enjoyed.
If that sounds elitist to you, I’m afraid you’ll have to appeal to the Creator to take away my inalienable right to an ISP ;).
Hey, it’s gun control day again on the old SDMB! What a spiffing opportunity to re-hash all the same old arguments we have enjoyed for so long!
Point the first. Ain’t gonna happen. Such a law is never going to get passed, and even if it did, it’s not enforceable legislation (for all the reasons cited in the OP and a bunch more).
Point the second. It’s pretty hard to argue against the responsible use of guns. It’s likewise pretty hard to argue for their irresponsible use. Advocates of gun control and/or banning focus on the latter, their opponents focus on the former. Never the twain shall meet. Kind of like two guys playing with a full deck, but one thinks they are playing poker and the other bridge. Not going to be much of a game, is it? Not much of a meeting of minds.
Point the third. No-one’s going to get the guns out of American society, and only a fool would try. But we’ve done a find job of eliminating them from our society (I refer to England, home of the Queen, the Spice Girls, Cher and Madonna - yep, she lives here now). So if you want to live in a gun-free world, move here. I’ll swap places willingly. The UK is pretty cool in terms of being able to never worry about guns, but it sucks in most other regards.
Is that right? So native Americans didn’t have rights, because they didn’t have courts and a centralized government that (supposedly) “recognized” them?
Let’s say I find myself on a remote island. Are you saying I don’t have a right to freedom of religion, freedom to write, freedom to speak, etc. because a “government” does not exist on the island?!?! Let’s also assume a dozen natives inhabit the island. The natives don’t like me, and try to kill me. Are you saying I don’t have a right to defend myself because there are no courts on the island?! You’re argument is foolish.
Uhh, no offense Mandelstam, but I don’t think you understand the distinction between granting rights and defending rights. Our Creator has the ability to do the former; it’s (obviously) up to you to defend them.
Now while the government does not have the authority to give us rights, it can certainly take them away. The framers knew as much, which is why our Constitution was written the way it was. Note that nowhere does it claim the government “grants” us rights.
**Crafter_Man **,"Is that right? So native Americans didn’t have rights, because they didn’t have courts and a centralized government that (supposedly) “recognized” them?"
Well, actually, yes. If native Americans had been recognized as having the same rights as European settlers, things would have gone a bit differently, don’t you think?
“*Let’s say I find myself on a remote island. Are you saying I don’t have a right to freedom of religion, freedom to write, freedom to speak, etc. because a “government” does not exist on the island?!?!” *
Of course, not. But let’s say you don’t find yourself on a remote island. Let’s say you happen to live in a large country. What I’m saying is that it’s the democratic institutions in your country that protect your freedom, not your possession of a gun. What you’re describing is what Hobbes called the state of war: every man for himself. Is that what you think we’re living in in the year 2000?
Also, let me just remind you that neither I nor anyone else in this thread has asked you to relinquish your gun. With Oblong at any rate, and possibly with aynrandlover the debate has been about what constitutes reasonable regulation and what does not. But you’re off in some mental frontier world in which you seem to believe that the guns that you own are the one thing between you and a complete infringement on your rights.
"Now while the government does not have the authority to give us rights, it can certainly take them away. The framers knew as much, which is why our Constitution was written the way it was. Note that nowhere does it claim the government “grants” us rights.
Crafter_Man, the dispute between us isn’t whether or not the government grants us rights. The dispute is whether the best defense of our rights is a) individual and unlimited ownership of guns or b) a much broader notion of democracy which includes legal and government institutions. Almost every Enlightenment thinker believed in the answer was “b” and not “a”. Again, that is not to say that you shouldn’t have the right to own a gun. B. does not have to exclude A. But those who, like yourself, value the right to bear arms, shouldn’t do so at the expense of the broader notion of democracy. Because to do so is–no pun intended–quite literally to shoot off your own foot.
Aside to mangeorge, Brevity may be the soul of wit, but you are much too succint for me ;).
that is a moot point because there wouldn’t be a trigger lock on the gun because a locked unloaded weapon is of no use to a crack dealer. That is like saying “if she didn’t go to school that day, she would be alive”. If we can’t get the guy to not deal crack how would we get him to put a trigger lock on a gun?
This is what I was getting at in the original post that started this. It’s easy to throw out statements like to make yourself feel better this but it is totally impractical. If the reason is to save lives then it is an empty promise.
I was replying to your statement, oblong, right here.
Maybe I misunderstood?
Maybe you didn’t read my entire post?
My point was that many kids are killed and injured by guns owned by “regular” people. Citing extraordinary occurances won’t change that.
In this case, anyway, a lock would have indeed “stopped it”. Crack dealer or no.
Dismissing others opinions by quoting NRA propaganda, ie “feel good”, doesn’t help your position.
Peace,
mangeorge
I know that in some states, it is legal to own a fully automatic rifle, a true “assault weapon”. However, to my surprise there is an actual provision under Massachusetts state law to allow for the ownership of a full auto rifle. Many guns have been banned from the state, but anyone can legally posses a machine gun. Gotta love that logic. I herby ask for forgiveness for not checking my sources before I submitted last time. My point in that post was that the media purposely distorts and misrepresents the truth in order to better stroke their veiwers. MUCKO did not possess an AK-47 in his rampage, something no media outlet picked up on.
I also live in a state that allows Class 3 ownership. I have never seen the need personally, but I wont hamper anyone else from executing their right. I could almost be offended by your suggestion that I live in Ca. Any gunowner that has half a brain has already moved from Ca.
I’m not a member of the NRA and have not read any of their literature. I’m able to think for myself and come up with my own conclusions. I’m also not dismissing anyone’s opionion. I’m disagreeing but not dismissing.
What is the point of talking about trigger locks and gun safety? We can encourage people to use them voluntarily. I don’t have a problem with that. However, the people who would use them out of safety concerns are probably the same people who would put them in places where kids can’t get them so we aren’t accomplishing anything.
So then we propose to pass a law saying all guns need a trigger lock. Ok, how do we enforce that? If someone doesn’t use one and someone dies, we prosecute them? That’s a little after the fact isn’t it? In many states they would be prosecuted anyway for allowing access to a gun. So what is accomplished by a trigger lock law?
Many of the cases involving kids getting guns include guns that are already loaded. As stated previously, you aren’t supposed to put locks on loaded gun. So locking an unloaded gun is useless.
Again, I’m trying to get above rhetoric and want to see meaningful solutions. Many of the ‘solutions’ proposed by politicians and ‘activists’ are nothing but empty promises built on rhetoric that allows them to sleep at night because they feel they ‘did something’ about crime when in fact they didn’t do anything about crime.
That line, taken by itself, would certainly seem to indicate that. But if you’ll notice, that was one of THREE reasons why I didn’t think a trigger-lock law should be passed. The other two were (in brief) “wouldn’t affect crime” and “hurts more than it helps”. Those three, taken together, form a pretty strong argument, IMOSHO.
Yes, that’s the only way to enforce laws against smoking pot, if pot were smoked only in the home in such a way that would provide no evidence that pot was being smoked.
However, if someone is driving while stoned, they may be stopped and noticed. If someone is seen taking a hit off a bong in public, they will be noticed. Pot is NOT only smoked in the home, discreetly.
By contrast, the only way to legally tell if someone is using trigger locks or not would be if a person brought their gun out into public with them (which is already illegal, without the proper permits). Or if a neighbor/friend noticed and called the police. But if an unlocked gun is sitting in a drawer beside someone’s bed, how are the police going to find out about it?
I dunno. I’m sure those like Rosie O’Donnell will say, “They got another one of those evil child-killing gun-owners for not locking up their guns!!” There are those who don’t care if laws are broken (on both sides of the political spectrum, admittedly), but only care if their views are enforced. All it needs is the right spin on things.
Of course, I DO know that very few people are so close-minded as to ignore a blatant violation of S&S laws to cheer the removal of another gun from the populace.
Apology accepted. I’ll try to keep my words clearer in the future.
In my mind, Gore’s use of the word “licensing” is the same as “registration”. In order to become “licensed” in his mind, you have to “register” with a licensing office, follow a certain criteria (which may or may not be set). My use of the word “probably” was sarcasm (kind of like saying “if an animal is a canine, it’d probably be a dog”). Again, my fault… trying to be unnecessarily witty.
I agree. I don’t try to project such a self-centered and egotistical image, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I don’t think that someone who is “liberal” is necessarily a “socialist” (my comments about rhetoric were more directed against those who tried the “Commie argument”).
Again, I don’t see things in terms of “liberal” or “conservative”. My own beliefs kind of go all over the place. When I argue an issue, I try to keep things confined to that issue only.
It’s not a matter of “freedom” or “oppression” to me (although those terms tend to enter the debate), it’s a matter of “agree” or “disagree”. You should see me in a Gay Marriage debate sometime.
SPOOFE, John: I think I’ve gone as far as it’s worth going on this topic. I hope we agree that the question is what is reasonable rather than an absolute question of yes or no. John, the links were interesting and definitely to the point; but not enough to persuade me that the “slippery slope” argument applies in the way some posters have been invoking it.
What a, that may have something to do with the fact that:
Cannot hunt deer with bazookas.
There are no Olympic Bazooka matches.
It is too expensive to plink with bazookas.
A bazooka is not a favorable home defense weapon.
You only get one shot with a bazooka, then you have to go buy another one… Guns can be RELOADED! And REUSED!
There are no antique bazookas.
The second someone says “All guns should be banned” or “There should be no gun restrictions”, you’ll see me calling them out. The second someone says “Someone else killed someone with a gun, so YOU can’t have a gun either”, you’ll see me calling them out. The second someone says “Guns aren’t dangerous”, you’ll seem me calling them out.
Well, okay, not “the second”… I’m not online 24/7, you know (though I wish I could be).
It’s comments like THIS, Mandelstam, that really put the Gun Control side in a bad light. Take heed to avoid them, just as I avoid the “No Restrictions” crowd.
