I am now totally confused. In a previous thread I had heard vociferous objection to the proposal that guns must be locked up securely when not in active use, or at least under active supervision, because such would inconvienence defensive gun use. Now I’m being told that defensive gun use is not a main reason for gun ownership. Gosh gee willikers, then what is the big deal about mandating storage that reduces the possibility of theft, one of the main ways that guns get into the hands of the bad guys?
(In case no one noticed, I posted the same suggestion in both threads - how to confiscate and how to promote gun rights … crime is an oft cited rationale for positions in both camps.)
gex you have an interesting point regarding drugs. I’d like to explore it. Canada has a similar gun ownership rate as the US, but 1/3 the homicide rate. Of the homicides only 1/3 are gun homicide compared to 2/3 in the US. Best I can determine, drug use is estimated to be comparable between the two countries but drug arrests occur three times as often in the US. While other demographic differences exist (Canada has a smaller percentage of males 15 to 24 yo) that drug arrest rate difference seems to be a critical difference between the two countries and supports the contention that the “war on drugs” exacerbates the gun homicide rate. I tend to think that decriminalizing hard drugs would cause more harm than good but such figures give me cause to reconsider my assessment.
Maybe not. Sitting here in 2002, we can look to a not-so-distant era and wonder how on Earth a Constitutional Amendment was passed allowing Prohibition. And yet…there it happened.
Remember of course the connection between the media and entertainment industries, which for all practical purposes bombard the “middle 85%” of the population with instructions on how they should think and act every single day, and the major political party that has made “gun control” a key plank of it’s platform for decades now.
Scary, isn’t it?
With very few exceptions, and demonstrated by many other countries and by the history of the US as well, “gun control” (measured in terms of prohibition of weapons, not necessarily their use and deployment (Concealed Carry)) only goes one way.
As I am neither “macho” nor a “guy”, I will happily carry my bright-pink AR-15 HBAR, or Super Redhawk .44 magnum everywhere I go now, with your blessing.
The NRA has membership roles for exactly the purpose of rounding up all the guns as soon as a neo Nazi regime needs to do that. That is the sole purpose of the NRA. That and to shift the cost for such efforts of name and gun collection onto gun owners. That is why they have such a large monetary endowment.
Really. Think about it.
If the second amendment means exactly what the NRA says it says, then the NRA’s lobbying efforts are entirely unnecessary. The only reason the organization exists is for what we call a gun owners sucker’s list.
I didn’t read the whole thread, so excuse me if I’m repeating someone. BUT this is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Not only is it not realistic…it’s not possible.
Forget the fact that there is no way to search every house, barn, vehicle, square inch of the US for weapons. Weapons that are known to exist, that doesn’t include the millions of guns that are not and never have, nor will they ever be registered.
Forget about the ones imported illegally, forget about the one’s that are handmade (that’s right, some people actually know how to build guns)
Jesus it’s their ignorance I know…give me strength.
Don’t try to take 'ol grandpa’s gun from Bubba…some people, I think don’t have a clue what this threat means to some other people.
I didn’t mean to rant in the middle of y’all’s debate, sorry.
The first thing to do in order to disarm the US citizens of their guns. Propaganda, create civil unrest in the nation to the extent that laws are passed which make gun ownership illegal. If it has to be one gun at a time, fine.
First- automatic ? - illegal
second-riot/assault type -illegal
third- semi auto (that are capable of being altered) - illegal
fourth- military/sniper type -illegal
fifth- handguns semi/auto w/ large capacity magazines - illegal
sixth- hunting rifles (possible sniper) -illegal
seventh- shotguns w/ semiauto alterable to full auto - illegal
etc
etc
until no guns period, then since the ammunition for all of these weapons are no longer available, prior records will reveal who made purchases and track these civilian/criminals down
This will then leave a “few” militants who can be rounded up by US military as terrorists and there it is. The disarming of a nation!
Let me see if I understand this - are you claiming that the sole purpose for the NRA is actually a front for a “neo Nazi reigime” to institute gun confiscation? Should I ask for a “cite?”, or does the leprechaun not talk to strangers?
No cite, although I believe Michael Moore recently suggested the idea. But it is logical and it follows from the facts. This is an organization that raises vast amounts of money under the pretense of protecting the rights of people to own guns and shoot a dozen minors to death every day in this country. Yet, they freely admit, and insist, that the right is fully and plainly protected in the U.S. Constitution, which can’t be changed without amending the constitution. Think of it as though the freedom of the press in the first amendment had an advocacy group (I’m sure it does, but minor ones) that was busy bribing Congressmen and lobbying the entire nation and soliciting money on steriods for a constitutionally protected right. Methinks they protesteth too much. They can’t possibly be doing this for cushy jobs with high pay, can they? No. They are making a list of all gun toting dissenters for a round up.
When you read about the increase in crime in England, you have to realize that a 20% increase in gun-related deaths would mean that fourteen more people died this year than last year.
In all of Canada last year there were less than 170 gun-related deaths. In the U.S. there were over 11,000 gun-related deaths. What is so different about Canada?
[/slight hijack]
What steps would I take?
Ban the production and import of ammunition. (Already mentioned) Death by firing squad (cannons) for offenders.
Make drug use legal.
Issue a musket and a small amount of gun powder to every household that wants one. (Other options that were available when the 2nd Ammendment was written should also be considered.)
Have a billion dollar lottery. You can get a lottery ticket for every gun you turn in whether it’s yours or not.
Elect and appoint more women to political office.
“Guns don’t kill people; Americans kill people.” – Michael Moore
There have been numerous threads on the complete lack of credibility of the hateful Michael Moore - in fact, I think he’s been honored by being on Snopes.
I’m sorry, I disagree. It no more logical to say that the NRA is a front for collecting the names of gun advocates for future punishment than it is to say that the real purpose of the ADL is to collect the names of Jews in America for a future set of atrocities. Or that the NAACP is collecting the names of its Members for future deportation. Or the ACLU for turning in the names of its Members when flag burning is made illegal. There is just as much evidence, by the standards you put forward, for any of those scenarios.
I’m sure I will be corrected, but I believe there are no absolute rights recognized in the Constitution.
It turns out that I have heard this theory before - it was on the G. Gordon Liddy show, long, long ago, during the Clinton reigime.
I do not think you have presented any real evidence that such a thing is happening, could happen, or is even feasible in any context. Also, I do not believe that there is any historical precedent for an organization like the NRA being a “suckers list” for the government.
And the fact that a sick piece of disgusting filth like Michael Moore puts it forward makes me automatically question it. If he said the sky was blue, I’d grab an umbrella. If he said the grass was green, I’d call ChemLawn out.
But I don’t have hard facts to disprove the proposal that the NRA is nothing more than a “sucker’s list” for gun control. I think there is a substantial burden of proof that has not even started to be met. Anyone else here think there’s merit to this, or have evidence?
He made it very clear, I thought, that he was referring to himself in particular. He didn’t try to assert that self defense wasn’t a valid reason to own a gun, or that it’s not the primary reason people own guns - but just that he, personally, didn’t have that as a top priority as far as choosing which guns he owns.
That being said, self defense is higher on my list than recreation, by quite a bit.
And all your silly storage laws would do was make it so that I could get a ticket when cops saw my toddler-height, loaded, cocked, and safety off machine gun collection that I’ve hidden in the Forbidden Closet Of Mystery in a daycare center.
Writing the US Constitution didn’t change the laws of physics so that Congressmen couldn’t physically move their hand in a way that would write out unConstitutional legislation. In making sure the Constitution was properly being followed, advocacy and watch dog groups are important tools.
**
If the ACLU is minor…
**
No. No one ever takes cushy jobs for high pay fighting for things they believe in. That’s a living nightmare.
Rather, people tend to take jobs with consideration for the degree of Nefarious-Neo-Nazi-Plotness involved.
That explains my current position of a gas station clerk… ** OF DOOM**.
Serious request for info from those who would know.
I’m hearing reports about the sniper guy’s gun having been last in the inventory of a gun dealer and never reported stolen or sold.
Yet the sniper, who was not legally qualified to own the gun due to past records (I had though that he’d be able to have owned the gun), had it in his possession.
What are the penalties for illegal sale of a weapon? The consequences for “losing” inventory? The requirements for being allowed to sell guns? The legal allowances for ATF to inspect gun sellers for compliance with extant regs and thus the ability to enforce current laws?
Individuals who should not legally have the weapons that they have are getting them. They are stealing them and they are purchasing them illegally. How would you suggest that such be decreased? Please not just “enforce the laws we have”, specifically how would you enforce the laws we have? What kind of inspection schedule should we have? Is ATF allowed to do what they should be doing? Are they funded to do what they should be doing? What should be required of gun show sales to show that guns are not being filtered through them into the hands of those who are not legally allowed to own them?
I have my thoughts which are anathema to some of the gun rights crowd and unacceptable to a few of the gun control crowd as well. (Nice to be popular.) Any other suggestions?
Only if you include people between the ages of 18 and 22 years old as ‘minors’, and if you subscribe to the notion that the NRA wants drug dealing gang members with felony histories to be owning guns.
Neither of which are beliefs actually grounded in reality.
Well, prosecuting these people would work. We hear alot about the Columbine shooters and that they illegally possessed the guns they used. However, we don’t hear anything about the friend who purchased the weapons. That’s a strawman purchase, a federally mandated felony with a penalty of $10K, and up to 10 years in jail. Is she doing 5-10? (I don’t know) The Brady bunch like to brag about how the NICS has foiled over 600,000 attempts to illegally purchase a firearm. Yet, IIRC, the DoJ has only prosecuted 10(?) under this law.
Are they not being prosecuted when caught? Is ATF able to inspect dealers frequently enough and are dealers required to inventory carefully and often enough that outliers for “lost” inventory will stand out? (I had heard that ATF is restricted to inspections no more often than annually, but do not know if it is true) Is there a min. jail time for straw man purchases? Are you culpable for damages due to the weapon’s use in a civil court if not held as an accessory in federal court?
As to Brady … while I wouldn’t expect Brady to accomplish too much, I wouldn’t judge it on the prosecution rate. Oft-times the best effect of a law is what it prevents because individuals know that there will be a background check, etc. Of course for guns today, (correct me if I misunderstand the current state of affairs) the same individuals can still just shift their purchase to a different venue, such as a gun show. Or find a large volume straw man reseller who is willing to risk 10K and maybe a few years max, if caught, in return for the lucrative returns.
Are they not being prosecuted when caught? Is ATF able to inspect dealers frequently enough and are dealers required to inventory carefully and often enough that outliers for “lost” inventory will stand out? (I had heard that ATF is restricted to inspections no more often than annually, but do not know if it is true) Is there a min. jail time for straw man purchases? Are you culpable for damages due to the weapon’s use in a civil court if not held as an accessory in federal court?
As to Brady … while I wouldn’t expect Brady to accomplish too much, I wouldn’t judge it on the prosecution rate. Oft-times the best effect of a law is what it prevents, in this case, because individuals know that there will be a background check, etc. But such would be difficult to document so is left as speculation. Of course for guns today, (correct me if I misunderstand the current state of affairs) the same individuals can still just shift their purchase to a different venue, such as a gun show. Or find a large volume straw man reseller who is willing to risk 10K and maybe a few years max, if caught, in return for the lucrative returns.
You mean when “Pooh” is stuck in your face by the gun-wielding maniac attempting to rape or abuse you?
True, not every gun owner is a macho guy who is going to care about the new Barbie pink range of guns. That is why it is only the first step in my solution.
Stage two is to give all the extreme-right gun nuts their deepest desire. I shall legalise military weapons for civilian use. Cannons, mortars, bazookas, tanks - all of it. All Barbie pink of course. Then I’ll ban everything under a certain size, which will pretty much encompass all hand guns and rifles and all that. So you can now own a gun, but it has to be cannon sized. And pink. Preferably nineteenth century.
Now, on to other matters.
Beagle
Actually, the ‘prohibition’ arguments were responded to, when I said:
I didn’t argue against prohibition because it is not on the short-term list of goals for most of the anti-gun lobby. Personally, I don’t think it’d work at the moment in the US, as others have mentioned in this thread. The gun culture is too embedded into the society that any attempt to ban guns would just create a black market even worse than the current situation. In my country on the other hand, where there is not a ‘gun culture,’ I don’t see why anyone in an urban area needs a gun unless it is part of their job. For prohibition to ever work in the US, the society would have to become less accepting of guns, something that would take a very long time. It is better to try and minimize harm rather than place a ban on a society that could not handle it. This is somewhat similar to the ideas on imposing democracy on countries like Afghanistan - the circumstance does not exist for that society to adopt such a means of government, just as in America the circumstances are not right for a total ban on arms.
By placing restrictions on gun ownership, guns become less of a part of that society. This can lead to eventual confiscation.
However, guns aren’t very good at that sort of thing and cause more problems than they solve.
You notice that nowhere in my post did I say “kill people.” I said, “kill things,” and that is what guns are for. They are designed to do that. They do that by projecting bits of metal at a high speed.
as I said, “killing things”
I don’t see how restrictions on arms can hinder sportspeople. Does it matter, for instance if they have a 5 day waiting period or need a background check? A sportsperson won’t be hindered by the waiting period, and should pass the background check.
Again, restrictions can’t harm the activites of a legitimate collector.
How is this not a social utility? Alcohol has a large part in our society, and it exists to get the user ‘high’. Somone using drugs is a lot safer to the people around him than someone using a gun.
Neither are guns. There’s always the “well organised militia” bit that can be debated pointlessly all day. However, this excellently demonstrates that some things are ‘rights’ only because it says so in one nation’s constitution, and therefore need not be always protected as a ‘right’.
Good. I am also against the prohibition policy on drugs. And I don’t bury my head in the sand, however where arms are concerned, the arguments cannot easily be flipped.
And finally, DSeid:
It is very interesting, but I can’t really comment, as I simply don’t know enough about anything you’ve mentioned. However, the correlation is reasonable and personally, I would love an excuse to associate more negative consequences with the war on drugs
I’m also very wary of things like decriminilisation of hard drugs: could you imagine the world if the tobacco companies had a drug like heroin to sell? However, I’m cautiously optimistic that a certain level of decriminilisation could remove any profit to be made from drug dealing, which can only be a positive thing.
