No one in this thread or generally on this board has proposed “no gun control” or “no restrictions on gun ownership for anybody”. Strawmen indeed.
Talk about what is “reasonable” as you say is fruitless. Bloomberg thinks banning assualt weapons is reasonable. Obama thinks magazine limits are reasonable. The state of CA thinks banning handguns based on differences in color is reasonable. The 5th circuit court of appeals thinks that 18 year olds don’t have any 2nd amendment rights as reasonable. The 3rd circuit court of appeals thinks that the right to carry a firearm determined at the whim of a magistrate for any reason or no reason is reasonable. How can the debate focus on what is reasonable when the restrictions proposed and enforced are so clearly unreasonable, IMO of course.
Comparisons to driving, swimming pools, or various other activities are not on point. None of those are enumerated fundamental constitutional rights. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, you’d have to start with one of the other enumerated fundamental rights. I consider the 2nd amendment similar to the 1st. The 1st is more important, but if you want to understand how gun rights advocates think, imagine any restriction proposed as if it were being imposed on free speech, or the right to vote. If the argument doesn’t hold up in the context of retraining 1st amendment rights, it won’t for 2nd amendment rights either.
There are restraints and limits on free speech, just as there are on every other Constitutional right. Only one Constitutional right is ever claimed by anyone to be absolute and unlimitable, though. How is that to be considered reasonable?
Done both the uniform and badge thing. Didn’t come away from it impressed by either soldiers or cops being different from anybody else. Despite running about with guns, they aren’t murdering everyone who annoys them because they, like the great majority of folks, are decent people. you and I, clearly, have different ideas of what “massive” training is. Why don’t you go ahead and look up the amount of training a cop needs to carry a gun where you live and how much refresher training he gets annually? Do the same for a guardsman in your state. Hint: they get limited training and little or no refresher training. Yet, just the same, they aren’t wantonly murdering people.
I will agree that some folks ought not to be trusted with a gun, though. Folks who have such anger issues that they believe the whole world untrustworthy, for example.
The “basic rights” are life, liberty, and property. And you can lose those, too, if you don’t respect the rights of others. The U.S. was not “founded on” the 2nd Amendment–it is not one of the truths that were held to be self-evident.
I think it’s interesting that everyone assumes that the only way to “bear arms” is to own a gun. The underlying right here is the right to self-defense. However, it seems to me that if you’re unwilling to demonstrate an ability to operate a gun safely, or you demonstrate an unwillingness to respect the rights of others (i.e. violent criminal act), then you can defend yourself with a sword or a crossbow. And if you can’t pass a driver’s license test, you’ll have to find some other way to get to work.
If you want to defend yourself with modern firearms, you can accept reasonable restrictions without declaring that your right to defend yourself has been violated. We don’t hesitate to infringe on the personal liberty of criminals; why would we hold the “right to bear arms” to a higher standard?
Interesting that, according to Magiver, “the United States was literally founded” in 2008, and by a 5-4 vote, and only with regard to militias and self-defense.
You learn something new every day.
Still waiting for **Scumpup **to come up with even a recognition of a problem, much less a realistic approach to it … Not expecting it, though.
It sure seems to me that it’s the anti-gun control side that is most adamant about keeping the debate unreasonable. Reasonable means both sides are willing to compromise in order to get to a result everyone can live with.
So, you’ve pointed out some approaches that you think are unreasonable. Now, how about kicking in with an idea or two that you think WOULD be fair and reasonable? Because I think that a fair case can be made that the kinds of laws that ARE being passed are what you get when one side of the debate says NO to everything.
FYI - If your attempting to start a “reasonable” discussion of gun laws, your reference to “a tool of death” is a show stopper. Gun owners, 2nd Amendment supporters, and party members of the main political parties won’t accept your assumption that firearms should be considered “a tool of death”.
The only “tool of death” I’m aware of, that serves no other purpose, is a sword. And a katana could be used for slicing large tuna.
Sure. I’m making a general comment on the nature of opposition. If you’d like to discuss a specific comparison you believe works within this framework, then please use an example. How about, the restriction on being allowed to purchase only 1 handgun in a 30 day period in CA?
You’ve created a contradiction with your definition. If reasonable means both sides are willing to compromise in order to get a result everyone can live with, how is possible that one side of the debate keeps the discussion unreasonable? By your definition, if one side cannot live with the proposed compromises, then the proposal is unreasonable. What you’ve done is frame the discussion in such a way that unless one side acquieces to the other side, they would open themselves up to claims of being unreasonable. That’s not a useful definition.
As a side note, gun control advocates generally don’t offer compromise. Consider this thought experiment - what is the most important piece of gun control legislation that the gun control advocates would want to pass? For that legislation, what are they willing to give up? To me, a compromise would align the priorities of give and take between both sides, and if the #1 for both groups doesn’t align, move further down until there is a point at which both would agree. That is how a a reasonable compromise is achieved.
What if I’m fine with the status quo? I think there is slim but possible avenues for advancement of gun rights in the legislature both state and federal. Most state legislatures already have enacted relativley permissive laws. 41 states are shall issue or constitutional carry - I don’t think the minority of holdouts will be persuaded to change their laws unless there is a major demographic shift. I think there are greater avenues of advancement from the courts in those locations. I think compromise in general would yield a worse position for gun rights than holding the line. Why would I support compromise in that case?
But you asked what I think would be fair and reasonable, so I’ll answer. Treat firearm ownership as a suspect class. Federal constitutional carry. Repeal the GCA of 1968. Repeal Lautenberg. Civil immunity in cases of lawful self defense. That’s what I want.
Then what else is it, pray tell? If they, er, rather you, won’t acknowledge that a spade is a spade, then you’ve defined yourself as simply a problem to be overcome, haven’t you?
Not sure why you’re trying to put this burden on me…I’m not the one who wants to equate the 2nd amendment with the 1st.
As for the specific example given, I don’t personally see the point in it. I’ve never really seen the point in any of the “cooling down” laws.
Just to be clear, I’m not in the group of people wanting to ban guns. But I’m also not in the group of people who thinks that any kind of restriction on gun ownership is an apocalypse. Like many southerners, I own some guns.
I just would like to see one debate on the topic move past the wanton slaughter of straw men.
Speaking of straw men…a large portion of one side of this debate holds that any legal restrictions (or inconveniences) tied to gun ownership are an unacceptable violation of their rights. So, if I’m taking steps toward you and you won’t budge an inch, then you’re being unreasonable.
Maybe I’m looking in the wrong direction, but what I see are gun control advocates willing to engage in a give-and-take discussion, and gun rights advocates unwilling to agree to anything other than an unrestricted right to bear arms.
Keep in mind, for gun control advocates, the “extreme” position would be a ban on private gun (AKA “tool of death”) ownership.
In my opinion, the benefit would be to achieve reasonable gun restrictions and avoid the ridiculous or pointless ones. Because what tends to happen now is that gun rights advocates refuse to participate meaningfully in the discussion, and then get stuck with whatever (good or bad) idea the other side comes up with. Like the silly “cooling off” laws. If the gun rights crowd had the political backing to prevent these laws from being enacted, then there’d be no reason to compromise at all–or even to have the conversation.
Thanks for that. I don’t know the laws well enough to have an opinion on several of these without research, but the willingness to talk options beyond just the “cold dead hands” thing is what I personally am arguing for in this thread.
The problem, to be blunt, is crazy people. That doesn’t mean we need crazy solutions or even to consult crazy people as we craft a solution. For example, anybody who makes statements to the effect that we are all one bad day from murder has identified himself as part of the problem.
I don’t think many people hold the view that you are suggesting. To defeat your premise, I only need to come up with one restriction that the isn’t held by a large portion of people. Granted, “large” is nebulous, but I’d say it’s fairly accepted among gun rights advocates that felons, habitual drug users, mentally adjudicated, and children ought to be considered prohibited persons for the purpose of purchasing firearms.
Again, this is not a workable definition of what is reasonable or not. Consider the thought experiment: My goal is to illegaly imprison you, and your goal is to enjoy freedom. It’s not reasonable if I suggest you merely stay in prison on Sundays, and the other days you are free to enjoy your freedom. If you refuse to budge an inch on that, you’re not being unreasonable.
I’d love to hear it. I’ve asked multiple times on this board what people would be willing to concede in their quest for gun control and I can’t recall getting a response. Oft times it’s buried in longer threads, maybe it deserves one of it’s own.
Most of the gun laws in this country are actually not too bad. It’s only in places like CA, NY, NJ and a handful of other states that they are particularly egregious. For the most part, there’s no reason to compromise becuase progress is being made through legislation and litigation.
Case in point. I made multiple attempts in this thread to clarify what this actually meant with the OP to no avail and instead was accused of ignoring and evading. I asked Czar direct questions in post #8 and #14 with no response.
I think it has to do with there being a large group of Americans for whom gun ownership, and being part of the community of gun owners, is a central part of their identity. One big example of this: Members of the gun culture tend to treat the second amendment the way devout liberal Christians, who also have their own culture, treat the sermon on the mount.
Another part of the US gun culture is the sense that massive threats are just around the corner.
Maybe I am missing it because of only speaking English, but I don’t think that other Western nations having high rates of gun ownership, notably Switzerland, but also Scandinavia, have a community of gun owners to the same degree. I doubt that, for example, voting patterns differ much by whether a Swiss citizen owns a gun. It’s just not as big a part of their identity. That’s my hypothesis, anyway.
Obviously some US gun owners are more caught up in this culture than others. As we’ve seen in the thread, some gun owners don’t like it at all.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to say that it’s “accepted” when they fight tooth and nail to prevent the rules from being successfully enforced.
I get what you’re saying. However, there are a lot of issues with an analogy that equates “I want to imprison you” with “I want to lower the death toll that results from the freedom you want to exercise.”
Agreed. I think one of the reasons it gets buried is there are so many posts arguing over the most extreme versions of both sides.
Well, in practice, it seems to me that a great many are silly wastes of time and resources.
I think the end result kinda HAS to be legislation and litigation. What I’m saying is that the legislation would be a lot less likely to be either ridiculous or unnecessarily onerous if the political debate didn’t consist of one side refusing to budge and the other just looking for anywhere they can successfully push.
I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis, and probably a fair description of the attitudes of a lot of gun owners. However, the “gun culture” from the OP seems to be something else, because there’s an implication here that the “gun culture” has a causal relationship (informs?) with the SC shootings. Maybe I’m missing a nuance here, but I sure got the impression that there’s an attempt to point a finger of blame at the “gun culture”.
What you’re describing doesn’t really illuminate the perceived relationship between the two.