***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Johnnymac]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Feel free to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Or to attempt to take it before the Supreme Court (again).

I guess my point is why do so many people vehemently hold on to this 2nd amendment right like someone is trying to pull off one of their arms or something??

Probably the same reason they cling to those pesky 1st, & 4th amendments.

ETA: I cant type.

Yeah maybe. I tend to look at those amendments as separate from each other.

 

[Johnnymac]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Well, however old the 2nd amendment is, pretty sure that the 1st amendment is even older. Maybe we should get rid of that one too since it's so old and it's "not the 1770's anymore".

Again, if you want to lump all the bill of rights into one amendment then your statement might make sense.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Well, however old the 2nd amendment is, pretty sure that the 1st amendment is even older. Maybe we should get rid of that one too since it's so old and it's "not the 1770's anymore".

Again, if you want to lump all the bill of rights into one amendment then your statement might make sense.

They are all on equal footing in the eyes of the law. You are the one who is advocating picking and choosing.

And there are established procedures for doing that picking and choosing. The judicial one, to this point, has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment means what it means.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quit know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

Funny, I've had very similar experiences. I didn't grow up around guns at all as a northeast liberal type, but I've fired them several different times. Whenever it comes up everyone around me looks at me like I just told them I have syphilis. I knew attitudes were different based on where you grew up but I never realized how different until I had these conversations as an adult.

Very true. I find it difficult to respect people's opinions on this kinda stuff when they have zero experience with it.

Well most of us here haven't had an abortion, played a professional sport, or won a Kenny Powers look-a-like contest either. Those advocating gun control have statistics and personal values as a foundation for their opinion. Whether someone has fired a gun makes very little difference.I'm sure their are pro gun people who have never fired a gun, and even if they have they just thought it was fun and don't consider the power of pointing it at someone.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Redmond>what is your stance on unfinished receivers and 3d guns? Dangerous? Within someone's 2nd Amnemdment rights? Other?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quit know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

Funny, I've had very similar experiences. I didn't grow up around guns at all as a northeast liberal type, but I've fired them several different times. Whenever it comes up everyone around me looks at me like I just told them I have syphilis. I knew attitudes were different based on where you grew up but I never realized how different until I had these conversations as an adult.

Very true. I find it difficult to respect people's opinions on this kinda stuff when they have zero experience with it.

Well most of us here haven't had an abortion, played a professional sport, or won a Kenny Powers look-a-like contest either. Those advocating gun control have statistics and personal values as a foundation for their opinion. Whether someone has fired a gun makes very little difference.I'm sure their are pro gun people who have never fired a gun, and even if they have they just thought it was fun and don't consider the power of pointing it at someone.

Yeah I'm not sure how actually firing a gun really should change someone's opinion on this other than "hey this is fun, I want it to stay legal so I can keep doing it".

Regardless, I'm not sure I've ever talked to anyone that hasn't fired a gun before. Of course, I've only lived in Florida, Tennessee, and Utah, but I still think that there are plenty of anti-gun folks that have fired a gun or have a spouse with a gun.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Redmond>what is your stance on unfinished receivers and 3d guns? Dangerous? Within someone's 2nd Amnemdment rights? Other?

Those are certainly difficult questions.

I think if they are used to manufacture a gun that wouldn't otherwise be illegal or subject to a waiting period (e.g. a long gun) then that is one thing, but if they are used to manufacture something that is otherwise prohibited or restricted (e.g. a gun that is regulated under the NFA, a suppressor), that is another matter entirely.

 

[Ratbert]

I never met the man, never talked to the man but I have a feeling the gay teletubby would be holding an "Amendment Draft" or something similar.

I could be way off base. If you knew him & disagree, I'm more than happy to edit this post.

I know several people who have left this earth who would have posted the obligatory "Lighten up, Francis" by now.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Redmond>what is your stance on unfinished receivers and 3d guns? Dangerous? Within someone's 2nd Amnemdment rights? Other?

Those are certainly difficult questions.

I think if they are used to manufacture a gun that wouldn't otherwise be illegal or subject to a waiting period (e.g. a long gun) then that is one thing, but if they are used to manufacture something that is otherwise prohibited or restricted (e.g. a gun that is regulated under the NFA, a suppressor), that is another matter entirely.

Pardon me for jumping in, but in my opinion the 80% lower is an end run around federal firearms laws. Other than a few machinists I know who have a professional curiousity about them, this is something only the sketchy or persue.

As long as ARs are legal I think it's a non issue. The second an AR ban is enacted all the legal 80% lowers will surface.and there is NO way to estimate how many there are out there. On the other hand, an AR ban would have no effect... read on.

And now I digress... If you want to make a meaningful ban on "assault weapons" (whatever THAT means) try addressing the cyclic rate. Pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders do not an assault weapon make. Nor does magazine capacity. Google "speed reload" and "tactical reload". The Clinton assault weapon ban made those weapons wildly popular and now they are so cheap that Wal-Mart stopped carrying them because demand has tanked due to oversupply.

 

[Johnnymac]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Well, however old the 2nd amendment is, pretty sure that the 1st amendment is even older. Maybe we should get rid of that one too since it's so old and it's "not the 1770's anymore".

Again, if you want to lump all the bill of rights into one amendment then your statement might make sense.

They are all on equal footing in the eyes of the law. You are the one who is advocating picking and choosing.

And there are established procedures for doing that picking and choosing. The judicial one, to this point, has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment means what it means.

So the supreme court has dealt with the 2nd amendment alone but what I'm saying is wrong? If they are all on equal footing in the eyes of the law, how can the court make a decision on just the 2nd amendment?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Even the FFA is bored with this topic. Therefore, FFA has been renamed to Free Firearms for All, effective immediately.

Next question!

 

[Courtjester]

Wasn't the 2nd amendment written like 250 years ago?? Besides that, I don't think it's even interpreted the way it was meant to be. Anyway, there were no assault weapons, automatic, or semiautomatic weapons at that time (didnt look this up but I would guess this to be true). My point is times change and we need to evolve. I dont like the govt taking away people's rights but this is one aspect of our society that needs to EVOLVE. It's not the 1770's anymore.

Well, however old the 2nd amendment is, pretty sure that the 1st amendment is even older. Maybe we should get rid of that one too since it's so old and it's "not the 1770's anymore".

Again, if you want to lump all the bill of rights into one amendment then your statement might make sense.

They are all on equal footing in the eyes of the law. You are the one who is advocating picking and choosing.

And there are established procedures for doing that picking and choosing. The judicial one, to this point, has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment means what it means.

So the supreme court has dealt with the 2nd amendment alone but what I'm saying is wrong? If they are all on equal footing in the eyes of the law, how can the court make a decision on just the 2nd amendment?

Call this simple, but I believe there has been multiple constitutional amendments addressed by the SC--not just the 2nd.

 

[BowieMercs]

ChemEcks made a valid point in the Reporter/Cameraman shooting thread, so I'm bumping this in the hopes of getting the 2A arguments here instead of there. Hey, all I can do is try.

 

[ATC1]

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, which militia are you a member of and how is it regulated (and by whom)?

I am of the opinion that allowing gun owners a permit to carry a concealed handgun for self defense is considered to be a well regulated militia by today's standards.

 

[Chaos Commish]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. © The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56

 

[lod01]

Even the FFA is bored with this topic. Therefore, FFA has been renamed to Free Firearms for All, effective immediately.

Next question!

No ####. 197 pages with absolutely nothing accomplished.....and I guarantee nothing will get accomplished.

 

[timschochet]

Even the FFA is bored with this topic. Therefore, FFA has been renamed to Free Firearms for All, effective immediately.

Next question!

No ####. 197 pages with absolutely nothing accomplished.....and I guarantee nothing will get accomplished.

Maybe not. But that's because all of the intransigence is coming from one side. If there's a single specific part of this issue that a vast majority of Americans agree on, including most gun owners, is that there should be background checks on all gun sales- no loopholes. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. 70% of the public wants it. 60% of NRA members want it. A lot of law enforcement experts believe it would be effective. At the very least it seems worth trying.

And yet we are stymied by the NRA leadership and their supporters in Congress.

 

[BowieMercs]

Without changing what is being checked in the background check (and that's a whole other privacy concern) I don't see that having background checks on private transactions is going to help in any measurable way.

I'm sure some lawyer will try to use "shall not be infringed" to prevent any expanded background checks anyway.

This is just my supposition, I am not armed with statistics to defend this position... it's just a gut feeling.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Even the FFA is bored with this topic. Therefore, FFA has been renamed to Free Firearms for All, effective immediately.

Next question!

No ####. 197 pages with absolutely nothing accomplished.....and I guarantee nothing will get accomplished.

Maybe not. But that's because all of the intransigence is coming from one side.If there's a single specific part of this issue that a vast majority of Americans agree on, including most gun owners, is that there should be background checks on all gun sales- no loopholes. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. 70% of the public wants it. 60% of NRA members want it. A lot of law enforcement experts believe it would be effective. At the very least it seems worth trying.

And yet we are stymied by the NRA leadership and their supporters in Congress.

Walk me through the process. Let's say I wish to sell a handgun as a private sale or at a gun show. I find a willing buyer. I want to run a background check. Do I pay, the potential buyer, or the government? Is there a registry that I have done the check? Is there a registry of guns so that should I not do so and the gun which I previously owned turns up in the hands of a criminal I have liability? Would my liability be civil, criminal, or both? If I performed the check and it was clean am I relieved of future liability? If so do I need to be able to prove I ran a check by keeping a copy of the check I performed, and if so for how long, in perpetuity? To make the process efficacious do I have to register my weapons. If my weapons are stolen do I have a reporting requirement to the registry. Can I have my guns decommissioned by the government so that I am pulled off of the registry if I turn them in, and would I be compensated. Would this apply to all firearms, some only? Would this apply to antique weapons? How about modern reproductions of antique weapons? How do you envision this being implemented.

 

[ATC1]

It's not like law makers are doing nothing. It's just that our national goverment is not doing anything. On a state level is seems states that tend to be more pro gun are passing more laws that allow more freedom to gun owners in hopes that it will deter cirme. For example 10 states now allow CC in areas that usually would be considered gun free zones.

Friday night I went to a 3 hour conceal carry class. I learned that new LA permits after this past March will now act as a background check. So, to purchase a gun or if i start a new job requiring a back ground check etc. all I have to do is show my permit for CC. Good to see some things are changing and into a direction that I have suggested.

While other states more pro gun control seem to pass new laws banning certain types of guns, magazine restrictions etc.

 

[timschochet]

DW I don't have the answer. If I had my way it would be very simple though. You want to complete a private sale, you have to use standard paperwork. You call an 800 number or get on a website. You enter the name, SS# and drivers license of the buyer. A national database looks through its records and gives you an authorization number that you put on the sales contract. You pay some small fee, perhaps $30, by credit card.

And before anybody talks about how easy it would be to defraud such a system, that's true. But I believer that most gun owners (and by implication sellers) are honest people who would never knowingly sell a gun to a bad guy. It's the bad buyers we want to cut down on.

As for those who claim this will do no good, how can we know until we try it? Make it a law for ten years. If gun crime doesn't go down we can always get rid of it. I don't believe it's any kind of infringement, because there are already laws against felons buying guns; this is simply a means to enforce the laws we already have on the books (which the NRA always tells us we need to do).

 

[timschochet]

As far as registration, I'd like to see it, but I don't think it's synonymous with background checks. You can have one but not the other.

As far as concealed carry, I don't understand why people feel the need for that. But I wouldn't prohibit it so long as there is proper training involved. Even so I get uncomfortable thinking about trigger happy guys out there.

 

[BowieMercs]

DW I don't have the answer. If I had my way it would be very simple though. You want to complete a private sale, you have to use standard paperwork. You call an 800 number or get on a website. You enter the name, SS# and drivers license of the buyer. A national database looks through its records and gives you an authorization number that you put on the sales contract. You pay some small fee, perhaps $30, by credit card.

And before anybody talks about how easy it would be to defraud such a system, that's true. But I believer that most gun owners (and by implication sellers) are honest people who would never knowingly sell a gun to a bad guy. It's the bad buyers we want to cut down on.

As for those who claim this will do no good, how can we know until we try it? Make it a law for ten years. If gun crime doesn't go down we can always get rid of it. I don't believe it's any kind of infringement, because there are already laws against felons buying guns; this is simply a means to enforce the laws we already have on the books (which the NRA always tells us we need to do).

$30?

Its $2 in VA right now: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm

 

[timschochet]

Whatever. I don't need the govt to make money on it, just not lose money.

 

[[icon]]

As far as concealed carry, I don't understand why people feel the need for that.

And that right there is why you'll never see eye to eye with many on this topic. Read.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

DW I don't have the answer. If I had my way it would be very simple though. You want to complete a private sale, you have to use standard paperwork. You call an 800 number or get on a website. You enter the name, SS# and drivers license of the buyer. A national database looks through its records and gives you an authorization number that you put on the sales contract. You pay some small fee, perhaps $30, by credit card.

And before anybody talks about how easy it would be to defraud such a system, that's true. But I believer that most gun owners (and by implication sellers) are honest people who would never knowingly sell a gun to a bad guy. It's the bad buyers we want to cut down on.

As for those who claim this will do no good, how can we know until we try it? Make it a law for ten years. If gun crime doesn't go down we can always get rid of it. I don't believe it's any kind of infringement, because there are already laws against felons buying guns; this is simply a means to enforce the laws we already have on the books (which the NRA always tells us we need to do).

I have a hard time discussing an issue if I do not even know the meaning of the terms. Absent fairly concrete proposals I don't know what is being discussed with your background checks or the polls that support the same. Basically it seems the polls are more or less asking the question 'If magic could make bad stuff not happen are you for that magic?"

Me, I also am for bad stuff not happening, who isn't?

I would like to see you, and thousands of others, actually do the thought exercise of drafting up proposals which would address my questions and others I have not even thought of as of yet. I would hope you or others would think in, out, and under the box on the issue. Somewhere out there I am convinced there is a solution to this problem, or at least an improvement. Just because I lack the imagination to come up with it doss not mean it is not waiting to be thought of, and who knows, maybe by you. I have always felt that solution would be in a responsible reworking of the second amendment through the constitutional process, but someday someone is going to pleasantly surprise me, hell me and the world, with a workable solution, but not if they never try to construct a specific proposal.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Whatever. I don't need the govt to make money on it, just not lose money.

Of all the items or issues on which to have fiscal austerity concerns by the government, this seems a strange one.

 

[timschochet]

With regard to reworking the 2nd Amendment: I don't think I even want to, but regardless we need to get past this idea of changing the Constitution, whether it's this issue or campaign reform or birthright citizenship or a sales tax instead of income tax. Whatever the issue, it is simply too difficult to amend the Constitution. It's never gonna happen.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

With regard to reworking the 2nd Amendment: I don't think I even want to, but regardless we need to get past this idea of changing the Constitution, whether it's this issue or campaign reform or birthright citizenship or a sales tax instead of income tax. Whatever the issue, it is simply too difficult to amend the Constitution. It's never gonna happen.

Most things worth doing are difficult. Limiting thought and effort only to that which is easy or expedient limits results.

I agree that under the current political climate it will not happen. We need, then, to change the climate by changing the rhetoric that limits us finding common ground. Accepting defeat on the issue is most definitely not a solution, neither is ignoring the law.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

One service I would avail myself of, where it available, would be a free background check of a potential private buyer at my local police station with an exchange of the firearm at the station. Some sort of kiosk in the lobby where I did not have to enter my I.D. to perform the search of his background. Ideally the machine would have a government issue photo I.D. authenticator so that I could be certain of the buyer's I.D., or at least more certain than I can be now in a private sell.

Were I a private buyer I would also want a free service at the police station which could clear the serial number on a weapon to make certain it was not stolen and had not been previously used in a crime. If I am going to buy a gun, used, in a private sale I would want to know its bona fides.

I believe this service would meet some of Tim's concerns about private sales. I am certain that were it instituted that very soon some legislator would try to make it mandatory and would seek to impose liability for not using it which would present challenges when that arose, but until then, I would use the system gratefully.

 

[[icon]]

I guess my only concern with this stuff is it's another case of doing something for the sake of doing something. Sure, you're adding some legitimacy toward those transactions, but anyone who intends to commit malice isn't going to be deterred by this... nor will it likely catch the many sales to folks like the Virginia shooter who pass a background check anyway.

Plus, even if it's made law, it's next to unenforcible.... and I think it would be met with indifference by both gun owners and law enforcement alike.

I'm not against ramping up background checks and the idea proposed by DW was indeed one of a useful service (I have a firearm or two that I'd like to sell, but would like the serial number disassociated with my name going forward when I do sell it)... but I'm not the guy you're having to worry about.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As for the second amendment one thing it clearly does not do is protect one's right to get away with criminal activity, to go undetected. There may be room for those more clever than I, a large contingent for certain, to craft a requirement of a ballistics registry corresponding with each new weapon's serial number, and perhaps a serial number registry of all new guns sold. If I buy a new Glock, for instance, the serial number could be matched to the lands and grooves of a fired round, and to the tool markings on an ejected cartridge.

That weapon would serve all my lawful purposes. It would allow sporting uses, self defense uses, hunting uses, and joining a well regulated militia in support of the state. It would even allow me to participate in armed insurrection, but one I had better win, as failed armed insurrection could go badly for me were my weapon used in that failed insurrection.

All of the reasons behind the second amendment could, potentially, be honored by such a system if we can all agree it does not protect criminal acts with guns. This would also make solving some criminal acts easier, though not those by sophisticated criminals who would get around this by using older weapons and or stolen ones. It would also not address those who lawfully own guns, but then snap and go on a spree, which is so often the genesis of these types of discussions.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This seems like the best thread for this little anecdote. The point being: I think a big reason so many people are very anti-gun is because they don't understand them. Things you know nothing about tend to be more scary. I'm of the opinion that poverty -> crime -> murders is the problem, as opposed to guns -> crime -> murders. Hypothesis being: if you took away all the guns, desperate/criminal people would find other ways to kill each other.

I'm from Texas. I've spent the last year in California, except that this summer I have been in New York. Since leaving Texas, any conversation on guns has inevitably ended in one place: "So you've never fired a gun before? Seen one in person?" When we get to that point, it feels like you've got no ethos left and the conversation dies. Of course you're afraid of guns, they're scary...until you learn about them. Just like a lot of things.

Anyway, storytime:

In NY this summer, we were all discussing which hand you bat with, how some people switch-hit, and how still others throw with one hand and bat with the other hand. I tossed out the idea that this last group of people could be caused by having a different dominant eye from their dominant hand. The response I got (from a table of very well educated people, all oh whom I respect) was universally, "Dominant eye?"

My response, of course, was to ask, "Yeah. Which eye do you use to shoot? I'm left-eye dominant even though I'm right-handed, so I tend to be a better marksman shooting left-handed."

I got blank stares again... "Shoot? Shoot what?"

Still not quite understanding what was going on, I answered with a kind of quizzical look, "A gun? Or a bow? Or a shotgun?"

Among a group of ten people, 9 of whom were from the northeast, I was the only one who had ever actually fired a gun. I still don't quite know how you make it through 25+ years of life and haven't ever fired a gun.

I love this post and it helps to illustrate how we'll never make significant policy changes as long as there is this cultural divide.

Just as background, I'm one of the people that Instinctive is talking about. I'm 42 years old and have never shot a gun and probably never will. I grew up in suburban Connecticut -- my parents didn't have guns and as far as I know very few of my friends' parents did either. I didn't know anybody that went hunting or went to the shooting range or did anything recreational with guns. Now I live in Suburban Maryland and, even though I know some people with guns, I don't really see much of a "gun culture."

For the first 30+ years of my life, I had a hard time even conceptualizing what the pro-gun argument was. I had never had any interest in owning a gun, I seemed to be getting along fine without one. Why would people get so upset if it was made more difficult or impossible to get one? It wasn't like a gun was something that I used every day like a TV or a refrigerator, or even something I needed every once in a while, like a bicycle or an abortion clinic. To me the idea of banning guns or restricting them or whatever just seemed like no big deal.

I don't think it really clicked for me until one of these gun control threads in the FFA. There are a ####load of people out there that really love their guns. Trying to take away access to something that people really really want doesn't typically go very smoothly (see, e.g., Prohibition, War on Drugs, back alley abortions.)

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

People really want back alley abortions?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

People really want back alley abortions?

Those regular abortions are so sterile and boring.

 

[[icon]]

As for the second amendment one thing it clearly does not do is protect one's right to get away with criminal activity, to go undetected. There may be room for those more clever than I, a large contingent for certain, to craft a requirement of a ballistics registry corresponding with each new weapon's serial number, and perhaps a serial number registry of all new guns sold. If I buy a new Glock, for instance, the serial number could be matched to the lands and grooves of a fired round, and to the tool markings on an ejected cartridge.

That weapon would serve all my lawful purposes. It would allow sporting uses, self defense uses, hunting uses, and joining a well regulated militia in support of the state. It would even allow me to participate in armed insurrection, but one I had better win, as failed armed insurrection could go badly for me were my weapon used in that failed insurrection.

All of the reasons behind the second amendment could, potentially, be honored by such a system if we can all agree it does not protect criminal acts with guns. This would also make solving some criminal acts easier, though not those by sophisticated criminals who would get around this by using older weapons and or stolen ones. It would also not address those who lawfully own guns, but then snap and go on a spree, which is so often the genesis of these types of discussions.

While that database would tread dangerously close to a national gun registry, I'd not be blatantly against it.. However, to play devils advocate.... you're talking about a rather resource intensive and imperfect science to develop such a database..... and is finding the identity of those going on shooting spree's really an issue? It seems they are generally known within minutes by nature of the crime (as well as their propensity to self-eliminate after blowing their wad).

 

[munga30]

With regard to reworking the 2nd Amendment: I don't think I even want to, but regardless we need to get past this idea of changing the Constitution, whether it's this issue or campaign reform or birthright citizenship or a sales tax instead of income tax. Whatever the issue, it is simply too difficult to amend the Constitution. It's never gonna happen.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As for the second amendment one thing it clearly does not do is protect one's right to get away with criminal activity, to go undetected. There may be room for those more clever than I, a large contingent for certain, to craft a requirement of a ballistics registry corresponding with each new weapon's serial number, and perhaps a serial number registry of all new guns sold. If I buy a new Glock, for instance, the serial number could be matched to the lands and grooves of a fired round, and to the tool markings on an ejected cartridge.

That weapon would serve all my lawful purposes. It would allow sporting uses, self defense uses, hunting uses, and joining a well regulated militia in support of the state. It would even allow me to participate in armed insurrection, but one I had better win, as failed armed insurrection could go badly for me were my weapon used in that failed insurrection.

All of the reasons behind the second amendment could, potentially, be honored by such a system if we can all agree it does not protect criminal acts with guns. This would also make solving some criminal acts easier, though not those by sophisticated criminals who would get around this by using older weapons and or stolen ones. It would also not address those who lawfully own guns, but then snap and go on a spree, which is so often the genesis of these types of discussions.

While that database would tread dangerously close to a national gun registry, I'd not be blatantly against it.. However, to play devils advocate.... you're talking about a rather resource intensive and imperfect science to develop such a database..... and is finding the identity of those going on shooting spree's really an issue? It seems they are generally known within minutes by nature of the crime (as well as their propensity to self-eliminate after blowing their wad).

I am not advocating the idea as a solution to the problem which generally generates these discussions. Controlling the crazy and the criminal is next to impossible, they are unpredictable and resourceful. Rather, I am exploring possibilities perhaps still allowed while honoring the second amendment. I am attempting to show those who believe there is no room for movement on this issue that with some imagination there may in fact be room for movement. I am trying to encourage imagination.

I actually think the return, in a cost benefit analysis of this proposal would be minimal. I believe there are far better expenditures of resources if one hopes to promote the common good. This is solely in the manner of a thought experiment. An exercise to lift my head out of the entrenched position it sometimes wishes to take.

You do bring up a great point. I think any rewritten second amendment would not pass unless there were extremely strong language that a registry could not be used for forfeiture or confiscation. Any government so doing would be de facto immediately illegitimate and any citizen opposing that effort by force of arms would have to be immune from any prosecutions. With such assurance perhaps some would be willing to step beyond current intransience and consider new options. Absent such, or even stronger, I doubt movement will be achieved, but I am always willing to try to rethink issues, so who knows.

 

[[icon]]

I am not advocating the idea as a solution to the problem which generally generates these discussions. Controlling the crazy and the criminal is next to impossible, they are unpredictable and resourceful. Rather, I am exploring possibilities perhaps still allowed while honoring the second amendment. I am attempting to show those who believe there is no room for movement on this issue that with some imagination there may in fact be room for movement. I am trying to encourage imagination.

I actually think the return, in a cost benefit analysis of this proposal would be minimal. I believe there are far better expenditures of resources if one hopes to promote the common good. This is solely in the manner of a thought experiment. An exercise to lift my head out of the entrenched position it sometimes wishes to take.

Definitely wasn't coming at ya... your position is always well thought out on this stuff. Was just hashing out some potential hurdles, I guess.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify as far as the disconnect:

Although I don't own any guns myself, I think I get why people enjoy owning guns. There are people who love owning and firing them as a hobby. More power to them. Everyone has hobbies they love. I don't want to interfere with anybody's hobbies.

Another reason people own guns is for home protection. That's fine too. Personally, I tend to believe that it's overkill based on anecdotes; you're much more likely to shoot a loved one by acident than you ever are protecting your family against a home invader, from what I've read. But hey, we're all victims of anecdotal impressions. The whole reason we're having this current discussion is because of anecdotal incidents like what happened in Virginia. If it makes you feel safer having a gun in your house, then do it. Be careful, but most of you guys are.

Another reason people own guns is that they want to have concealed carry rights...just in case. As I wrote earlier, I have to admit this makes me uncomfortable. Icon strikes me as a guy who takes his firearms very seriously and has trained with them. If I were in a crowded movie theater and Icon was sitting near by, I'd probably feel safer. But how many people are as responsible as that? These laws seem pretty liberal at this point. I don't want George Zimmerman armed in my neighborhood, deciding that his life is being threatened. He's an idiot. Guys like him scare me, and I wonder how many guys like him there are?

Finally, there are the extremist suvivalist types who own guns because they think the government is coming to impose Communism and Nazism and Sharia Law. These are the guys, like Mr,. Two Cents in this forum, who answer the front door with a loaded gun in hand...just in case it's the feds. #### these guys.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am not advocating the idea as a solution to the problem which generally generates these discussions. Controlling the crazy and the criminal is next to impossible, they are unpredictable and resourceful. Rather, I am exploring possibilities perhaps still allowed while honoring the second amendment. I am attempting to show those who believe there is no room for movement on this issue that with some imagination there may in fact be room for movement. I am trying to encourage imagination.

I actually think the return, in a cost benefit analysis of this proposal would be minimal. I believe there are far better expenditures of resources if one hopes to promote the common good. This is solely in the manner of a thought experiment. An exercise to lift my head out of the entrenched position it sometimes wishes to take.

Definitely wasn't coming at ya... your position is always well thought out on this stuff. Was just hashing out some potential hurdles, I guess.

I appreciate it. You are a wicked smart fellow, and one who has given thought to these issues without becoming intransient. Playing devils advocate can only sharpen still ripening thoughts, and trust me, I am just having fun spit-balling ideas here.

 

[[icon]]

Fair assessment tim. I agree on most fronts. I've said in the past that I felt the TN state concealed carry qualification class was a bit TOO permissive, IMO. There were definitely people getting permits there that I would be wary of being in a room where they were discharging a firearm in a non-controlled environment.

I will say that a look into real-world cases where concealed carriers have intervened.... the number of positive outcomes astronomically outnumber the negative ones.

As a tangent, I feel like I've read a stat that indicated that innocent bystanders were more likely to be hurt if the event was stopped by police intervention than by someone with CCW. Don't recall where though, so I don't want to present it as fact.

 

[ATC1]

I want to clarify as far as the disconnect:

Another reason people own guns is that they want to have concealed carry rights...just in case. As I wrote earlier, I have to admit this makes me uncomfortable. Icon strikes me as a guy who takes his firearms very seriously and has trained with them. If I were in a crowded movie theater and Icon was sitting near by, I'd probably feel safer. But how many people are as responsible as that? These laws seem pretty liberal at this point. I don't want George Zimmerman armed in my neighborhood, deciding that his life is being threatened. He's an idiot. Guys like him scare me, and I wonder how many guys like him there are?

Just in case? Sure, wouldn't we all like to be prepared. However, if I was in a situation, I honestly don't know how I would respond. In class we go over scenerios to get us thinking if we should intervine or just walk away/hide. There are people out there that would probably pull the weapon a little faster then I would like. The way I view it. If I pull my gun it would be worth spending the rest of my life in jail. I don't think I could live with myself if I accidently shot someone eventhough I might have saved a handful or dozens more. So, why do I carry then? To be the precieved threat. I carry because in doing so a crimminal will consider not commiting a heinous crime in a place where even 1 out of 15 people could be carrying a weapon. i choose to be one of those individuals.

 

[[icon]]

I want to clarify as far as the disconnect:

Another reason people own guns is that they want to have concealed carry rights...just in case. As I wrote earlier, I have to admit this makes me uncomfortable. Icon strikes me as a guy who takes his firearms very seriously and has trained with them. If I were in a crowded movie theater and Icon was sitting near by, I'd probably feel safer. But how many people are as responsible as that? These laws seem pretty liberal at this point. I don't want George Zimmerman armed in my neighborhood, deciding that his life is being threatened. He's an idiot. Guys like him scare me, and I wonder how many guys like him there are?

Just in case? Sure, wouldn't we all like to be prepared. However, if I was in a situation, I honestly don't know how I would respond. In class we go over scenerios to get us thinking if we should intervine or just walk away/hide. There are people out there that would probably pull the weapon a little faster then I would like. The way I view it. If I pull my gun it would be worth spending the rest of my life in jail. I don't think I could live with myself if I accidently shot someone eventhough I might have saved a handful or dozens more. So, why do I carry then? To be the precieved threat. I carry because in doing so a crimminal will consider not commiting a heinous crime in a place where even 1 out of 15 people could be carrying a weapon. i choose to be one of those individuals.

Very well said... the bold is something I think all CCW guys need to burn into their heads before taking on the responsibility to carry. Most don't.

A member of another forum I frequent drew on a trucker last night for pulling over and getting out to yell at him... he posted it up as a "what would you do" and was universally panned as a fool for jumping the gun (so to speak).

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I want to clarify as far as the disconnect:

Another reason people own guns is that they want to have concealed carry rights...just in case. As I wrote earlier, I have to admit this makes me uncomfortable. Icon strikes me as a guy who takes his firearms very seriously and has trained with them. If I were in a crowded movie theater and Icon was sitting near by, I'd probably feel safer. But how many people are as responsible as that? These laws seem pretty liberal at this point. I don't want George Zimmerman armed in my neighborhood, deciding that his life is being threatened. He's an idiot. Guys like him scare me, and I wonder how many guys like him there are?

Just in case? Sure, wouldn't we all like to be prepared. However, if I was in a situation, I honestly don't know how I would respond. In class we go over scenerios to get us thinking if we should intervine or just walk away/hide. There are people out there that would probably pull the weapon a little faster then I would like. The way I view it. If I pull my gun it would be worth spending the rest of my life in jail. I don't think I could live with myself if I accidently shot someone eventhough I might have saved a handful or dozens more. So, why do I carry then? To be the precieved threat. I carry because in doing so a crimminal will consider not commiting a heinous crime in a place where even 1 out of 15 people could be carrying a weapon. i choose to be one of those individuals.

The instructors in the introductory handgun course that I took my son and step-son to both emphasized the last resort aspect of using one's weapon, even in home defense scenarios. They talked a lot about having plans for various contingencies and de-escalation and retreat figured prominently before using a weapon.

 

[Ratbert]

I want to clarify as far as the disconnect:

Another reason people own guns is that they want to have concealed carry rights...just in case. As I wrote earlier, I have to admit this makes me uncomfortable. Icon strikes me as a guy who takes his firearms very seriously and has trained with them. If I were in a crowded movie theater and Icon was sitting near by, I'd probably feel safer. But how many people are as responsible as that? These laws seem pretty liberal at this point. I don't want George Zimmerman armed in my neighborhood, deciding that his life is being threatened. He's an idiot. Guys like him scare me, and I wonder how many guys like him there are?

Just in case? Sure, wouldn't we all like to be prepared. However, if I was in a situation, I honestly don't know how I would respond. In class we go over scenerios to get us thinking if we should intervine or just walk away/hide. There are people out there that would probably pull the weapon a little faster then I would like. The way I view it. If I pull my gun it would be worth spending the rest of my life in jail. I don't think I could live with myself if I accidently shot someone eventhough I might have saved a handful or dozens more. So, why do I carry then? To be the precieved threat. I carry because in doing so a crimminal will consider not commiting a heinous crime in a place where even 1 out of 15 people could be carrying a weapon. i choose to be one of those individuals.

Very well said... the bold is something I think all CCW guys need to burn into their heads before taking on the responsibility to carry. Most don't.

A member of another forum I frequent drew on a trucker last night for pulling over and getting out to yell at him... he posted it up as a "what would you do" and was universally panned as a fool for jumping the gun (so to speak).

This is precisely why i don't carry a concealed weapon. I'm not prepared to take a life. There is no such thing as shooting to wound. That's a good way to get killed and get others killed. This is not TV.

In my experience, outside of 25 yards in a high stress situation, a handgun is useless to most people. Inside of 10 yards an assailant with a knife has the edge over the someone with a handgun. Most of the people I know who do carry concealed handguns also carry (legal) knives.

 

[E-Z Glider]

Guns with a history

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Even the FFA is bored with this topic. Therefore, FFA has been renamed to Free Firearms for All, effective immediately.

Next question!

No ####. 197 pages with absolutely nothing accomplished.....and I guarantee nothing will get accomplished.

Maybe not. But that's because all of the intransigence is coming from one side.If there's a single specific part of this issue that a vast majority of Americans agree on, including most gun owners, is that there should be background checks on all gun sales- no loopholes. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. 70% of the public wants it. 60% of NRA members want it. A lot of law enforcement experts believe it would be effective. At the very least it seems worth trying.

And yet we are stymied by the NRA leadership and their supporters in Congress.

####### Charlton Heston

 

[Ratbert]

Soylent Green is PEEEEEEPUUUUUUUULLLLL !

 

[[icon]]

Dead Gun Control advocates,

Why are you attempting to limit the firearms owning/use rights of otherwise law abiding citizens when we're doing #### like letting guys charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them (some to felons) without a license successfully plea down to 1 count resulting in probation?

Pro-tip. Get your current #### together and stop stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.