How do you justify gun control advocacy?

No one wants to violate anyone’s rights. But there’s not a reason in the universe why we can’t severely regulate the purchase and use of guns in this country just like we regulate the use of any number of other things, even everyday things like cars.

If you want to drive a car in this country you have to study for, take, and pass both a written and practical exam; the same should be true for guns.

If you want to drive a car in this country you have to register it with the state and pay a registration fee; the same should be true for guns.

If you want to drive a car in this country you have to renew your license for it every 4 years; the same should be true for guns.

If you want to drive a car in this country you have to have it inspected for safety periodically; the same should be true for guns.

If you sell a car in this country you have to notify the state that you’ve done so by transferring the title to the new owner, even when the transaction takes place between two private individuals; the same should be true for gun ownership.

You aren’t allowed to drive a car in this country if you’re mentally incompetent to do so; the same should be true for gun ownership.

I think it’s reasonable to require that all guns be registered and their serial numbers entered into a national database so they can be easily tracked to their owners.

I think it’s reasonable to have gun ownership forbidden for convicted felons who haven’t had their convictions overturned, for people with mental illness, and even for people who have a mentally ill person living in their home.

And yes, I want to see an outright ban on all assault, automatic, and semi-automatic weapons. You don’t use them for hunting and they’re completely overboard for home protection. We don’t let you keep plutonium either; you’ll survive.

The Fourth Amendment says I have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court interpreted that to extend to my physical body, thereby making my absolute right to an abortion completely legal in all 50 states.

But you rightwingers think nothing of setting up extraordinary restrictions that in many states have now made it literally impossible to exert my right to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure. You think nothing of regulating the size of the janitorial closets, or hallways, or exam rooms themselves; of requiring all doctors to have privileges at the nearest hospital knowing the hospitals have refused to grant said privileges; require women to wait 72 hours between the first counseling session with her doctor and the abortion; be subjected to invasive transvaginal ultrasounds; to be lied to about an increased risk of suicide — the list of outrageous regulations and restrictions is abominable.

But you claim to be doing it all for the sake of this so-called “human life,” which in nearly all cases is little more than a few cells no bigger than an apple seed, with no nerve endings, no vision, no emotions, no nothing.

Well dude, some of us would like to protect actual living, breathing, sentient human beings from very real, grisly, terrifying deaths as they attempt to live their lives with the freedom to congregate in malls, movie theaters, churches, and schools; the freedom to play the music in their car as loud as they damn well please; the freedom to walk home no matter whether the self-appointed neighborhood vigilante thinks they belong there.

Your freedom to own a gun stops when it infringes upon the rest of our freedom to live without fear of being shot to death while attending a political rally or going to a spa.

You may have certain guns, but you may also have to start living with some restrictions on them, just like the rest of us do with the restrictions you place on our rights.

Let’s also not forget the words of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.

"Warren Burger was a conservative Republican, appointed U.S. chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that ‘the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.’ In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was only ‘to ensure that the “state armies” – “the militia” – would be maintained for the defense of the state.’

“A year before, Burger went even further. On ‘MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,’ Burger said the Second Amendment ‘has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word “fraud” – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.’ Burger wasn’t in the habit of taking stands on controversial constitutional questions on national television. In using the word ‘fraud,’ Burger meant to describe what he saw as a clear consensus about the meaning of the Constitution.”

Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy 2nd Amendment Claims

I’d allow all guns, not just shotguns. I’m on the fence about in-home inspections. On the whole, though, the above seems like a sane gun policy.

The training is interesting. If handguns are allowed, I have been wondering why open/concealed carry does not require the same level of handgun training and periodic practice as police forces. One would think that the police would be backing this.

Those countries were starting from a different place, with far less gun violence before their latest regulations. (Japan has had gun-control laws of some form for longer than the United States has existed.)

Eliahna’s post was about the elimination of spree shootings, which for Australia seems to have been largely successful. But, compared to American rates, the reduction in total gun violence wasn’t quite so striking. If the same rate effect were applied in the US (a decrease of about 0.6 homicides per 100,000 per year), the US would still be twice as murderous as Australia was before the new laws.

Don’t believe the hype.

What hype? This is what I call reality. Why shouldn’t be restricting and regulating guns?

You were given the chance to make a case for this in another thread and you completely failed to do so.

Just repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true, even if you wish it were so.

Thanks for the reminder that people like you are out there. I’ll be cutting a check to the NRA-ILA to help fund them to fight you every step of the way.

Posts like this and from BobLibDem in this thread are so over the top it almost makes you wonder if they are deep cover conservatives.

There’s no contradiction between being conservative and wanting stricter regulation of gun ownership. Requiring training, testing, and background checks is no more “liberal” than requiring the analogous for truckers and school bus drivers.

The phrase “well-regulated” is right there in the Constitution. As Shayna pointed out, sane Republicans can see that no regulations on guns is a wrong-headed interpretation.

Damn it, we place stricter regulations on barbers. It’s your position that’s radical, that’s extremist. What’s truly bizarre is that you can’t see this.

I’m not anti-gun at all. I don’t get a chance to hunt these days due to money, time and living in the LA megalopolis where hunting land is far away. Not currently a gun owner, but I have been in the past, will be in the future.

My Army officer dad taught me how to shoot, and we always had guns in the home when we lived in 3rd world countries. My Alabama grandad and several of my uncles were/are avid hunters.

It’s actually my respect for guns and for hunting that makes me want to restrict access/ownership to trained, responsible people. And yes, you have to prove it to us - that is society. We shouldn’t have to take it on faith that you know what the hell you’re doing with your guns anymore than we take it on faith that the trucker transporting a tanker full of gasoline knows what he’s doing.

It ignores nothing. Vast majorities of many weapons produced aren’t used for offense. But the balance is whether the ones which are used to commit crimes outweighs the ones which are not. The vast majorities of nuclear weapons do not get used for offense, in fact its only happened twice in the entire history of the world, but that doesn’t mean its a great idea to let everyone have one. As our gun violence statistics show, the more guns there are, the easier we have access to them, the more they are used, or misused.

A perfect, market based solution to encourage more responsible gun ownership - and to reduce the social costs that gun ownership imposes on the society at large. An added bonus is that is congruent with conservative values of everyone paying their own way instead of ‘mooching’ off society.

[QUOTE=The Atlantic]
*It’s been a banner year for guns and ammo sales, and the gun industry is expected to make about $11.7 billion. Yet by one credible estimate, gun violence cost the United States as much as $174 billion in 2010 alone, once you factored in the lost work, medical care, criminal justice resources, and other expenses.
*
[/QUOTE]

Who could object…

DC v. Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago rulings say that Warren Burger is wrong.