Handicapping Federal gun control legislation

[Martin_Hyde]

@ElvisL1ves

Actually, yes. The Second Amendment was createdto protect the volunteer slave patrols in the southern states, and keep them in the Union.

A single article in the liberal blogosphere does not an argument make. You’re making a positive claim that the reason for the Second Amendment, with no caveats or additional explanation, was to allow for slave patrols. As support a liberal writer cites a few slaveholders who argue for a Federal protection.

But history shows a different story.

So in Federalist 29 Alexander Hamilton laid out an explanation that obviously inspired the Second Amendment in part, and he was no slave holder but a northerner. James Madison, a Virginian protective of slavery, was a strong advocate of the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was ever discussed. Further, Madison’s original text of the amendment actually says country and not state, again Madison was a Virginia slaveholder and he was fine with the “free country” text since he wrote it. Further, Madison’s original text very unambiguously suggests it as an individual right. It seems highly unlikely to me that either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton were supporting this concept for the slave patrols. In fact, there is a strong legal argument to be made the original constitution in no way at all would have allowed the Federal government to interfere with the operation of State slave patrols.

Further, George Mason painted as only caring about it from a slavery perspective, authored the Virginia constitution’s arms protection before the constitution was written and it explicitly is drawn from the English Bill of Rights and advances it as a general concept of liberty from tyranny. We can argue that he was being duplicitous, but there was no reason for a Virginian to be duplicitous about slave patrols in 18th century Virginia.

So yes, some people were concerned about slave patrols, but it doesn’t appear that is the “reason” for the Second Amendment. It appears to have had support in both North and South and for more than just one reason. It’s also highly unlikely it was given to insure Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights, the argument might make more sense if it was promised so that Virginia would ratify the Constitution, but Virginia ratified the Constitution without any amendments so even that’s fairly weak. It’s highly unlikely that Virginia, home of Patrick Henry, wouldn’t have ratified the other amendments in the bill of rights that they considered extremely important just because it didn’t include the amendment concerning the right to bear arms.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Merneith

I’m not talking about a backlash against the GOP hardliners - I’m suggesting a lack of a backlash against Democrats who oppose the GOP hardliners. I think if Obama can sell the public on the idea that it’s impossible to work with the GOP, that the GOP is both intransigent and nuts, then Democrats in general will have an easier time with voters justifying whatever they come up with. The Dems in congress can go back and say, “Look, we tried to work with them, but it’s hopeless, so we just did the best we could.” And I think the GOP seems to be doing everything in its power to live up to that characterization.

But we’ll see. I don’t mean to say it’s all a done deal.

Well, I’m in agreement about the lack of the backlash against the Democrats, the people who will get mad about this are not voting for Obama anyway. The moderate gun control crowd I think cares so little about gun control they’ll forget this debate the moment it’s off the news so I don’t think anything involving them has lasting import.

But I disagree about this making it easier for Democrats to justify not compromising with Republicans. On several issues Republicans have now shifted rightward out of the mainstream, this has been true probably since 2010 and there has been wide support for not compromising with them ever since. Anytime they’ve clashed the public’s opinion has been against them and for Obama/Democrats. I don’t think this issue increases that in anyway, because I think it’s already at its maximal point. However the current Republican power toe-hold is the House of Representatives, where most of the current GOP house members are safe, in fairly conservative districts where the minority of the population in this country live who think they shouldn’t be negotiating with Democrats in any case. So ultimately we’ve still got a Republican House and I don’t think this debate will undermine the base that keeps them in power against them, many of those left who might go to the Dems are already living in Dem districts. This is a result of how polarized the “two Americas” have become (there aren’t really two Americas, there are many more, but it’s the most convenient term here.)

[Stealth_Potato]

@BobLibDem

I’m curious as to why you want to cling so ferociously to the assault weapons. Just why do you think you need them? Who would you shoot, under what circumstances? And why join an organization that flatly opposes legislation that a majority of its own membership supports?

Why do you need a car capable of driving faster than 35 miles per hour? I’m not sure the question is relevant. The case against assault weapons is founded on deception and misinformation, and most people who support it have no clear idea what an assault weapon is or what is their actual impact on public safety. People are spoon-fed images of complicated-looking military hardware and meant to conclude by association that the availability of similar weapons to civilians is turning our streets into war zones. In their attempts to regulate they’re perpetually stuck between banning based on senselessly cosmetic features like pistol grips, or else classifying my Ruger 10/22 as an “assault weapon.” The problem is that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semiautomatic rifles, and these are a very useful class of firearm and protected under the second amendment.

@Jas09

There aren’t, IMO. There just aren’t very many single-issue gun voters on the Democratic side (which is a good thing - single-issue voters are a pain in the ass no matter what the issue).

I wouldn’t call myself a single issue voter – I just support punishing legislators who try to put any of our rights on the chopping block because of faulty fear-mongering. When they’re not doing that it’s business as usual.

@Jas09

Instead I think you’ll see something pass the Senate that includes broadening and toughening background checks (but not universal ones, probably just mandatory for all sales to an unknown party) and maybe something about high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds (although even that seems unlikely now).

Why on earth would you care about armor-piercing rounds? Is there a plan to send all children to school in body armor now? :dubious: Magazine restrictions are similarly pointless and I hope they get shot down. (Though I’ve ordered a crate or two of 30-rounders just in case.) But tougher universal background checks I’m fine with.

If the NRA pisses and moans about universal background checks, then fuck 'em. But I don’t think they will. They are chiefly focused on fighting legislation like the proposed assault weapon ban and magazine restrictions, and that is why I decided to jump on the bandwagon and support them despite being repulsed for years by their right-wing politics.

@Jas09

I kind of hope the Democrats do decide to take a stand on this, because if anything I think it will only widen the demographic isolation of the GOP (white men are by far the strongest proponents of gun rights).

This has historically been true, but I think it’s slowly changing. Just the other day I was at my local gun store / shooting range, and the place was packed with folk of every color and sex. While aimlessly browsing the silencers I stood next to a small elderly black lady who was buying a .380 pistol and talking to the saleswoman about how she’d be in to pick it up as soon as her concealed pistol license arrived in the mail. (We have a mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases without a CPL.)

White guys are still the majority, but the community I see day-to-day is increasingly diverse.

[BobLibDem]

@Stealth_Potato

Why do you need a car capable of driving faster than 35 miles per hour? I’m not sure the question is relevant. The case against assault weapons is founded on deception and misinformation, and most people who support it have no clear idea what an assault weapon is or what is their actual impact on public safety. People are spoon-fed images of complicated-looking military hardware and meant to conclude by association that the availability of similar weapons to civilians is turning our streets into war zones. In their attempts to regulate they’re perpetually stuck between banning based on senselessly cosmetic features like pistol grips, or else classifying my Ruger 10/22 as an “assault weapon.” The problem is that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semiautomatic rifles, and these are a very useful class of firearm and protected under the second amendment.

Actually, I think you’re the victim of deception and misinformation. Your so-called rights under the (Second Half of the) Second Amendment are subject to reasonable regulations, such as the specific weaponry you may or may not buy. I do wish one of the gun lovers would say who they would turn those assault weapons on and under what circumstances. Once again, if you can’t make a case for why they should be permitted, they may not be much longer.

[artemis]

@BobLibDem

do wish one of the gun lovers would say who they would turn those assault weapons on and under what circumstances. Once again, if you can’t make a case for why they should be permitted, they may not be much longer.

We don’t have to make a case for why they should be permitted; you have to make a persuasive case for why they should be banned. That’s how our system of government works.

First Amendment rights aren’t unlimited, either. I presume you are therefore in favor of banning “Call of Duty” and other first-person shooter games where they player is shooting a realistic depictions of human beings (as opposed to monsters or space aliens). No one needs such games, and they may have bad effects on unbalanced minds. Surely that’s enough reason to ban them!

[BobLibDem]

@artemis

We don’t have to make a case for why they should be permitted; you have to make a persuasive case for why they should be banned. That’s how our system of government works.

First Amendment rights aren’t unlimited, either. I presume you are therefore in favor of banning “Call of Duty” and other first-person shooter games where they player is shooting a realistic depictions of human beings (as opposed to monsters or space aliens). No one needs such games, and they may have bad effects on unbalanced minds. Surely that’s enough reason to ban them!

The Newtown weapon would have been banned under the old AWB. Case closed.

No, I don’t support limitations on the First, other than libel and the old shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater exception. The free exhange of ideas is vital to a free society. The free exchange of lead is not.

[artemis]

@Stealth_Potato

I wouldn’t call myself a single issue voter – I just support punishing legislators who try to put any of our rights on the chopping block because of faulty fear-mongering. When they’re not doing that it’s business as usual.

I think there are a lot of people who feel as you do. And it leaves them stuck when each of the two major parties is perfectly happy to feed select portions of the Bill of Rights into the shredder.

This has historically been true, but I think it’s slowly changing. Just the other day I was at my local gun store / shooting range, and the place was packed with folk of every color and sex. While aimlessly browsing the silencers I stood next to a small elderly black lady who was buying a .380 pistol and talking to the saleswoman about how she’d be in to pick it up as soon as her concealed pistol license arrived in the mail. (We have a mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases without a CPL.)

White guys are still the majority, but the community I see day-to-day is increasingly diverse.

I see that here in Omaha as well. Not so many minorities at the local indoor range (but then there aren’t a lot of minorities in the city, it’s pretty white), but a significant number of women.

[artemis]

@BobLibDem

The Newtown weapon would have been banned under the old AWB. Case closed.

And Lanza’s mother would have owned something else, which Lanza would have stolen to use for the shooting. So how would the AWB have stopped the shooting? Or are shootings worse when “scary” black guns are used instead of wooden-stock guns?

No, I don’t support limitations on the First, other than libel and the old shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater exception. The free exhange of ideas is vital to a free society. The free exchange of lead is not.

There is nothing about banning “Call of Duty” which would decrease the free exchange of ideas. It’s merely a game. Your hypocrisy is showing here.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Page three and it’s deviated into a typical gun control debate. It figures, people just have to find a way to show their ass.

This thread is NOT about the history of the Second Amendment. It’s NOT about whether or not “assault weapons” should be banned. It’s not even about the current polls, though that at least has some bearing on the discussion.

It’s about whether or not the bans will pass and what the fallout will be. If this thread is going to be reclaimed from the usual abyss, now would be a good time.

[Marley23]

@SenorBeef

It’s a bad way to create public policy - to see how hard you can get the public to knee jerk after one incident. Good policy comes fron reasoned evaluation of the whole picture and accurate projections of what policy changes will do - not rushing to Do Something after a big emotional reaction.

I think we’ve been over this, but there have been plenty of mass shootings in the last couple of years. They’re extremely rare no matter how you slice it, but it’s not like the government is rushing into action the first time this ever took place. And for that matter the Newtown murders were a month ago. That’s a rush only in terms of how slow the government usually works; it’s plenty of time to craft and debate a law. Not that any laws have been passed. That’ll take even longer.

That position would be inherently ridiculous.

A lot of positions in this debate are inherently ridiculous.

Long guns make up less than 10% of gun crimes, with “assault weapons” less than 1% of gun crimes total. So the person saying “look at handguns if you want to impact gun deaths” would have more factual backing than a person who said “look at assault weapons if you want to gun deaths”.

I understand that. But if you moved to ban handguns I expect you’d hear a response like the one I made up. There is no way such a ban would ever be entertained.

[BobLibDem]

@artemis

And Lanza’s mother would have owned something else, which Lanza would have stolen to use for the shooting. So how would the AWB have stopped the shooting? Or are shootings worse when “scary” black guns are used instead of wooden-stock guns?

There is nothing about banning “Call of Duty” which would decrease the free exchange of ideas. It’s merely a game. Your hypocrisy is showing here.

It would have lowered the body count if he had less of a weapon. Next thing you’ll claim he would have used a penknife if all guns were banned. If he had no rapid fire, high capacity magazine weapon, he would have taken longer between shots and thus killed fewer people.

No, there is no reason to restrict the First. Playing a game is one way of exchanging ideas, similar to reading an action novel. Your point is silly.

[SenorBeef]

@BobLibDem

The Newtown weapon would have been banned under the old AWB. Case closed.

Well, “case closed” then. I guess no counterargument can be made. That’s that.

I guess mr crazy would’ve just gone into work that day as normal, and forgot about going crazy and killing a bunch of kids.

Actually, could you prove that what you said is even true? Scary black rifles were still permitted under the old AWB as long as they removed certain cosmetic features used to define them. It’s entirely possible that the version he used lacked such features and wouldn’t have been banned by the AWB. Or with a slight amount of modification, like sawing off the bayonette mount, could’ve been legal during the AWB.

Or, of course, he could’ve used a thousand other models of guns that had the exact same capabilities but aren’t scary looking enough to be assault weapons, like the very common mini-14. Or pretty much anything else. Shotguns, pistols, whatever.

I do have to wonder when your type gets fixated on the actual look of the gun he used (and not the capabilities, as we all know you aren’t concerned about the actual capabilities of the firearms when considering these bans), do you think that if a scary looking gun weren’t available he would just decide to not be crazy and go on a shooting spree? Or would he have just used a less scary looking, but equally effective gun? Would you feel better if he shot the kids up with any of the thousands of models of conventional looking semi-automatic rifles?

[SenorBeef]

@Marley23

I think we’ve been over this, but there have been plenty of mass shootings in the last couple of years. They’re extremely rare no matter how you slice it, but it’s not like the government is rushing into action the first time this ever took place. And for that matter the Newtown murders were a month ago. That’s a rush only in terms of how slow the government usually works; it’s plenty of time to craft and debate a law. Not that any laws have been passed. That’ll take even longer.

But even then, the average deaths from mass shootings of this nature constitute, generously, half a percent of gun homicides. If people were rational, we wouldn’t be placing such a high priority on solving what are negligible on the list of types of homicide while ignoring much more common types.

I understand that. But if you moved to ban handguns I expect you’d hear a response like the one I made up. There is no way such a ban would ever be entertained.

Are you admitting, then, that the desire to take action in this case is motivated by the desire to ban any sort of gun that you can get the public to support, rather than a desire to most effectively increase public safety and reduce the homicide rate? If you acknowledge that “assault weapons” aren’t especially a danger to public safety or especially effective for committing crimes, yet you support their ban anyway, then what’s your true motivation?

[BobLibDem]

@SenorBeef

Actually, could you prove that what you said is even true? Scary black rifles were still permitted under the old AWB as long as they removed certain cosmetic features used to define them. It’s entirely possible that the version he used lacked such features and wouldn’t have been banned by the AWB. Or with a slight amount of modification, like sawing off the bayonette mount, could’ve been legal during the AWB.

You’re just making the case for a better written AWB. If the old bill had loopholes that allowed a weapon with certain modifications, then we better fix it. In case you didn’t realize it, when your side talks about “scary weapons” it does make them sound condescending and rude.

[artemis]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Page three and it’s deviated into a typical gun control debate. It figures, people just have to find a way to show their ass.

This thread is NOT about the history of the Second Amendment. It’s NOT about whether or not “assault weapons” should be banned. It’s not even about the current polls, though that at least has some bearing on the discussion.

It’s about whether or not the bans will pass and what the fallout will be. If this thread is going to be reclaimed from the usual abyss, now would be a good time.

You make a good point. I’ll stick with the political discussion from here on out. BobiLibDem’s hypocrisy may be amusing (“Call of Duty” is a way of exchanging ideas, so banning it would be unjustified?), but it’s off topic.

[steronz]

@SenorBeef

I do have to wonder when your type gets fixated on the actual look of the gun he used (and not the capabilities, as we all know you aren’t concerned about the actual capabilities of the firearms when considering these bans), do you think that if a scary looking gun weren’t available he would just decide to not be crazy and go on a shooting spree?

I think an argument could be made based on some kind of actuarial principle. In essence, there’s not much performance difference between a Subaru WRX and a V6 Camry. Both will run around 14 seconds in the 1/4 mile, both have top speeds well north of anything reasonable (150-ish). Minor differences in handling loads aside, you can cause just as much carnage in a V6 Camry as you can in a WRX, but insurance companies charger higher rates for the latter.

Why is that? It’s because the turbocharged WRX looks like a racecar. Does the turbo make it faster? No, it actually makes less power than the Camry. Does the big spoiler on the trunk make it stick to the road better? No, it’s just added for looks. So why do insurance companies penalize WRX owners?

It’s because all of those boy-racer parts attract younger, more reckless drivers.

Likewise, “scary looking parts” that don’t have much practical use on otherwise boring weapons seem to attract young men, a demographic which has a pretty shitty track record in regards to mass shootings. Like efforts to make smoking less cool (a la Joe Camel), could we ban these harmless cosmetic enhancements if it makes guns seem less glamorous in the eyes of young male consumers?

I’m not sure if my argument holds water or would be in any way convincing, but if you want to use that for a jumping off point for another GD gun thread, be my guest.

[SenorBeef]

@BobLibDem

You’re just making the case for a better written AWB. If the old bill had loopholes that allowed a weapon with certain modifications, then we better fix it. In case you didn’t realize it, when your side talks about “scary weapons” it does make them sound condescending and rude.

As per usual, you fail to understand what you’re talking about. Someone has probably explained this to you before, so you deliberately fail to understand it, but just in case they haven’t, I’ll give it a go.

The fact that people were able to get around the AWB with cosmetic modifications of their gun was not a “loophole”, because the entire point of the AWB was to ban the look of certain cosmetic features. This gun is the exact same one as this one. Your visceral reaction may be that the second one is somehow more dangerous than the first, but they function in exactly the same way, with the same capabilities.

The AWB does not concern itself with the function or capabilities of the weapons it tries to ban. It tries to ban weapons that look a certain way. They try to define an assault weapon by the things they have compared to more conventional looking rifles, like combinations of bayonette lugs, barrel shrouds, telescoping stocks, etc. They do not attempt to define the weapon by its capabilities, because those weapons have the exact same capabilities of thousands of models (and tens of milliosn of owners) of non-assault weapons that look like more conventional rifles.

So saying that people got around the AWB through loopholes misses the entire point. The AWB bans a guns look, so if you modified them not to look that way, and now you’re okay. What would you do to improve the AWB? Put even more cosmetic features on the list? Ban black guns? Ban guns using polymer stocks? Then people would give their guns wood stocks and paint them lime green and you’d again be saying “loophole!”

The regulation that they want people to think they’re implementing is to ban “machine guns” and other military weapons, and the public is mislead to think that these weapons are like those, since they look the same, but of course those weapons were heavily restricted since 1934 and new production banned in 1986.

The public support for an AWB hinges on the lie that these weapons are somehow more capable and more dangerous than other weapons. They are not. The whole thing is a lie.

Both the fact that you are willing to continue lying to mislead the public, and that you’re focusing on banning guns based on how much you can sway the public with your lies rather than the actual usage of these weapons in homicide and crime indicates that you are not giving a good-faith effort to create laws that serve the greatest public good. Rather, you are trying to pass any law that bans any gun you can, and the public’s ignorance about “assault weapons” makes them politically viable to ban while more conventional looking weapons may not be.

[Kevbo]

I was in DC area for work the last three days. Boy, what an echo chamber that is. Now I see where the claims that there is overwhelming support for this legislation is coming from. If you are on the coasts, you need to understand that the buzz you are hearing around you doesn’t extend to the interior of the country. Every flyover state has two senators and a bunch of congressman, and even when they are Democrats they often do not support gun control.

Also, I do not have cable television at home, so wasn’t fully aware of the 24-7 grief porn fest that CNN has been running since the shootings. Sheesh! no wonder people are worked up.

[Marley23]

@SenorBeef

But even then, the average deaths from mass shootings of this nature constitute, generously, half a percent of gun homicides. If people were rational, we wouldn’t be placing such a high priority on solving what are negligible on the list of types of homicide while ignoring much more common types.

But people aren’t rational, as you said, and good luck to you if you think you can fix that. In the meantime, the general idea here is to ban certain kinds of guns that are unacceptably dangerous, and to try to reduce gun crimes using other means like better background checks, better communication between law enforcement agencies, and so on. I don’t see the problem with that.

This is a little like the argument about cars vs. SUVs. Sometimes particular models of SUVs are banned because of safety problems like the risk they’ll tip over while driving. But regular sized cars get into more accidents than SUVs. That’s not because regular sized cars are more dangerous than SUVs, it’s because because there are more cars than SUVs on the road. So the appropriate conclusion is not ‘don’t ban unsafe SUVs, ban small cars!’ because that wouldn’t solve anything. The conclusion is that you need to look at the risk posed by the actual product and not just a raw number.

Are you admitting, then

This never comes before anything good…

that the desire to take action in this case is motivated by the desire to ban any sort of gun that you can get the public to support, rather than a desire to most effectively increase public safety and reduce the homicide rate?

That’s not what I am “admitting,” and I think I have clearly said the opposite. I want a rational law that will make the public safer. Here, I think, is what you are having trouble with: I know some bans are politically impossible, and I don’t think gun control advocates should waste their time trying to accomplish something that obviously will never happen. A ban on handguns will never happen under any circumstance, as I am sure you are well aware, and I don’t see the point of one either. So I see no sense in advocating one.

[SenorBeef]

@Marley23

But people aren’t rational, as you said, and good luck to you if you think you can fix that.

Yet you’re here advocating for policy which is essentially useless except to satisfy the public’s irrational desires.

In the meantime, the general idea here is to ban certain kinds of guns that are unacceptably dangerous

And you well know that there’s nothing about the weapons affected by the ban under consideration that is unacceptably dangerous, so why even defend this?

, and to try to reduce gun crimes using other means like better background checks, better communication between law enforcement agencies, and so on. I don’t see the problem with that.

In theory, I don’t have a problem with increasing the enforcement of these sorts of things. I reserve the right to object in practice depending on the details.

This is a little like the argument about cars vs. SUVs. Sometimes particular models of SUVs are banned because of safety problems like the risk they’ll tip over while driving. But regular sized cars get into more accidents than SUVs. That’s not because regular sized cars are more dangerous than SUVs, it’s because because there are more cars than SUVs on the road. So the appropriate conclusion is not ‘don’t ban unsafe SUVs, ban small cars!’ because that wouldn’t solve anything. The conclusion is that you need to look at the risk posed by the actual product and not just a raw number.

Again, I know you’ve participated in a lot of gun control threads so you know enough to know that “assault weapons” are not disproportionately dangerous. Unless you are willing to make a case that these weapons actually are more dangerous, then you’re not being intellectually honest.

Besides, I suspect the actual rate of misuse by type of gun (which is the relevant statistic for the argument you’re making) is lower than any sort of rifles (including assault weapons) than for handguns.

That’s not what I am “admitting,” and I think I have clearly said the opposite. I want a rational law that will make the public safer. Here, I think, is what you are having trouble with: I know some bans are politically impossible, and I don’t think gun control advocates should waste their time trying to accomplish something that obviously will never happen. A ban on handguns will never happen under any circumstance, as I am sure you are well aware, and I don’t see the point of one either. So I see no sense in advocating one.

So again, you’re just restating exactly what I accused you of. You’re interested in passing whatever ban you can, not one that most addresses the issue of public safety. It’s hard to see such an effort as being in good faith.

Why not stick to the stuff which might actually do some good, like enforcement on current background checks, rather than just support any gun control effort, even the nonsensical assault weapons ban, which clearly taints your efforts?