I should point out that the old saw about if guns are illegal then only criminals would have guns … well, that is true, but it won’t stop anybody who wants a weapon for a criminal activity is not particularly stopped by rendering guns illegal as well, um, criminal … and those people would probably still be dead.
good point.
As I have mentioned previously, I am a gun owner, but I do not have an issue with a cooling off period, a quick police check, and I don’t have any issue with stopping gun sales without running them through official channels.
That’s not very compelling in light of pretty much every other liberal democracy that has tighter gun restrictions (and no organizations analogous to the NRA in disproportionate pro-gun political influence) than the U.S. and yet not nearly as much criminal violence with guns, often far less violence in general.
In any case, of course laws restrict a far greater number or law-abiding citizens than they affect criminals, because law-abiding citizens vastly outnumber criminals. It just comes down to a rough calculation that because 1% of the population seem determined to ruin it for everybody, everybody has to be a little less free to try to reduce the amount of damage that stupid 1% can do. Most liberal democracies have concluded that gun laws are not much of an infringement and the reduced amount of damage is worth it.
Of course, sometimes it goes the other way and the laws end up creating the damage, i.e. was it really necessary to have laws against homosexuality? Is it necessary to still have laws against recreational drugs and prostitution? More calculations are coming.
Nonsense. First of all, the “Assault Weap:rolleyes:n” ban was in 1994, not '96. And when it expired in 2004 there wasn’t much effortt to renew it. I thought Dianne Feinstein would put up a furious fight over it but she didn’t.
The ban did practically nothing. There were enough pre-ban rifles and magazines on the market to last 100 years. The prices just went up. Post ban rifles just had flash suppressors and bayonet lugs removed. They still had pistol grips and accepted 30 round mags same as the pre-ban models. 10 round mags came with a plastic brace that clipped two magazines together making changing mags lightning fast. Adam Lanzas mother bought her rifle legally and went through all legal channels. Whether she bought a pre-ban or post ban model the fact is she was going to have one and her demented son was going to do what he did with it.
What the AWB did do was make gun dealers such as myself an obscene amount of money. People were paying top dollar for junk I couldn’t previously have given away. Like Tec-22 Scorpions. And they were crap. But tell someone they won’t be able to get something anymore and they want it even more! Hell, I wished they had renewed the ban just for profit reasons.
As for the NRA, there are other pro-gun rights organizations that are far more no compromise, such as Gun Owners of America. Just look at how the NRA rolled over and played dead to the illegal method Trump got bump stocks banned. If gun owners and manufacturers bailed on the NRA and gave their money to GOA we’d be much better off.
I realize it’s perhaps unfair to respond to HD when he is no longer able to respond back. But I’ll point out that he moved the goal posts here. I said there was no serious movement to ban firearms, not that there was no serious movement to regulate firearms.
I may not have made my point well. I will agree that the ban did practically nothing to ban assault weapons, but it did a very good job at existing as a thing. In it’s absence, Democrats have called for a renewed AWB after every mass shooting, which has led to increased gun sales urged on by the fear-mongering of the NRA. Gun sales between 2009 and 2012 led to Adam Lanza having access to guns.
I know there wasn’t a strong push to renew the AWB but that’s because it was politically costly in the face of the NRA and the growing gun rights movement. Absent the NRA stoking fears, I think the AWB would have been quietly renewed, people would have grown to accept it as the status quo, and thousands of people wouldn’t have had reason to run out and spend a shitload of money on AR-15s because “You’d better get 'em before they’re banned!”
Without the NRA, fewer people would be politically incapable of distinguishing between regulating firearms and confiscating them.
Guns are, now, part of the Red Tribe, the Republican group which also believes in restricting marriage, refuses to accept the existence of trans people or climate change, and isn’t on good terms with minorities, either. This association drives Blue and Gray Tribe people out of gun culture, which is distinct from merely owning a firearm and encompasses being active at ranges, training others in the use of firearms, and generally having guns as one of your hobbies.
The NRA, in its role as an arm of the Republican Party, drives this association, and uses it to isolate gun owners into the Red Tribe: If you want to own a gun, you have to be at least OK with associating with Red Tribe people, and possibly becoming indoctrinated into Republican talking points, and, very likely, into giving money to the NRA, which is your momma, your poppa, and your shoulder to cry on when it comes to keeping Blue Tribe from stealing all of your guns away from you.
So without the NRA, gun ownership would be more generalized, spread out over more of the country, as opposed to being concentrated in some areas/people.
Does that apply to abortion advocates as well? Is it all about money for them too?
I think it is impossible that the second amendment of the United States of America would have withered on the vine but perhaps people would in fact be more open to things like licensing and registration is there weren’t so many people who want to eliminate guns in society.
The only argument I ever hear in opposition to licensing and registration is a slippery slope argument. And they point to all the gun control folks to buttress their argument.
Yup. The US currently has about 120 civilian firearms per 100 people according to this Wikipedia source. Norway is number 17 of 230 on that list with about 28 per 100.
And it’s just a non-issue here. Automatic weapons are banned unless you’re an army reservist, handguns are banned unless you’re a range shooter in good standing with a shooting club. If you’re 18, have a hunting license and pass a brief police check, you can buy hunting rifles, shotguns and plinking weapons. There’s some common sense regs about safe storage, transportation and generally not being an obnoxious shithead while in the possession of a weapon, but nothing onerous really.
The hunting and weapon community polices those regs themselves and I can only think of about two instances where I ever heard of the police looking in on the community. I was cuffed upside the head by my instructor, the first (and only) time I neglected to visually show him that my magazine was out, breech clear and bolt locked back before I brought my rifle back from the stand on the range. “Don’t make us look like retarded [sic] yokels to the population and we can have our hobby in peace”, I believe, was the quote.
I don’t think it affects the point all that much. There are no organizations working against the Third Amendment in any way, whereas there are organizations working against the Second in ways other than attempts at banning guns.
I expect there would be a Third Amendment equivalent to the NRA if there were organizations arguing “we don’t want to put soldiers in your house, just sailors”. There aren’t, so such an organization isn’t necessary. Whereas there are people arguing “that only means muskets” and things like that. There can, IOW, be infringements of tRtKaBA other than outright bans, and the NRA is there to oppose them.
Much like other organizations - the ACLU opposes all kinds of restrictions on free speech and the establishment clause, even though there is no serious movement to shut down newspapers or force people to go to church.
This is an interesting point in theory but it doesn’t match up with the timeline; restrictions on the right to bear arms had been around in a wide variety of forms for a long, long time before the NRA became what it is now. The transformation of the NRA into an extreme gun rights organization is a relatively recent one, dating back only to the 70s. Gun restrictions at the state and federal level weren’t a recent thing; after all, machine guns were essentially banned from private use in 1934 but the NRA had little to say about the issue.
I stand by my point. As I’ve noted, this thread started out with a claim that liberal politicians are seeking to ban the ownership of guns. No politicians are saying this. So the idea came from the NRA.
So the NRA is an organization that’s fighting an imaginary threat that it created and convinced people exists.
It’s true that other Western democracies don’t generally “ban guns”, but certainly some of them explicitly ban the right to keep and bear arms. What I mean by the “right to keep and bear arms” is the concept found in the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania:
I’m pretty sure similar language is found in the firearms laws and regulations of the UK and of the other Australian states.
I think there’s a pretty fundamental disconnect here between the two sides on what is referred to (by typical American shorthand) as “the Second Amendment”. No, no one wants to ban all civilian possession of guns (where “guns” are seen, fundamentally, as sporting equipment), but at least some people do seem to want to disarm the American people (where “guns” are seen as arms or weapons). Arguing about whether other countries totally ban all civilian ownership of guns is kind of talking past that point.
I’m not saying everyone who wants more restrictions on gun ownership is fundamentally opposed to the concept of ordinary people being “armed” for their own defense, but there is definitely at the very least a vocal minority who seem to advocate that, especially in the Democratic Party base.
The 2nd grants US citizens (or all residents?) the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia. Exactly WHICH arms to bear aren’t specified. We mostly aren’t allowed Claymore mines, RPG and bazooka launchers, spring stilettos and switchblades, or suitcase nukes. Some jurisdictions ban nunchuks and brass knuckles. A ban on all armaments but halberds and longbows would be quite constitutional. (Nobody bans wire or cords usable as garrotes. Work on it.)
The Second Amendment is sold as a defense against tyranny, which comes from modern governments.
When you point out that modern tyrants have mortars and guided missiles, all of a sudden it’s about defense against home invasion.
When you point out that gun ownership doesn’t reduce crime, all of a sudden you’re talking to a modern-day Minuteman-cum-VC ready to blend into the wilds, and snipe from behind every tree to defend North Dakota.
Point out that most people don’t want to live under Y’all-Qaeda sharia law, and that both the Minutemen and the VC had major world empires helping them out, and they get real quiet.
Maybe next time I’ll point out how well Randy Weaver resisted the forces of tyranny with all his guns. That should provoke a longer debate, I betcha I betcha.
You know, you can argue vigorously for your side on a particular issue. But I don’t think you get to argue for your side AND also declare what the other side’s arguments are. That’s not a debate, that’s you talking to yourself.
No, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms do not concede that light arms would have no utility in some kind of 21st century insurgency (though I would say that sane advocates of the right to keep and bear arms would certainly agree that any such civil war would be a horrifying, liberty-destroying, bloody, hideous mess, and should certainly be avoided for any cause short of avoiding a truly murderous tyranny).
Nor have advocates of the right to keep and bear arms ever conceded that personal ownership of weapons–and specifically firearms–is valueless in allowing people to defend themselves against violent crime.
Far from the implication that pro-RKBA people just abandon either the “insurrectionist”/“collective rights” theory, or the “self-defense”/“individual rights” theory in debates about gun control/gun rights, in fact discussion of either of those positions tends to spawn multi-page debates.
But you’re speculating without a shred of proof that the NRA had anything to do with that. His mother might have bought a pump shotgun, rifle, or revolver that no politician is publicly talking about banning and he would have gotten a hold of that too and done what he did. Americans bought plenty of firearms, including those classified as “assault weapons” decades prior to the NRA become a political entity. They didn’t need any prompting nor boogie men to get them to do it.
I don’t know about that. I’ve always felt that the main selling point of gun ownership has been self-defense against regular criminals. I feel that very few people own a gun with the idea that they might need it for a potential uprising.
Really? What’s this? H.R.1296 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (currently in the House Judiciary Committee)
It’s got Ban and 2019 in the Bill’s title; I guess they just put those in for shits & giggles, not that they were serious?
With 215 co-sponsors to the AWB of 2019, there are some sitting politicians that want to ban guns, or at least some guns. And they’re not proposing regulating those guns, as was done with automatic weapons, they’re proposing banning them.