On an assault weapon ban

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@T.M

I can understand that in remote parts of America there is a need for a high powered rifle but in urban areas no. I think that a basic firearms licence should allow a none magnum handgun only with licences for more powerful grades of weapons needing separate licences. If the gun lobby does not stop crowing about their rights and start to work towards a workable licencing system they will loose their right to bare arms

Agreed, notwithstanding my affirmative stance on hunting (feral pests in particular).

The reality is, 2A is already under attack by a legislative form of “catch me if you can”. Various state legislatures are already taking matters into their own hands regarding gun control and the Supreme Court refused to hear two cases regarding Assault Weapons Bans just today.

If my understanding is correct, the Supreme Court ruled in 1920 that a popular referendum is not a substitute for either the legislature or a ratifying convention (the two methods of introducing an Amendment to the Constitution) nor can a referendum approve of, or disapprove of, a state legislature’s, or a convention’s, decision on an amendment (Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, [1920]).

A gun ownership advocate can point to 2A and quite correctly point out a right has been conferred to them by birth, and of this there is no doubt. However, there is nothing which protects an American from the Supreme Court making a ruling which misses the mark by a country mile.

It is a mystery (in my view) that a referendum (in which all of the people can vote on an issue of national importance) cannot take precedence over an anachronistic mechanism some 240 years old. For example, the United Kingdom is about to vote on a referendum to leave the European Union. By any yardstick, that’s a big deal to the British. The UK remains the worlds 5th largest economy and there are loads of potential consequences to consider. Putting such a massive thing to a vote, by the people, for the people, is a good thing. It doesn’t get anymore democratic than that. And yet, the concept has been shit canned in the US since 1920.

I submit a sea change is occurring in the US. And the system as it presently exists, prevents the people (not Congress, THE PEOPLE) from being able to directly have a say on a matter of national interest.

[Bone]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

Yep, and in my solution there’s nothing preventing you from still doing that. It’s just gonna cost you more, so don’t do it so much. Like I said a moment ago, you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. Keep saying “can’t be done” you’re part of the latter.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone owning a gun. Introduce “one use cartridges” and a law which says you have to return every old cartridge for every new one you buy and watch how the landscape changes.

Good luck with your poll tax. Nothing to prevent you from voting - it will just cost you more. What you’ve suggested is not remotely realistic.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

…I propose that Law Enforcement should become the retail front end for all ammunition on sale in the US. …
…I’m proposing that Law Enforcement ammo shops should be allowed to make value judgements on how much ammo you can buy, based on their personal knowledge of the locals who they’re dealing with on a regular basis. New to the neighbourhood? One clip sorry, build up some history please. You’ve got a crips tattoo on your arms, nope, no sale. It has flaws obviously, but don’t reject the concept out of hand please. It could work if people agree it’s a framework to build on.

It one thing for a shop owner to reserve the right to refuse service without any basis for refusal. Its another thing for the government to block the exercise of the second amendment based on their personal value judgments. We wouldn’t do this with voting rights, abortion rights or any other constitutional rights. Second amendment rights are not second class rights.

If you want to limit sales of ammunition, then make the application even across the board and see if you can pass he legislation, then see if the limitation violates he second amendment but letting individual police officers pick and choose who to sell to and how much to sell to them is a horrible idea.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

Yep, I get that. Don’t have a problem with it all. I’m on the side of the police all day long. And here’s why… in the current business model, gun shops are in the business of selling product. Imposing the background check process is like having a record shop and wanting to sell records to customer but first doing a background check as to what their musical tastes are, in other words it gets in the way.

Police on the other had have a first hand vested interest in not selling ammo to the wrong people. They can get shot by it. In the absence of ammo, a gun is just a chunk of steel you can throw at someone.

The biggest hurdel for you to get past right now is your intransigent “can’t be done” mindset. I don’t have much tolerance for “can’t be done”. They didn’t put a man on the moon listening to people who said “can’t be done”, they focused on people who could come up with solutions. Got a better solution than I’ve come up with in reducing gun violence, I’m all ears.

Yes. If you are looking for ways to gut the second amendment then banning the sale of ammunition is probably the best way to do it, much more effective than banning bayonet lugs. But you ARE gutting the second amendment.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

Because I don’t. I love the fact I can go feral pig shooting for example, I wish, I wish, I wish I was allowed to use a semi automatic.

I’m trying to think of a state with feral pigs that ban semi-automatic weapons. Or is the ban only a ban on the use of semi-automatic weapons for hunting?

[JXJohns]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m trying to think of a state with feral pigs that ban semi-automatic weapons. Or is the ban only a ban on the use of semi-automatic weapons for hunting?

I believe Boo Boo lives in Australia.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@JXJohns

I believe Boo Boo lives in Australia.

oops.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

The inherent problem with basing 2A as an impediment to meaningful change is not 2A itself, it’s the system which prevents a referendum having a role in meaningful change.

The body of evidence which supports 2A as being relevant to the right to self defense goes all the way back St. George Tucker’s analysis on the US Constitution back in 1803. There’s no doubt at all that 2A sets the ground rules.

That isn’t the sole issue anymore however. The US is a democracy, and in a democracy, majority rules. The very nature of how the US Constitution is structured has created a massive bottleneck which prevents the People from demanding fast change, as averse to Congress demanding fast change. I submit a fundemental acceptance of gun control is already underway which will walk over 2A sooner or later. I submit the following is true.

[ul]
[li]The majority of Americans are sufficiently sick of shooting sprees that they wish for meaningful change which will definitely reduce the incidence of mass shooting sprees.[/li][li]The majority of Americans cannot comprehend that it’s impossible to prevent mass shooting sprees like Orlando and Sandy Hook. [/li][li]The inability for American citizens to vote at one time in a referendum on an issue of national importance doesn’t exist, and hasn’t existed since SCOTUS ruled in 1920 that referendums can’t overrule the provisions set down in Article V of the Constitution on how to amend the Constitution.[/li][li]The majority of Americans are now prisoner to an anachronistic system some 240 years old which is incapable of reacting fast enough to the wishes of the People, it’s a system which can only react to the wishes of a majority of Congress.[/li][/ul]

The Homeland Security Act, no fly lists, terrorist watch lists… all of this has happened since 9/11. And what that says to me is while it might be true that mass shooting sprees might not be enough to create meaningful change in the current system, a coordinated terrorism shooting spree (like Charlie Hebdo for example) in which the perpetrators knowingly use American made firearms with American made ammunition will definitely result in knee jerk reactions which go far beyond what you might have achieved in the first instance. The public will say enough is enough, they clearly could have only bought that stuff here in America in our gun shops. That’s what they’ll say.

If you’re a gun ownership advocate, there’s your choice. Do you want 2A to be diluted by meaningful change due to mass shooting sprees or do you want 2A to be trampled all over due to a coordinated terrorism attack. 2A will be affected eventually, either way. There’s the rub, if it’s a coordinated terrorism attack, people will blame 2A itself as being responsible, and therefore it must change. I believe the majority of Americans already want it to happen, it’s just that a referendum isn’t possible in America which can prove this empirically.

[Bone]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

If you’re a gun ownership advocate, there’s your choice. Do you want 2A to be diluted by meaningful change due to mass shooting sprees or do you want 2A to be trampled all over due to a coordinated terrorism attack. 2A will be affected eventually, either way. There’s the rub, if it’s a coordinated terrorism attack, people will blame 2A itself as being responsible, and therefore it must change. I believe the majority of Americans already want it to happen, it’s just that a referendum isn’t possible in America which can prove this empirically.

The false dilemma is strong with this one. Most of what you’ve written in this thread seems more like wishful thinking rather than anything based on evidence. Do you have any?

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@Bone

The false dilemma is strong with this one. Most of what you’ve written in this thread seems more like wishful thinking rather than anything based on evidence. Do you have any?

How is that relevant? Debating nitpicks with me isn’t going to solve the problem YOU are going to face in the near future, if not facing right now.

Perception is everything. Already, you have people like Jon Stewart using his TV show to pump the “bumper sticker message”, gun control works - look at Australia - no mass shootings since they implemented gun control.

It’s irrelevant how much you believe your rights are permanent. The 21st Amendment is all the proof you need that an earlier Amendment can be repealed. It’s also irrelevant that I personally think the claim regarding Australia’s gun control is bullshit. The only thing that is relevant in 2016 is that perception is everything, and the bumper sticker I just quoted is what’s already being bandied around everywhere. It’s only a matter of time before you start seeing bumper stickers which say “2A is meant to protect us, not to endanger us.” In fact I’m surprised it hasn’t already started.

[HurricaneDitka]

Boo Boo Foo, do you believe that Australia’s gun control laws have made it impossible for them to suffer another mass shooting?

[Bone]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

How is that relevant? Debating nitpicks with me isn’t going to solve the problem YOU are going to face in the near future, if not facing right now.

You ask how a lack of evidence is relevant? I see what may be the source of the problem. It’s not debating a nitpick to point out the lack of evidence of your claims. In fact, it’s not debating at all since without evidence you’re closer to proselytizing. So, no evidence then - got it. This doom and gloom prediction isn’t anything that hasn’t been happening for a while. Better compromise now and acquiesce or else it’s going to happen anyways!

Jon Stewart is anti gun - totally new information! Bears shit in the woods too.

[DrDeth]

@HurricaneDitka

Boo Boo Foo, do you believe that Australia’s gun control laws have made it impossible for them to suffer another mass shooting?

Before the Port Arthur Massacre, I dont believe there was another mass shooting involving “assault weapons”. Since then, there has been the Cairns child killings (8 dead), with a knife, the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire(15 dead) with arson, and the Lin family murders (5) with a hammer.

So, yes, since the Port Arthur Massacre was the only attack using assault weapons, I suppose you can say the new laws worked.* or didn’t.*

No Mass Shootings: The Myth of Australia's Gun Control Policy | Caffeinated...

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@Bone

You ask how a lack of evidence is relevant? I see what may be the source of the problem. It’s not debating a nitpick to point out the lack of evidence of your claims. In fact, it’s not debating at all since without evidence you’re closer to proselytizing. So, no evidence then - got it. This doom and gloom prediction isn’t anything that hasn’t been happening for a while. Better compromise now and acquiesce or else it’s going to happen anyways!

Jon Stewart is anti gun - totally new information! Bears shit in the woods too.

You still don’t get it do you? If you’re a pro gun advocate, I’m not your problem. Your problem is the sea change which is already happening, as evidenced by the gun laws which have already been passed in California and New York.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@DrDeth

Before the Port Arthur Massacre, I dont believe there was another mass shooting involving “assault weapons”. Since then, there has been the Cairns child killings (8 dead), with a knife, the Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire(15 dead) with arson, and the Lin family murders (5) with a hammer.

So, yes, since the Port Arthur Massacre was the only attack using assault weapons, I suppose you can say the new laws worked.* or didn’t.*

No Mass Shootings: The Myth of Australia's Gun Control Policy | Caffeinated Thoughts

Incorrect, there have been 5 mass shooting sprees in Australia’s history which involved semi-automatic rifles in which a shooter aimed at random strangers which resulted in the deaths of 5 people or more people at one time. The Hoddle Street Massacre, the Queen St Massacre, the Central Coast massacre, the Strathfield massacre and the Port Arthur massacre. In the interests of total accuracy, the Hoddle St Massacre also involved the use of a Mossberg pump action shotgun.

They occurred from 1987 to 1996, respectively. To be fair, how you define “mass shootings” determines what shows up on the positives list. I was very specific in my definition for that reason.

[asahi]

@Blaster_Master

That is, you’re not going to win a culture war coercively through passing laws. There is no magic law or set of laws that can be passed and change American gun culture to be more like the apparent desired effect that exists in Australia or Europe or wherever. I think those sorts of laws there were more effective because the way those peoples already viewed guns was much different from how we still see them here. And, of course, those in favor of guns will fight every bit as hard to stop the banning as we’ve seen with the several other examples above. So, if that really is your goal, you have to stop with the banning and start actually reaching out to people. But the problem there is that the well is so poisoned, by both sides, that even reaching a point where reasonable people can disagree is nearly impossible, much less actually reaching a point where we can have a compromise that everyone can be happy with.

Good commentary.

I think there are examples of laws changing culture, but that usually happens concurrently with changing culture itself. In a case of civil rights laws, I think that there was already a changing mood in the country that wanted to see more equal protection under the laws. But the South was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century. Over time, however, I think that while there is still certainly a lot of racism, the laws probably acculturated the South to the idea of integration more than they would have done on their own. But I largely agree that changes in laws are typically the result of modifications of attitudes that precipitate political change.

I’ve grown up in a gun culture and owned firearms myself, and on the other end of that spectrum, lived in a country in which firearms are strictly regulated. I can see both sides of this issue. I also think that we’re never going to have a national consensus on firearms because there are basically two Americas inside what we call the United States. Thus, debates over the rights of an individual to possess and carry firearms are probably best suited for individual states to decide. The problem is, firearms, like it or not, are articles of interstate commerce and impact people in other states besides those in which they are purchased. If the NRA and other gun rights advocates would accept some compromise in which the states can choose who gets to keep firearms and where they are kept, that would probably work and work well, provided that the federal government be granted the power to regulate their manufacturing, tracking, and distribution - and by regulate I don’t mean banishment outright. But mandatory registration is not an unreasonable request. The problem is that you have the NRA not only blocking common sense measures at the federal level; they’re also trying to use the highly politicized Supreme Court to impose gun virtues on citizens in states that clearly want to restrict firearms.

I predict that the generations of Americans who have stubbornly and uncompromisingly clutched the absolutist view of firearms rights are giving way to a generation that is going to demand real changes. And when those changes come, they’re going to be severe and swift. And their buddies in congress are running out of gerrymanders. They may - and I suspect they will - look back and realize that 1999 to 2016 was a time when their opponents were willing to compromise. I suspect when gun rights advocates realize that they dominate the political landscape, there will be no compromise.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Boo_Boo_Foo

… as evidenced by the gun laws which have already been passed in California and New York.

You don’t know much about American politics if you think that CA and NY passing gun control laws represents a “sea change”. CA and NY have hated guns my entire life.

[HurricaneDitka]

@asahi

They may - and I suspect they will - look back and realize that 1999 to 2016 was a time when their opponents were willing to compromise.

Our opponents don’t want compromise. They want as much gun control as they think is politically possible at the moment, and next year they’ll want as much as they think is politically possible then. The only thing reining in their ambitions is a lack of political power, not some sincere desire to reach a genuine compromise.

[Bone]

@asahi

I predict that the generations of Americans who have stubbornly and uncompromisingly clutched the absolutist view of firearms rights are giving way to a generation that is going to demand real changes. And when those changes come, they’re going to be severe and swift. And their buddies in congress are running out of gerrymanders. They may - and I suspect they will - look back and realize that 1999 to 2016 was a time when their opponents were willing to compromise. I suspect when gun rights advocates realize that they dominate the political landscape, there will be no compromise.

What compromises have been offered? Thus far the only compromises from the gun control side I’ve heard is the difference between being bent over with or without lube. Name me one compromise that the gun control side in Congress have offered?

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

@asahi

I predict that the generations of Americans who have stubbornly and uncompromisingly clutched the absolutist view of firearms rights are giving way to a generation that is going to demand real changes. And when those changes come, they’re going to be severe and swift. And their buddies in congress are running out of gerrymanders. They may - and I suspect they will - look back and realize that 1999 to 2016 was a time when their opponents were willing to compromise. I suspect when gun rights advocates realize that they dominate the political landscape, there will be no compromise.

And good commentary from yourself sir.

In my recent posts I’ve referred to a “sea change”, you’ve referred to a generation that is going to demand real changes. Anyway we describe it, the landscape IS changing, as evidenced by the decision by SCOTUS on Monday to allow Connecticut’s AWB laws to stand.

@asahi

I think there are examples of laws changing culture, but that usually happens concurrently with changing culture itself. In a case of civil rights laws, I think that there was already a changing mood in the country that wanted to see more equal protection under the laws. But the South was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century. Over time, however, I think that while there is still certainly a lot of racism, the laws probably acculturated the South to the idea of integration more than they would have done on their own. But I largely agree that changes in laws are typically the result of modifications of attitudes that precipitate political change.

And again, good commentary. The culture of a society itself plays a role in the sorts of laws which are being passed.

Consider the following stats by the Australian Bureau of Statistics into murder rates per capita per annum, and the percentage caused by firearm. The trend lines are inarguable. The murder rate operated independently of the Port Arthur massacre, so did the percentage of homicides by firearm per annum. And yet, the Port Arthur massacre resulted in the highly restricted gun laws we see today. My point being, the culture was already acclimated to the concept of restrictive gun laws. And that, increasingly, is where the United States is heading towards.

1950-1951: 0.9 murders per 100,000, 35% by firearm
1960-1961: 1.4 murders per 100,000, 38% by firearm
1970-1971: 1.6 murders per 100,000, 40% by firearm
1980-1981: 1.9 murders per 100,000, 37% by firearm
1988-1989: 2.4 murders per 100,000, 32% by firearm
1990-1991: 1.9 murders per 100,000, 30% by firearm
1994-1995: 1.8 murders per 100,000, 22% by firearm (the year before Port Arthur)
2000-2001: 1.5 murders per 100,000, 20% by firearm
2006-2007: 1.3 murders per 100,000, 17% by firearm
2010-2011: 1.1 murders per 100,000, 17% by firearm