Is it possible to be pro-gun, yet support this type of legislation?
Well, personally, I’d really like a P-90. It’s a very good design. Safe, innovative, and friendly. Or an AA-12. Even if they were only in semi-automatic. The AA-12 doesn’t need to be cleaned, for example. Brilliant, but simple engineering. Honestly, most of these gun laws really have increased the cost of designing anything newer and safer, resulting in 50-100 year old designs staying as the bleeding edge, because of the risk of having your brand new weapon outlawed. And yes, I believe strongly that guns could benefit from the CAD revolution as much as anything.
Heck, I’m kind of staring at a Colt .45 that a friend owns that’s been trapped in Jersey for twenty years because it’s cheaper than trying to get a license for it in NY.
The AWB and some other laws made a lot of military surplus weapons illegal. They were safe. Even semi-automatic. They just, due to cosmetic features like the screw option on the end of the barrel, or bayonet lug, couldn’t be sold.
The problem with answering Hentor’s question is not ‘any one gun’. The problem is that there is a spectrum of lost opportunities here that is somewhat hard to measure.
It’s like asking, ‘If airplanes were limited to 1940s models, what would be lost?’ Sure, there’d be some really advanced Mustangs and DC-3s… but…
But, honestly, what opportunities are missed here? Is it essential in anyway to your happiness to be able to purchase whatever weapon you choose? I am asking honestly, with nary a hint of snark.
I really can’t fathom how the benefits of owning these types of weapons possibly outweigh the risks, namely them falling into the hands of those who would use them for evil. And don’t say that they would get them anyway, because I think we can all conceive of a country in which strict gun control laws were essential in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
I get the distinct impression that you consider strict gun control laws essential, whether they actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals or not.
Hi, I’m Zeriel, I’m an Obama voter and gun owner. I shoot at targets and things I plan to eat, and it’s not inconceivable that if I didn’t live in the second-safest city in the US I’d have a gun for self-defense.
I’ve listed before the types of legislation I’d support–mandatory combination locks on gun safes, mandatory licensing including skills testing similar to driver’s/car licensing with annual inspections and tying of serial numbers to current owners.
The problem is that the vast majority of federal legislation we see proposed is similar to the “assault weapons ban” or the Bush/Clinton executive order bans, in that they ban a limited subset of items that are functionally (from the point of view of throwing bullets of a certain size at targets) the same and cosmetically different from hunting weapons.
To respond for E-Sabbath, I don’t understand the problem with wanting a modern, safer-to-use and easier to put a safety/trigger lock on firearm, that is banned because of similar appearance to a military grade weapon. Put another way, I have a semi-automatic rifle I use for range shooting and deer hunting, a BAR LongTrac in .30-06. Admittedly, it has a 4-shot magazine. But it’s also shooting a far larger and more powerful round than a weapon banned under the AWB, the AR-15 semi-auto, which generally carries 10 rounds of .223. Both weapons are based on military weapons and fire one shot per trigger pull with no other interaction. The only reason the latter is legally in jeopardy is the fact it has a pistol grip and bayonet attachment point, not for any actual reasons related to firepower–as there are other weapons which meet the 10 rounds of .223 semi-auto criterion (such as the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle) which are legal due to lack of a pistol grip. Now you’ll see people say that pistol grips “improve hipfire accuracy” or other nonsense. All they really do is make it easier to control the rifle under a variety of usage conditions, and frankly for most of us the usage condition is freezing cold waiting for a deer/bear.
So that’s MY beef–the fact that many laws are dumb. We can have intelligent discussion of regulation, but it isn’t currently happening at the Federal level.
I think they are an essential first step, yes. I have no delusions that doing this will halt crime and create more rainbows, though.
I’ll just post what I said before, then.
The AWB wasn’t renewed. That doesn’t mean that it failed to constitute a dramatic infringement, based on bullshit scare tactics, on the right of gun ownership.
And no, I don’t own any guns and don’t plan on buying any soon. That doesn’t mean I’m ready to just say “fuck it” to the Constitution’s defense. I also don’t go to Church, but I wouldn’t stand by if people made Catholicism illegal.
Try to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, is the best advice there.
Nope. Many of us recognize that it’s a pipe dream. And that, in fact, each time the anti-gun folks propose a new bit of legislation that fails, they use its failure to justify enacting another overreaching bit of legislation that will also fail. Thus do failures become the very rationale for more failures.
Don’t believe me? Look at all the times that someone who under current laws, already wasn’t supposed to be able to get a gun, but got one and hurt/killed people.
For how many of those times did anti-gun folks respond with “Well, we don’t need any new laws, just to better enforce the ones on the books?”
Or was the mantra “We need new, harsher laws!”
I’m with you here. Like I said, I do not believe that there is some magical law that will cure what ails ye. But that DOES NOT mean that the answer is to fight against any law that could conceivably help under some ridiculous self-entitlement attitude. If you recognize that everyone who wants a gun does not want them for the sane, rational reasons you do, and you also recognize that guns are inherently tools used to kill, then how could you be against the stiffening of gun-control laws? They would, presumably, not affect your legitimate reasons for wanting them, and could only HELP keep them out of the hands of those who should not have them.
Careful. You’ve just described the US Constitution, not as a document that safeguards essential rights, but as one that makes people feel “self entitled”. People defend their rights because, yes, they’re entitled to their rights. But calling it “self-entitlement” is simply poisoning the well.
Now, getting past that, as I said above, a new Amendment is probably your best course of action. Because until you get that, the Constitution still protects the right of gun ownership. And most of the laws that some but not all folks conceive of as (possibly) helping… still violate the rights of gun ownership. There’s also the fact that many of us are used to the bullshit that comes down the pipe. The AWB being a perfect example. It could “conceivably” help (depending on who you asked). Of course, it didn’t as “AW’s” were already a minuscule fraction of the guns used in crimes anyways. And the ban was based on shoddy logic, outright lies, willful ignorance and fear mongering. And so on.
Add to that the point that many of us have made, namely, that current laws are already pretty good and that there really isn’t all that much that should change other than better enforcement of the laws already on the books.
Here’s a question for you, then: what reasonable, conceivably beneficial laws would you enact that are different from the current laws and which would not infringe on Constitutional rights?
The last part is important. We could eliminate 100% of all internet child porn if we got rid of the internet entirely, too. But that would infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.
Ah! The most beloved phrase of the American gun control lobby. Each new proposed law is always a “first step.” What additional steps do you see? Where, in the end, do you see all these steps eventually taking us?
I’m largely on the sidelines for this debate, but despite the clear language of the Constitution, we recognize all sorts of restrictions on free speech, there is really no reason the same can’t be done with 2nd Amendment.
So, what you’re saying here is that any law that could, theoretically, help in some way, shape, or form, is good, despite whatever other effects it has?
Yes, and there are already plenty of restrictions on the 2nd Ammendment, right now as we speak. There are federal laws in place describing what may be owned and who may own it, as well as what may be manufactured, and to whom it may be sold. There are federal regulations in place about what may be imported and who may own it.
There are also state laws addressing these things and local laws, as well.
It cannot honestly be claimed that the RKBA is an unfettered right. We need not frame the debate as if it were and we’re discussing what reasonable restrictions need to be put in place.
Well, as I wrote, I don’t own a gun nor want to buy one. So, again as I pointed out, asking ME what guns I might want that are being infringed on is sort of, you know, a stupid question that really doesn’t give any meaning to the debate.
However, there are several of the AR-15 variants that I wouldn’t mind having, if I actually wanted a gun, that have been banned or other wise constrained. Also there are several from H&K that are on the list that would be guns I’d probably like to own…if I wanted to own a gun at all. There is a whole LIST of guns that have been banned at either the federal or local level (and why does this matter to you btw if it’s banned at a federal or local level?) that people who actually want a gun can’t get because, you know, they have been banned. In some cases these bans are for cosmetic purposes only…i.e. they are complete bullshit. Most of the guns on the AWB fit into this category. Others have been banned for a variety of other reasons…some valid, most just because they could be. Low hanging fruit IOW that the anti-gun folks figured they could sneak in without raising much of a fuss.
Sort of like if I wanted to start banning books and picked one’s that wouldn’t be as popular to start with.
Ok…specifics. If I live in California, DC, Connecticut, etc (i.e. anywhere there is a serious ban) I’d have to go with ‘just about anything’. Most of the guns still available in California are complete crap…and of course places like DC are completely banned so the answer (again, for those following along, if I actually wanted to own a gun at this time) would be ‘anything’…since none are locally available.
Specifically though the AR-10/15, many of the H&K (like the 93)…just about anything that has a (vewy scawy) pistol grip. I wouldn’t mind having a (semi-auto) AK that fires the 7.62 round. There are several hand guns that I could buy in '79 that aren’t available atm but I’d have to look them up specifically since, you know, I don’t own any these days and it’s been a while since I’ve really followed along.
Why don’t YOU tell US right out…what the hell exactly are you arguing here? You are asking me what guns I would want (even though I’ve already admitted I’m no gun owner, and in spite of the fact that you obviously realize that many guns have in fact been banned…and that a real gun owner is going to have a bit longer of a list than I do about what guns they would love to have that they can’t get now). What are YOUR thoughts on this debate exactly? What are your thoughts on the guns that have been banned already? Why do you think that gun owners shouldn’t be worried by the fact that guns have been and are being banned simply because of cosmetic features?
Why don’t you put some of your own input into this debate and give some actual thoughts instead of asking questions and then hand waving away the answers?
-XT
Yes, and here is why:
The only downside, the only one, is that nice, intelligent, rational people would either have to wait longer to be approved for, or not at all be able to, purchase an item DESIGNED TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS. So yes. I am 100% ok with that. There is no rational NEED to have them, it is an attitude of entitlement that is utterly ridiculous.
And everyone here knows that the whole part about “a well regulated milita” adds enough reasonable doubt to the FF’s intentions that privately owned firearms of any kind could be made illegal tomorrow. A lot of people would argue, and be really upset, but to state that this isn’t true is self delusional.
Michael, I’m pointing out that truth is still an absolute defense against libel. No matter how badly words hurt someone’s feelings, reputation, or business, if they’re true, it’s protected.
I can shout from the rooftops that Bernie Madoff is a ponzi artist, and if it’s true, it’s legal, no matter how much harm it does.
There are ‘all sorts’ of restrictions, but they’re very limited ones, designed so that the purpose of free speech isn’t hidden.
…
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that violent revolution against the government remains possible. The secondary purpose is to ensure the protection of the state, and the tertiary purpose is to ensure the protection of the individual.
Note that, in fact, growing up shooting does make people better soldiers. It remains relevant today.
That being said, considering the primary purpose of the second amendment (And I would not put it at any less than the secondary purpose, if you choose to quibble about that) it becomes… more interesting to consider what proper gun laws might be like. I think many of the ones put into place today count more as protection from libel, rather than fire in a crowded theater sort of laws.
Leaving aside the fact that many guns are, in fact, not designed for maximum lethality, you still have to deal with the fact that gun ownership cannot be totally eliminated unless you change the Constitution.
So how many of the things you own, which you don’t need, can I take from you? You don’t need the internet, can I have your computer?
And no stop playing this bullshit game. Fundamental rights safeguarded by the US Constsitution are not “an attitude of entitlement”. Any more than someone who expects not to be thrown in jail for voicing his opinions has “an attitude of entitlement” wrt the 1st amendment.
No.
People realize the difference between preamble and explicitly stated right.
We also realize when someone’s obfuscating.
You’d have a point if the amendment read “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed as long as those people belong to one such (officially recognized) militia.”
It doesn’t.
You don’t.
So, to keep score, people who support the US Constitution have a sense of entitlement that they don’t deserve, and they’re also delusional.
Perhaps you’d rather go back to the Pit?
I don’t think you can be considered pro-gun anymore, no.
Is there something horribly wrong with killing human beings? My dad did it. His dad did it. Their dad’s dad did it. His dad did it. His dad did it, I think. I may be missing a generation, somewhere, mind you. Before that, I’m reasonably sure that most of their parents did it. I’m the first of my family not to have killed another human being in a long, long time. And if I didn’t have certain issues, I probably would have as well.
The Supreme Court would disagree with you. Funny, that.
Ah…well, I’m glad you cleared THAT up. Since there is no rational need to have them an all (and since their purpose is solely ‘DESIGNED TO KILL HUMAN BEINGS’ and all). So, you would agree if there is no rational need (based on your assessment of need no doubt) for something then it should be banned in the future, yes?
How about if I think there are things that have no ‘rational need’? Or is your view point exclusive? What about some fundamentalist Christian? A neo-Nazi? A sexually repressed dwarf with long red hair? Who gets to decide whether there is a ‘rational need’ for something? Who defines ‘rational’? Who determines ‘need’?
I disagree. Does that make me ‘self delusional’ then? That’s an interesting debating tactic on your part to make such an assertion for those who disagree with you.
I think Cecil did an article on this a while back…I think you would be fascinated on his own take on this question and your assertion of delusional. There there is the SCOTUS…
-XT
No sir, I’m good, thanks.
My point, which I’m sure you know, is that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. This is proven by the fact that you interpret it differently than many others, which, of course, you’re entitled to do.
If we can agree on the above, then we should be able to look at which interpretation makes the most sense. And we should also look at whether or not it MATTERS what the FF’s intended; our society has changed significantly since the writing of the Constitution.
And bringing up other “needs” such as the internet or whatever else are disingenuous at best. You recognize that one is a benign tool that can be used however the user sees fit and the other is a tool designed, manufactured, and marketed to kill, wound, or maim? I have said that one hundred times, it has yet to be disputed, only ignored. I’m not talking about taking away your hunting rifles or your shotguns or your target pistols. But I wouldn’t mind one bit if every gun that did not fall into one of those categories was done away with and made illegal to posses.