The gun control discussion thread

Discussion Open Forum
61

Well, if you are really serious about the need to protect yourself from your own government, you need to step up to the RPG-7:

exile.ru/2004-April-29/war_nerd.html
eXile - Issue #189 - War Nerd - Most Valuable Weapon: the RPG - By Gary Brecher

Secondly, most Americans are in favour of stricter gun control

blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/
Parsing the Polls on Gun Control - The Fix

but the political structure works against it- the Senate gives more power to rural states, gun owners tend to be more passionate about the issue than pro-control types, and the 2nd Amendment, for all its ambiguity, can be used in what seems to be a straightforward argument.

Have to add that , as a Canadian, I’ve never felt the need to bear arms to protect myself against my government, though I did own rifles for hunting, and lived in houses with (licensed and otherwise) pistol-owners.

Oh well, these days all you need is a good IED.

62

By some accounts, the 2000 presidential election was “stolen” (Fred, TC et al - not saying I believe this, just making a point). If so, then democracy has been bypassed by a corrupt GOP. Did anyone take up arms against the govt over this? No.

The Patriot Act is, in the opinion of many, a major curtailing of the rights of Americans. Has anyone taken up arms against the govt over this? No.

What would it take for Americans to take up arms against their govt? When almost 40% of the country doesn’t vote in a presidential election (closer to 60% in the 18-24 age group), does anyone really believe that enough Americans even care about what the govt does?

Using the same reasoning today as was used when the 2nd amendment was written is ludicrous. 270 million citizens are not going to take up arms against the govt. When 40% of the country don’t give a shit, 30% agree with most of what the govt of the day does and the other 30% disagree, the argument that the 2nd amendment is essential to the rights of every American is spurious.

Use any other argument you want as to why guns should be freely available, but quit it with the citizens rising up against the govt. It ain’t gonna happen.

63

I think about the argument about those 30 students being armed with handguns and supposedly being able to defend themselves. Ever tried to hit a target at even medium close range with a handgun? How about a moving one that’s shooting at you and plans to kill himself anyway? How about with shaky hands, sweating, stressed, other people thinking that you’re the shooter, etc. Pure bedlam.

How about NOBODY has any fucking handguns, assault rifles, (and other weapons that are better for killing people than killing your dinner), and the fucking gun companies stop making them?

There seems to be so much confusion about what the first and second amendment of the US Constitution really means to Joe citizen.

About letting people have guns, but somehow being sure in some way that they aren’r going to go an some rampage or let their kids play with it or whatever, well, how to go about doing that? Wiretaps? Internet surveillance? Forced regular psyche exams?

Either give everyone a gun the minute they turn 17, or no guns at all. That’s what I think.

64

Advocating that American citizens should have the right to own a weapon just in case they want to take up arms en mass against their own government is the most STUPID logic I have heard yet. :astonished:

65

Number one - during the time when the 2nd amendment was passed, there were not teenagers and people in their early 20’s loading their muskets to avenge their mistreatment. And even if they were, the guns were so cumbersome that they might have gotten one bullet fired off (and have bruised their shoulder in the process) before they could have loaded the next shot.

I blame gun manufacturers for making it so easy for mass murders. Why do people need semi-automatic weapons, even if it’s only for target practice and shooting for sport? If we still had guns that required reloading after shooting a round, then it probably would have cut the deaths at V Tech by four-fifths at least…80%… because after the first round, he probably would have been overpowered while reloading. And probably by fourteen-fifteenths because of his protocol of firing at least three shots into everyone.

Can you imagine having saved the lives of 28 people simply by banning the sales of semi-automatic weapons to civilians?

Of course, it’s just speculation of what people could have been capable of that day, except they never got the chance.

Number two: gun control is not taking guns out of peoples’ hands. It’s making it more difficult for things like this to happen. If there had been a background check done, not just on his criminal record, if that was done at all, but also a mental health screening done, he would not have been able to get those weapons legally. And being the loner he was, by his own choosing, it’s doubtful he would have had the connections to get them illegally.

People confuse control with banning. We have controls in many forms of legislation in the US. We have controls on driving cars, practicing medicine, and selling alcohol to others. Yet people who have proven themselves as being responsible and capable enough to do these things are allowed to do them.

Yet that control does not exist for guns which are more lethal to individuals than these other things.

The NRA and other organizations and individuals that are against gun control want people to believe that the words “gun control” means, to quote the man who played Moses in the classic film The Nine Commandments, “prying my gun from my cold, dead fingers” before they are dead and cold.

It doesn’t.

It means trying to make sure those who get guns are people who should have them. I wonder why so many gun advocates are scared of mental tests and criminal background checks and why they try to scare people into thinking that gun controls violate the second amendment. It does make one wonder what they are so afraid of…

But I digress.

The fact is, if gun lobbies, particularly the NRA, didn’t have their hands so deep into Congress’s pockets and were holding back legislation to make it more difficult for just anyone to buy a gun, well, Virginia Tech probably would not have the dubious title of “the home of the largest shooting spree in US history”.

Also, at least 32 Virginia Tech students and staff members would still be alive.

66

It made a lot more sense in the 1800’s and before there were semi-automated and automatic weapons. At this point, a few Apache helicopters and some tanks could handle several thousand people. And this was just after the British empire had disenfranchised the colonists and their ability to arm themselves was a key factor in the revolution.

So, to the authors of the Bill of Rights it wasn’t such poor logic. They couldn’t imagine that one kid could walk into a public place and murder 30+ people. In their time, that one kid would only be able to kill one or two people with his one-shot muskets before he was wrestled to the ground.

[edit: Imani beat me to the punch!]

67

Sorry, la. :idunno: :smiley:

68

Cipos said:

My God, “a case in point”? Let me see if I’ve got this right. A group of cops were roughing up citizens and there was then a minor civil war until the populace regained control through guns? “A case in point?” I heard Texas was a rough(neck?) state but man, that’s scary. Am I the only guy who’s so glad he’s not living in the “greatest country in the world”? I hope some of our American friends can let us know that the above was a very, very isolated incident.

I’m genuinely horrified but no, I’m not going to waste my time trying to argue for gun control. If what happened this week (and at the meantime at Nasa and the threat of copycat incidents in other parts of the US) doesn’t make people think at least that maybe cutting back on access to guns might have some merit than nothing will. And no, having access to guns doesn’t protect you from your government - that isn’t a question of guns; it’s a question of what they can get the populace to believe, as has been amply demonstrated by GW Bush & Co the last few years.

I just pray that this insanity never migrates to countries that are relatively gun-free. If I remember rightly there was a thread a while back asking why the Taiwanese couldn’t have the same access to guns that Americans did. Duh, let me think about that one…

69

There’s your text for the second amendment. If your looking for the justification, it’s included in the amendment. For now I’ll leave it to others to decide their own opinions on that justification.

I’m not following the argument here. On its face the posted story seems like an example of why an armed citizenry is a good thing: to prevent the state from abusing a monopoly on violence. Or are you arguing that it would be better for the citizenry to just take the abuse? Either way, yes it is a rare, but probably not unprecedented occurance. Frankly if that story is true I would not be nearly as worried about that case as I am about some of the bigger wars between criminals and cops that end up involving the whole community.

Having said that, I’m not sure where the line is for how much the firearms industry should be regulated. I don’t have a problem with some basic requirements (registration, etc.), but I get suspicious when people start talking about outright bans. Sometimes the regulators are just as scary as the regulateds.

70

It made a lot more sense in the 1800’s and before there were semi-automated and automatic weapons. At this point, a few Apache helicopters and some tanks could handle several thousand people. And this was just after the British empire had disenfranchised the colonists and their ability to arm themselves was a key factor in the revolution.

So, to the authors of the Bill of Rights it wasn’t such poor logic. They couldn’t imagine that one kid could walk into a public place and murder 30+ people. In their time, that one kid would only be able to kill one or two people with his one-shot muskets before he was wrestled to the ground.

[edit: Imani beat me to the punch!][/quote]
I agree with all of that. What I was referring to was an earlier poster who still believes it’s a good idea for ‘the people’ to have arms to be able to challenge the govt if required.

If that logic prevailed for the US, then imagine that for the rest of the world. Wow.

I’m just thankful that the rest of the world is NOT as liberal regarding gun ownership as the US, particularly my own country.

71

I’m not sure I agree. Yes, that’s a totally stupid argument and no one in their right mind would believe such a thing. But the most stupid? How about the argument that there are so many bad guys and wackos running around with guns that what the world needs is more guns – we should ensure everyone carries a gun around to protect themselves from the bad guys and wackos – which will reduce the incidence of tragic shootings? Surely that’s in the running for most stupid argument, no?

72

I don’t find it stupid at all given the history of the American revolution and its significance to the world. It might be controversial nowadays, because it might seem anachronistic, but then again, nowadays, we take our rights and our freedoms for granted. But ultimately, might is right. In the shelter and illusion of civilization, we forget that. But don’t be fooled for a moment. We may one day have to take up arms against other oppressors. Democracy requires constant vigilance and readiness. Otherwise, we become sheep to the abbatoire.

73

well it seems I need to put my comment in context. I was referring to a previous poster citing a recent example of why it STILL important for the people to be able to overthrow their Govt using arms.

Even your comment JB that you may one day need to take up arms against oppressors…er, yeah ok. Logic like that to justify putting automatic weapons into the hands of anyone living in the US will continue, as it has done, give loonies the tools to slay innocent people.

If you really believe that the people need to be prepared to take up arms against oppressors, there is a far better way than allowing every joe blogs an automatic weapon without training: Take a closer look at compulsory military service. Get everyone (men and women) to do their 2 years in the service and train them properly. Keep the weapons in a secure military environment and if ‘the people’ need to take up arms, they do it properly by being equipped with the correct training, weapons and organization when called. Problem is, I wonder how many people would complain that compulsory military service is an invasion of their rights.

But sure, keep on arguing for the right for any idiot to own weapons. Just don’t complain when massacres like VT happen.
People worry about planes flying into buildings, but have you ever wondered how many extremists live in the US and are probably legally entitled to build whatever arsenal they feel like? Is it 10,000? or 1000? or even 10 people. Imagine the carnage just 10 nutcases could do after they legally obtained weapons using rights the US constitution has given them.

74

I don’t understand. Are you saying, JB, that there is a remote possibility that some day the US government will choose to ignore the Constitution even more than it does today, in complete disregard for the Bill of Rights, totally savaging peoples’ civil liberties to such an extreme extent that the people will be justified in taking up arms against the government in order to prevent such unlawful excesses, regain their rights, and restore order and democracy?

Doesn’t that seem infinitely remote? Theoretically possible perhaps, but mostly just material fit for lengthy doomsday tracts written by mad bombers and nutcases holed up in rural Idaho and the like? Isn’t it much more likely lawyers, litigation, grassroots protests and political processes would be more successful at curbing such potential excesses without leading to mass mayhem then a populace armed to the teeth?

And another thing, I’m growing very tired of all the naive people (not you JB, unless you believe in such a thing) chanting simpleminded slogans about how gun control is wrong because the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. What such people overlook is that NO AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS ABSOLUTE.

One does not have an absolute right to free speech. It is illegal to make bomb threats, murder threats, extortion threats, libel, slander, fraudulent statements, and so forth, regardless of the First Amendment. No one in their right mind disputes that the government should have a right to pass laws banning such types of speech, or establishing penalties for them, despite the public’s right to free speech.

Same for freedom of religion. Despite the Constitution right to freedom of religion, if someone were to establish a church in the US that practiced virgin sacrifice, throwing young girls into a volcano to die, that would be illegal under US law.

Same for all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The US Supreme Court has clearly established long before any of us was born that none of those rights is absolute. All of them are subject to reasonable restrictions and limitations which may be necessary to best serve the public good and for those words that were written long ago to have meaning in today’s world, which is vastly different than the world in which they were written.

When the 2d Amendment became law the US had no semi-automatic weapons, drug gangs, drive by shootings, wacko school shootings, or astronomical homicide rate. All that has changed and it’s perfectly reasonable, lawful, and well established by legal precedent for the government to pass laws and regulations restricting the right to bear arms, just as comparable restrictions have been passed with regard to all of the other Constitutional rights.

75

Truant and MT,

I think I need to separate the 2 issues as I only addressed the former.

  1. I do believe in the 2nd amendment, and its ideal and spirit. I do think people should empower themselves. Bearing arms is one way. Litigation/lobbying is another way. Ironically, despite my stance against slavery, I do think the South had the right to secede just as they freely joined the Union. MT suggests it is unthinkable that the US could ever be in a position where people would one day need to rise up and overthrow the federal government. I disagree. If the Constitution is a long-term institution, potentially for thousands of years, who’s to say what will happen in 3019? I don’t envy or relish the thought of a bloody revolution, but let’s not be dismissive that that day may not come. As I said, civilisation is a thin veil.

  2. Next, the question of HOW to secure and regulate that right is altogether a different and much more complex problem. Yes, there are wackos, criminals, and generally people we don’t want holding weapons. But like the 4th amendment, the law is for the lawful and lawless alike. I don’t have the answer to HOW, never said I did. We’ve been coming up with suggestions here, haven’t we? Truant proposes military service (compulsory) and militia. I’m not against that.

  3. That said, I do think we need stricter gun control. Especially when it comes to kids. These scenarios point most likely to the father who didn’t lock up his guns or teach his kids gun safety, or his kid’s friend’s dad. My friend has guns, lotsa them, but he keeps it in a huge safe. He trained his kids to use guns (they also competed). I see them as responsible individuals. He did the same for them when it came to motorcycle riding. So my point here is that gun ownership can be responsible. HOW we sort out idiots and wackos is another question, a tough one, in a society that talks a lot about freedom, but not the responsibility to temper that freedom.

I hope my position is made clearer. Just because I’m for 2nd amendment, please don’t automatically group me with X, Y, Z. That’s a very FredSmith thing to do.

76

You can’t over throw the American government with arms. Talk about doing so will land you time in Guantanamo or in a federal prison or with an FBI agent watching your every move.

The Patriot Act effectively removed everything the original American patriots fought for.

And with an apathy of American voters to even go and punch a card that says who they want to run their country, the only “revolution” the American government will see is the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves for how the people have allowed the government to cow them.

77

In real terms, what will the US do to reduce the chances of this sort of thing happening again?

My bet is on sweet F.A.

78

[quote=“Truant”]In real terms, what will the US do to reduce the chances of this sort of thing happening again?

My bet is on sweet F.A.[/quote]
I think the US should become more xenophobic and intolerant of everyone else. So, then if someone isn’t fitting in and isn’t showing themselves to be “American” just deport them. And if someone is born here and doesn’t fit in, we can send them to foreign countries as English teachers or exchange students.

79

That’s true, but if you’re suggesting it could be repealed, or rendered moot by regulation, then it’s another story. The only way to regulate other freedoms is to show that they aren’t really what was contemplated in the amendment. How you would manage to get to an outright ban on handguns, even with the “well regulated militia” clause, is sketchy at best.

The repeal option would get you to even shakier ground. Remember that 1) none of the orignial 10 amendments has ever been repealed, and 2) several states insisted that those amendments be included before they would ratify the constitution. The ramifications of an attempt to repeal any of the first 10 amendments would be phenomenal, and would be one of the few things that could actually undermine people’s confidence in the Constitution as whole.

80

I’m not sure what VT administrators were thinking when they banned weapons from campus (as many schools do). But what they did do is create an environment where a lone gunman would be capable of pulling off a mass slaughter. Not only did VT policy ensure that all students and teachers were defenseless against any gunman, but they also were unable to secure their rooms. Did anyone notice that there was no way to lock the doors from the inside, and that one could shoot through the doors? Granted, a gunman could use the locked door to barracade himself in with hostages, but as we’ve seen, it cuts both ways.

No weapons, no locks, no guards, no security. VT was probably doing what almost all of us do - just hoping for the best that such a tragedy wouldn’t happen.

I don’t think the important gun control point is whether or not the shooter’s gun was legally obtained (though I’m all for regulation, background checks, psychological testing, mandatory training, etc.), but rather whether the students and faculty should have been allowed to have the means to defend themselves. If it were me on the floor of that German class, I’d rather that someone responsible had the ability to return fire. I think I’d take the “bedlam” of self defense over the orderly and methodical murder of almost everyone in the room any day of the week. Should everyone be armed? Of course not, that’s ridiculous. Should weapons be kept out of the hands of psychos as far as possible? Obviously. Should responsible individuals be allowed to carry weapons for self defense? Evidently there’s a need.