[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Yeah. See, that’s not a gun control issue anymore, though. That’s an issue of national databases and who can tell people what. If my evangelical co-worker called the cops on me weekly and said I was acting strange, what are the cops going to do about it?
[/QUOTE]
Not an issue of national databases at all. It’s an issue of a local boy shopping for a gun in his local jurisdiction, and the dealer could have called the local police and learned that many, many locals think the buyer was loco.
If your nosy co-worker calls the cops on you weekly and you’ve done nothing to earn it, they can deal with him through their usual methods of dealing with people who file false police reports. If you try to buy a gun, they can talk to him and everyone else and form their own opinion of whether he’s represented you fairly.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
One might argue that there is no constitutional right to a security clearance.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah. Maybe there should be – the “militia clause” argument is that the idea behind the Second Amendment is to provide for common security. Surely people with security clearances are (in theory) helping provide for the safety of the country just as much as minute men.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Also fine with me, to a point. Five days for a background check? No problem. Five weeks? That’s just silly.
What would you consider to be a reasonable time frame for a background check?
[/QUOTE]
Uh…this is a bad time to ask me. I’ve had several financial transactions and a relative’s health care held up for long periods of time through a succession of petty delays, unreturned phone calls, miscommunications, and general offical incompetence/indifference. Right now my knee-jerk response is “if I and my loved ones have to wait months for critical health care, you can freaking well wait months to buy a gun.” More realistically, off the top of my head, two weeks doesn’t feel inordinately long to me…YMMV.
The NRA has issued its official statement on the Virginia Tech shootings:
“We deplore the actions of the 9mm Glock that was used in the tragic death of thirty three students this week. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims’ families. But we hope that the American people do not rush to judge the millions of innocent and blameless firearms in this country because of the irresponsible and criminal actions of this one individual gun.”
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Not an issue of national databases at all. It’s an issue of a local boy shopping for a gun in his local jurisdiction, and the dealer could have called the local police and learned that many, many locals think the buyer was loco.
Nobody pressed charges. Alternatives to involuntary hospitalization were deemed suitable.
So how can you seperate that from someone with nosy neighbors, who also, say, had a bad reaction to some medication and had an episode? Seriously. Sure, he could have called the local cops. Maybe he did. (I don’t know.) Would the cops ever say to someone, “Yeah, this guy’s legally okay to buy the gun, but some people around think he’s nuts?” Especially if they don’t know this guy from Adam. (Assuming a decent sized town, who remembers one nutbar?)
Oh, and he’s not a local boy. He’s a college boy, and you know how town vs gown goes. And one of the guns was bought out of state and shipped to a local dealer for pickup.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Airman Doors is in Pennsylvania, which I gather from his post is more restrictive than Virginia.
[/QUOTE]
PA state law doesn’t address open carry. Since it isn’t declared illegal, it may be presumed to be legal. However, open carry will often get you a lot of undesired attention from people with badges who mistakenly believe it is against the law. You’ll prevail in the end, but only after much hassle and possibly some spending a few bucks on a lawyer.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The biggest change in gun laws in New York City wasn’t in the laws themselves, but their far more vigorous enforcement. That, other police tactics, and demographic trends drove the crime rate down.
The crime rate went down in most large American cities, but the changes were more marked in New York, probably because of some or all of these strategies.
Again, most of us do want gun crimes prosecuted, so this is a focus that works well for me, and is in keeping with a philosophy of pursuing lawbreakers rather than hindering law-abiding citizens.
In Freakanomics the author suggests that abortion is a big reason for crime rate drops. he makes the point that states with fight abortion have greater crime rate. bringing a child into a home where he can not be taken care of and isn’t wanted yields poor results.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I was thinking more like potential uneven enforcement of the law, either by the police, or by financial issues, creating an undue burden and effectively disarming the poor. (Who, one should note, are the ones that most need to hunt for food.)
For example, let’s say that the insurance on a rifle is six hundred a month, like it is on a car. 7200 a year. Just in case you go batshit crazy and shoot people. Would you consider that easy and affordable? Would this effectively make the average gun owner an uninsured criminal?
[/quote]
I don’t think car insurance is seen as a license to drive like a maniac. Anyhow, the insurance would be more a remedy for unintended use of a gun, for instance if it is stolen. If a guy is sued because he shot up a store or something, I don’t expect the gun insurance to cover it.
I don’t know how much the premiums would be, but it would make sense if they varied depending on how much harm the gun does. A .22 rifle would be a lot cheaper than a semi-automatic. Ditto for a shotgun (unless your name is Cheney.)
Any regulation can be enforced unfairly. You eliminate the unfairness, not the entire regulation. Was the problem a hunting license issue or a gun license issue? And private property rights are not 100%. Princeton Township prohibited firearm discharge anywhere, even in a few spots where there might be plenty of room. It was considered that the township was too dense overall for it to be safe. I’m sure some people still took shots at gophers, but they decided that it was too risky that a hunter on private land would shoot into a backyard shielded by trees, not knowing they were near the edge of a property. People had the right to bear arms, just not to use them.
That’s easily fixed.
So, if someone is convicted of a felony, and has 20 registered handguns, it would just be too mean to take them away? Screw that. If he loved his guns so much, he should have behaved. Ditto for a drunk. Ditto for someone who has been committed, or someone with mental issues with a record of going off medication. Don’t you think there would be less anti-gun pressure if they were taken away from those who can’t use them responsibly - before someone gets hurt?
IIRC, when my wife was writing a book on school violence she found that about 40% of gun owners don’t secure their guns. How much of this is actual home defense, and how much is paranoia? I have a neighbor who kept a loaded gun around his house, even when his little grandson was living with them, out of fear. We live in one of the safer neighborhoods in one of the safest cities in the country. The danger to him from inside the house was a lot greater than the danger from outside.
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
Nonsense. Rights are revoked every day, when there is cause. Who makes the determination that someone has committed a crime? Well, societies have legal systems. We also have medical systems.
[/quote]
So, spell out the process that you are advocating. That’s all I’m asking.
After they have made the work-place hostile. Although you haven’t spelled out your plan yet, you seem to be advocating a system that could someone stop that before it happened.
Do you know what the word “regulated” means in that clause? I’ll bet you don’t.
Do you understand the difference between federal authority and state authority wrt the 2nd amendment? There is no state that doesn’t regulate firearms to some extent. In fact, the 2nd amendment is one of the very few parts of the BoR that has not been incorporated (ie, applied to state governments as well as federal).
And please show me where I (since I must be part of “y’all”) have argued for unrestricted access to firearms. It wouldn’t bother me at all if we revoked the 2nd amendment. I tend to agree that it’s a bit of an anachronism. But until and unless we do that, we have to recognize the federal government’s limitation to legislate in that area. States and localities can do pretty much as they please, and most do.
And yet you still have failed to outline precisely how we would do that. All I’m asking is that you stop making unsupported generalities and outline your proposal. Then show us that that isn’t already being done. There are lots of people out there that I think are “obviously completely delusional”. That doesn’t give me the right to curtail their rights without due process of law.
Alright, let me restate: Typically, it is the business, nay the duty, of the president to speak at such times of national sorrow. But since Bush has proved an inability to handle such responsibilities with any sense of grace, eloquence or sincerety, he is henceforth excused and can spend the weekend at his Crawford ranch.
[/quote]
Or what. You’re going to stomp your feet and scream? :rolleyes:
This wasn’t a funeral. But most of us are grown up enough to realize that heads of state are expected to speak at these types of events. Politician Spouts Banalities!! Yawn.
[QUOTE=LouisB]
I maintain that any personal appearance and/or speech by GWBush is largely a waste of time; the same could be said for the breathing in and out that he routinely does. Maybe, just maybe, someone might be comforted by his presence or by his acknowledgment of the disaster. I personally would not; I would be rather pissed at his uninvited horning in but that’s probably because I believe the man is an unmitigated disaster.
[/QUOTE]
Well at least you’re not trying to shroud your own bias against him. Unfortunately “I personally don’t like the guy” isn’t a sound argument for your position. He’s the President of the United States and I respect the office even if I don’t respect the current office holder.
And I doubt he showed up “uninvited.” He was undoubtedly invited by either the President of the university or the governor of the state to speak.
I do agree that he should hire a decent speech writer. I think a good percentage of folks here could write far better material. An unwillingness to improve his oration skills is another example of why people are so contemptuous of him. Hell, even Hilary had the sense to find a stylist after she was ridiculed for her dated hairdo and clothes.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t think car insurance is seen as a license to drive like a maniac. Anyhow, the insurance would be more a remedy for unintended use of a gun, for instance if it is stolen. If a guy is sued because he shot up a store or something, I don’t expect the gun insurance to cover it.
[/quote]
So you expect honest citizens to insure against people potentially committing crimes with their guns? Seriously. You want me to pay money to a company, to protect against a very rare situation where I have no legal liability?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t know how much the premiums would be, but it would make sense if they varied depending on how much harm the gun does. A .22 rifle would be a lot cheaper than a semi-automatic. Ditto for a shotgun (unless your name is Cheney.)
[/quote]
Uh. Do you have any idea how much damage you can do to something with a shotgun? A .45 bullet is less than half an inch across. A shotgun shell (12 gauge) is, what, twice that? There’s a reason cops have them as backup weapons.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
So, if someone is convicted of a felony, and has 20 registered handguns, it would just be too mean to take them away?
[/quote]
Under what legal system are you allowed to take things from people that are not involved in the commission of a crime? Seriously. It’s not about ‘too mean’, it’s about stopping a second, and asking what your requests would do to the laws of this country.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
IIRC, when my wife was writing a book on school violence she found that about 40% of gun owners don’t secure their guns. How much of this is actual home defense, and how much is paranoia?
[/QUOTE]
Guns go in a secure location. They should never be stored loaded. A location need not be locked to be secure.
Basic firearms safety. But the thing is, I don’t want people legislating about things inside my house. For one thing, it gives them the right to enter my house to enforce it, or it’s an unenforceable law. And unenforceable laws are bad for the legal system.
