The Myth of the 2nd Amendment: Shoot the damn thing already!
The federalsystem for tracking gun sales, crafted over the years to avoid infringements on Second Amendment rights, makes it difficult to spot suspicious trends quickly and to identify people buying for smugglers, law enforcement officials say. As a result, in some states along the Southwest border where firearms are lightly regulated, gun smugglers can evade detection for months or years. In Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, dealers can sell an unlimited number of rifles to anyone with a driver's license and a clean criminal record without reporting the sales to the government.
James C. McKinley, JR - NYT 4/14/09
_________________________________
We are a country of laws. When you look around you, it's obvious that that's not an overstatement. Everywhere we go, we're expected to follow the law.
When we cross the street, we can't cross on a red light. It's against the law.
We can't cross that street, even with the light, naked as a jay bird. It's against the law.
We can't take an orange off of the vendor's stand, no matter how juicy that orange or how out there for the taking it appears to be. It's against the law.
We can't get in our car and drive it without first understanding the rules of the road, and then obtaining licenses for both the car and the driver. It's against the law.
In each of those instances, our rights and privileges haven't been infringed by the laws that affect them. We understand that laws are necessary to maintain a sane society. We live with laws every day of our lives.
So why the hell has this entire country been hornswoggled into believing that we can own, shoot and sell guns (that's GUNS--"shoot your eye out" at the least, lethal weapons always and eternally) without licensing or regulation?
What kind of NRA wizardry has taken hold when it comes to any logical restrictions on guns? How have we come to this, where we, once again, turn a blind eye to what's in our best interests and let gun nuts, of all people, hold us in their sway?
Yes, gun nuts. I live in the north woods, where guns and gun people are everywhere. Many if not most of the hunters we know are members of the NRA. In our day-to-day dealings they seem perfectly normal, but I can't get past the growing evidence that anyone who supports and defends the right to own guns without licensing or regulations has gone beyond nutty.
The gun people we know aren't "nuts" in the sense that they're out there picketing with signs saying "Obama, don't take our guns away". They're not that dumb. But sooner or later, in order for us to survive as a civilized society, they're going to have to give up following the NRA like little lost lambs and begin thinking for themselves.
The National Rifle Association, with their blind devotion to a lawless gun culture, has become the enemy as surely as if they were standing on our borders passing out heavy artillery to anyone with cash in hand. Their members--millions strong--are constantly, incessantly, being bombarded with dangerous faulty logic. They defend the supposed Second Amendment "right" to bear arms without feeling any accompanying obligation to defend the rights of the society in which they live.
As enraging as the New York Times article ("The U.S Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels") was this morning, I can't say it was either enlightening or even startling. Everything in it has been out there before. But it is disheartening. How many times do these same outrageous, wholly un-American facts have to be reported before we finally say, "Enough"?
Consider this from the NYT article:
Federal agents say about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers last year and asked to be traced came from dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.
The Mexican foreign minister, Patricia Espinosa, in talking with reporters recently, accused the United States of violating its international treaty obligations by allowing guns to flow into the hands of organized crime groups in Mexico.
But law enforcement officials on this side of the border say the legal hurdles to making cases against smugglers remain high.
"Guns are legal to possess in this country," said William J. Hoover, the assistant director for operations of the federal firearms agency. "If you stop me between the dealer and the border, I am still legal, because I can possess those guns."Fine. "Possess" the damn guns. But regulate them, for God's sake! License the hell out of them. Keep records on who owns them, who sells them, who buys them. Make new laws, make them stick, and throw the bastards in jail if they violate those laws.
And if all that happens--guess what? Nobody's rights will be violated. Lawful gun folks will get to keep their weapons. Fun will be had by all.
We can't keep ignoring the effects of our ridiculously lax gun laws. Here's a snip from another NYT story by McKinley, entitled "U.S. is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels", published on February 26:
Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian [owner of X-Caliber Guns in Phoenix] and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.
The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers -- more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses -- makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.It's not just the Mexican drug cartels who are finding it easy to get guns in the U.S, thanks to the NRA. This is from a California Progress Report article by Bill Cavala on unregulated gun shows in Nevada:
70% of the dealers at the Nevada gun shows lacked Federal Firearms licenses.
Nevada does not require background checks or that records be kept on private party sales at gun shows - unlike California.
At least two dozen "straw" purchases - firearms bought by one person
but intended for another "prohibited" purchaser - were observed.
California lawmakers - aware of this problem - moved to regulate its gun shows several years ago.
But in States like Nevada, the N.R.A. has been successful in blocking similar efforts. The result is that criminals evade California gun shows to make their purchases where the N.R.A. actions protect them.
(Bill Cavala was a professor at U.C Berkeley in the 1970s, and has been actively involved in progressive politics every since. Take a minute to read the comments at the end of his article. The gun nut vultures are constantly out there circling and attacking any effort to "infringe" their phony rights. All that energy, all that stupidity. Leave it to them to use it to undermine our citizen rights of protection against the gun nuts.)So when will this craziness end? When is a gun nut more than just a nut? Who will make the NRA see the light? What has happened to our America? How many more articles have to be written before we Americans get up in arms--so to speak?
Ramona
(crossposted at Ramona's Voices)
The NRA wins because gun fanatics vote solely on the basis of gun position. People worried about guns vote on the basis of that, plus a dozen other things. The fanatics win. This bears out in the lobbying money -- NRA is like many multiples of the anti-gun lobby's funds.
One thing to note is that second ammendment questions aside, the police could actually do a better job at enforcing, and the courts could do a better job of punishing, gun violations. In Washington DC it is illegal to possess a firearm, yet people who are caught serve no time. It is a toothless law. If we treated illegal guns -- especially illegal traffickers -- with the harshness reserved for drug crimes, we'd do as much as we could with new restrictive legislation.
The shooter in Pittsburg was dishonorably discharged, so under PA law, shouldn't have been allowed to have his weapons. The killer in Oakland had a freaking AK-47, which should be illegal. Why aren't the existing laws enforced?????
April 15, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a love/hate relationship with guns in this country, just as we do with people who take the law into their own hands. We have a romantic image of vigilantes (Batman, anyone?) but don't want to be anywhere near them when the wet work happens.
All in all, I suspect it is largely a function of cowardice.
April 15, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NRA wins because they build up their membership by lying about what happens when guns are regulated. Consequently, the NRA has millions of members. The result of which is that the NRA has untold amounts of money to use toward lobbying.
I asked the question: Who will stop the NRA? But the real question is, what is it going to take for gun lovers to see how incredibly short-sighted and destructive their lopsided views on gun regulation really are? Their cavalier approaches to gun laws are literally destroying us.
April 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what do they say that is a lie?
April 15, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is the lie that owning a gun is an inherent right, given to you by the Second Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms" has never been proven to apply to individuals, no matter what the current court ruling says. There is the argument that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" meant the equivalent of the states' right to a National Guard and had nothing to do with individual rights. The NRA lobbied hard to corrupt the historical meaning into "My guns are my business and nobody else's".
There is the lie that selling any gun to whomever you choose is nobody else's business.
There is the lie that guns are necessary for self-defense and that anyone who doesn't own one is a fool.
There is the lie that requiring guns to be licensed and regulated is "anti-gun", and is the same as taking your guns away.
There is the lie that Democrats want to take your guns away.
For starters.
April 15, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But the real question is, what is it going to take for gun lovers to see how incredibly short-sighted and destructive their lopsided views on gun regulation really are?"
I second this, but have no good answers. They are extremists. It is more difficult to get a driver's license and buy a car than to get a gun. You need skills and understanding of the law to drive a car, you need registration and insurance.
The NRA acts like gun rights alone among all other rights is an absolute one. My free speech rights don't allow me to make threats or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
And what was that saying about the Constitution not being a suicide pact? If gun rights are leading to tens of thousands of Americans being denied their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we should reconsider.
April 15, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally False.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the individual has the right.
For the moment, truth trumps fraud... barely.
The Supreme Court (District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller) holds in part:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Read the Court's opinion (and dissents).
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/HellerDecision.htm
You say:
There is the lie that owning a gun is an inherent right, given to you by the Second Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms" has never been proven to apply to individuals, no matter what the current court ruling says.
So... you disregard a Supreme Court Ruling as if it's meaningless??? Seriously?
You know you can't do that with a straight face, right? Perhaps one day a case will be argued that overturns this ruling... but until then, this is the way it is... legally, anyway.
Perhaps the ruling is wrong, but that's irrelevant for all intents and purposes. And the very existence of this ruling makes your comment false.
April 15, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do disregard that ruling issued less than a year ago by Antonin Scalia, a Right Winger to the core.
You might want to go back and read my post again. I already disregarded it. I'll even dispute it.
So what's your point?
April 15, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm .... sounds a lot like a recent president we all failed to love with the initials GWB. Simply ignore the rulings you don't like, eh?
April 16, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to worry about my disregard for that recent ruling. I have no power to act on it. There's the difference.
April 16, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wha?
So, simply because you don't 'have the power' to act on your belief means it's "ok" for you be disregard the law of the land?
One must assume that if you did 'have the power' then you'd act very much like GWB with your disregard of the law.
Personally I prefer the rule of law to the rule of a tyrant. But your free to be the best little tyrant you can be.
April 16, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I could give a sh*t for Scalia... Can't stand the bum... But I do support the individual right to bear arms... Probably a cultural thing as I grew up in a Southern-style society... For the record: Me, my friends, and family (those who own guns) are very responsible and law abiding citizens who are alive and well.
For the record: I've had a gun put to my head THREE TIMES (I own a pharmacy)... and I still support gun ownership...
So, it's not like I'm dumb or uninformed... Quite the opposite..
I just arrived at a different conclusion on this subject than you did.
April 16, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly do you mean by the right of the individual to keep and bear arms? You already have that right, and nobody is advocating taking it away from you.
Why is this non-issue used as the NRA call to arms? How is it interpreted to mean that gun sellers can sell anything from bb-guns to howitzers to anybody with the cash without any accountability?
How does it relate to the fact that criminals and warlords see us as one big candy store when it comes to moving guns across the border?
When does the "right of the individual to keep and bear arms" (not the exact constitutional quote) stop being the issue so that we can confront the problem of the culpability of the NRA in demanding that no restrictions apply to the sale of weapons whatsoever.
The "anti-gun" argument has no legs anymore. We're in a crisis here and the NRA, the champions of non-regulation, takes no responsibility.
Note to your later post: Yes, we live in a society based on laws. We couldn't survive otherwise. (Tell that to the NRA, who apparently thinks all we need is an arsenal in our homes and everything will be all right.)
I don't believe the Second Amendment says what Scalia says it means. In that sense, I "disregard it". That doesn't mean I'm breaking the law. Last I looked, it's okay to disagree in this country.
April 16, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No SCOTUS opinion has ever held that the 2nd Amendment is substantiated by the 14th Amendment; thereby applicable to individual state legislation that limits gun ownership. Heller is only about the Federal Government's actions, and was applicable to Washington D.C., because it is under Federal, not state control.
April 16, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks.
April 16, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also see: Congressional Research Service's Annotated Constitution - Second Amendment
April 16, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
A militia is an army of ordinary citizens (yes, individuals) who can be called into service to respond to a threat. The second amendment envisions a society in which the military power (and firepower) rests with ordinary citizens rather than with big standing armies like we have today. The founders were suspicious of any permanent, professional military force controlled by the government. From experience, they knew that such a force could be used in two highly pernicious ways:
1. The king could use his army to pursue adventures in foreign lands for his own benefit regardless of the interests of the people at home
2. The king could use his army to suppress and control the people
The second amedment envisions an alternative to standing armies in the form of armed individuals ready to be called into the service of the country when needed. The founders also realized that these armed individuals who made up the militia could resist military service if they opposed the government's war policy and, in extreme cases, could use their military skills and arms to rebel against an oppressive government (as, in fact, the founders had just done themselves).
For a group of people who had recently been oppressed by a king with a powerful standing army, the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms was seen as an important protection against tyranny and another check against the power of a federal government.
I think it's a great stretch to argue that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a right of individual citizens. Now, it may be fair to argue that the second amendment is no longer relevant in today's world where (unfortunately in my opinion) standing armies with vast armaments have become the norm. But then the proper solution is to try to amend the constitution to get rid of it. You can't just interpret it out of existence. Another fruitful approach is to emphasize that the second amendment does envision regulation of the militia--it says "a well-regulated militia . . ." after all. While the word "regulation" may not have meant quite the same thing to the founders as it does to us, the founders clearly envisioned some discipline being exerted over the militia. I don't think they envisioned chaos--or a society in which gun rights trumped important public safety concerns.
Personally, I am a gun owner (hunter). But I despise the NRA's opposition to any kind of practical gun control and therefore have never joined the organization. Still, I think the second amendment is an important part of our constitution that should be preserved. Reasonable regulation of an individual's right to keep and bear arms should, however, be allowed and encouraged.
April 16, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very reasonable response. TYVM.
April 16, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing against responsible gun owners. Nothing at all. As individuals, they do have the right to own guns. Nobody has ever said otherwise.
My contention is that the Second Amendment is too fuzzy to use as an NRA battle cry. The inconvenient truth is that these words--"a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms"--wouldn't have been written that way if the founders simply meant giving rights to "individuals". You can't get away from the phrase, "a well-regulated militia". An army is a "well-regulated militia" made up of individuals--people who keep and bear arms--but that doesn't mean each soldier makes his or her own rules. Far from it.
The Second Amendment was clearly a states-rights protection against the possibility of a rogue Federal government.
The use of the Second Amendment in order to give free reign to any action having to do with guns is a sham, and an insult to us all.
Using the argument that if the supreme court says it's so, it must be so, is phony, too.
This is the same Supreme Court that awarded GWB the presidency. So much for respecting the constitution.
April 16, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I despise the NRA's opposition to any kind of practical gun control and therefore have never joined the organization."
When I operated a guide service for bird hunters in the 80's and 90's, I watched the NRA morph into it's current manifestation as somethng of an outsider with insider access.
What was once a very respectable organization dedicated to honorable endeavors, became a tool of the gun manufacturing industry, and ceased to perform any public service. Since then, they have mustered the power of our entire legal system for their personal benefit, bought and paid for with campaign money and backed up with threats of non-support. And they did this for one purpose; to make certain they could continue to make a big profit selling weapons, especially automatic weapons they bought from Russia and other former SOviet Union countries when the cold war froze over after Chernobyl ended the whole Soviet Union thing.
The NRA no longer represents gun owners, it represents gun sellers and manufacturers. It is now beneficial only to the "Lords of War" who traffic in death.
April 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that sounds about right. Just add the gun dealers who participate wholeheartedly into arming the wrong segments of populations.
April 16, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with you JEP. I'm a bird hunter too and it completely puzzles me why so many hunters are so passionate about gun rights while completely ignoring the real hunting issue--which is the loss of accessible natural habitat. The real threat to hunting isn't the loss of our guns but the loss of our quarry! I vote Democratic for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is because I think the Democrats are way better on the environment than Republicans. And I don't think a real hunter can be anything but an enviromentalist. Fishermen (especially fly fisherman) have really taken up environmentalism, but hunters are so damn pig-headed. It drives me nuts.
Just curious . . . where did you guide and what kind of bird hunting did you do? I'm mostly a grouse hunter (New England and the Northern Midwest), but did some great pheasant hunting last fall in the Dakotas.
April 16, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you are incorrect, and I say this not because I believe it's original intent still carries validity, but because it is a minority right specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, and can only be legitimately modified through the proper Amendment process. there can be no exceptions to this, for whatever reason, because if short-cuts are taken to modify the Second Amendment, they will be used in the future to also Amend the Constitution, altering parts I do consider to be essential for a free society. Originally, the Second Amendment was intended as a bar against standing armies (how is that working out?), and to keep a tyrannical government from gaining control in America. The later is no longer a valid reason to own handguns and rifles, as they would be impotent resistance to a modern military force.
Unbridled private gun ownership is a threat to the general welfare, and I would support a well written modification of the 2nd Amendment, but it must be changed through the Amendment process; no short-cuts allowed.
Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1811 by James Madison, wrote in his "Commentaries on The Constitution", that a right to possess arms was an individual right, but also mentioned the same sort of problems we encounter from this today:
In United States v. Miller (1939), a SCOTUS case widely decried by pro-gun proponents, as it held that a sawed-off shotgun was not an arm protected by the Second Amendment, because, "...it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense"; also determined that the Second Amendment applied to individual gun ownership:April 16, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I don't see from your quotes that I'm wrong at all. The "rights of the people" is different from "the rights of an individual", as you interpret it.
Story says:
Sounds like a form of State-sanctioned National Guard to me. It is a citizen-formed militia that's only used when needed. "People" and "citizens" are interchangeable and suggests a "citizen army" to me.
I don't see "individual rights" in there. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse here. I do believe that each of us inherently has the right to own guns. I don't believe it's a right that goes without laws, regulation, or responsibility, however.
April 16, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, don't be obtuse. It only furthers the polarisation of the issue, and decreases possible support for your argument in the end.
"The Citizens" refers directly to all American, individually. Also clearly expresses that individual militia members were expected to possess arms they themselves has personally acquired. These were just two citations, I was able to quickly offer, because of recent use. There are many more.The very narrow and selective definition of "The People" is very lame, BTW. How does that work for:
Are you intimating the the Fourth Amendment is not a right secured in its possession by each and every American?See: Eugene Volokh, Professor, UCLA Law School, "The Commonplace Second Amendment", 73 NYU L. Rev. 793, 1998, for a good and honest assessment of the issue.
April 16, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clear as a bell. Thanks.
April 16, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"domestic usurpations of power by rulers."
Sounds a lot like GW Bush's tenure to me...
April 16, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
and how did that pistol as a codpiece work out repelling it?
April 16, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Pseudo. Thanks!
April 16, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many more articles have to be written before we Americans get up in arms--so to speak?
One would think that 57 deaths in one month from mass murders would do the trick.
But no, the lunacy continues.
April 15, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell, exactly. And yet we have the NRA defenders crawling out of the woodwork every time anyone suggests the obvious: That our attitude about guns in this country is nuts.
April 15, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow the money. Approximately 37,500 firearms are sold each day, (about 17,500 of those are hand guns). The NRA is really just a marketing and lobbying branch of the gun manufacturers, who are only interested in protecting 2nd amendment rights to the extent it enhances the bottom lines of the industry players.
April 15, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know... with that many guns out there, (MILLIONS!!!), almost none of them are used for crime. Taking away the law abiding citizens right to bear arms won't mean a thing to the criminals... they're gonna have the guns anyway... and those killings are going to continue. The only difference is: Law abiding citizens won't be able to defend themselves... i.e. We'll be "sitting ducks" because the criminals KNOW we won't be defending ourselves. Brilliant!!!
Something like 50% of all handgun deaths (in the US) each year are SUICIDE, for cryin' out loud.
For example...
A friend of mine did a little surfing and learned North Caroline led the nation from 1986-1996 in gun related deaths. Suicide by gun accounted for 57% of deaths, murder came in at 38%.
"The cause of firearm deaths vary greatly by race. Suicide accounts for 73% of the white deaths and homicide accounts for 75% of the minority deaths." http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:cLOpFPwXfO0J:www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/pdf/sb-17.pdf+suicide+accounts+for+high+rate+of+gun+related+deaths&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
And this:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989
Volume 359:989-991September 4, 2008Number 10
The New England Journal of Medicine
Guns and Suicide in the United States
Matthew Miller, M.D., Sc.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.
In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are gun suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.
____________
I know for sure that law abiding gun owners are not a problem. It's the criminals that are the problem... And taking away guns from law abiding citizens won't solve anything... it'll only make things worse. IMHO.
April 15, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So where is the part about "taking away guns"? Where is it written that anyone is advocating "taking away your guns"?
Where are those "law abiding gun owners" when the NRA fights with all its might against any kind of regulation?
The facts don't lie: As long as buying and selling guns is unlicensed and unregulated we're going to have the kinds of problems I cited in my blog post.
How about sticking to the issue? Your statistics are meaningless and irrelevant. We're not talking about law-abiding citizens here. We're talking about the NRA and its culpability in the current climate that encourages gun sales to rogue elements, and protects the rights of the sleazy gun sellers who do the providing on such a massive scale, it's dazzling even to other countries.
If the NRA was interested in protecting the rights of "law-abiding citizens", they would be using their considerable clout to clean up the industry. Instead, they do everything in their power to make sure nothing stands in the way of gun sales to anyone anywhere, without a hint of interference.
Proud of that, are you?
April 15, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't fear "Them" taking away our guns...
I fear "You" trying to take them away. You're the one suggesting individuals don't have the right to bear arms. Whether you agree or not, the Law recognizes this right, too...
Any changes to the law will have to be legislated... The NRA doesn't legislate, the lobby. Anybody can lobby. If enough people lobby on your side then you will succeed. It's all about the votes... pure and simple.
I don't, btw, belong to the NRA...
April 16, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So if the Second Amendment were modified legitimately, through the Constitutional amendment process, and banned private gun ownership, you would wholeheartedly accept this as the rightful rule of law?
April 16, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly would. I wouldn't like it... But I'd accept it.
April 16, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing to fear from me. I've never advocated taking your guns away. You keep repeating that same mantra, as if someone has threatened you with it. Other than the NRA, who is feeding you that lie?
April 16, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only point is that expecting the NRA to support any altruistic impulses they may be harboring, that will have a negative effect on gun sales, is not a smart bet.
April 16, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right on that. But I think the NRA gets way too much credit for the current state of things. It's sort of like saying Obama wouldn't be president without MoveOn.
Even if the NRA were eliminated, on a conceptual basis the American people would still overwhelmingly support less regulation on both speech and firearms (compared to "more" - not, per se, relative to the status quo).
April 16, 2009 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Rock had it right. Raise the taxes on ammunition so it costs about $5000/round for civilian purchase.
A little more challenging when you have to beat someone with your empty gun, no? They then have a (literal) fighting chance.
April 16, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is probably a reason that it is the second ammemdment. Remember that the Bill of Rights does not 'grant' rights to the people, it defines rather certain limits on the power of government. Every time government is given a power it is abused. Habeas corpus anyone?
April 16, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
One big problem I see in convincing folks is the dishonesty used to address the nature of regulation. You justify limiting a constitutional protection by pointing to the existence of jaywalking laws. Jaywalking?!?! There is a different part of the constitution that mandates the ability to pass jaywalking laws which in no way changes the constitutional authority related to ownership of firearms.
A more accurate analogy would be for the government to require commenters register and obtain a license to legally post on the internet or publish a pamphlet/newsletter. Every article/comment written should include your "free-speech-id-number". The government should set up a database to track the topics and sites which have been posted to cross-referenced by free-speech-id and made available to local law enforcement. This will require those who want to provide a platform for discussions (like TPM) submit an application and become an "authorized free-speech venue". Under such conditions you would still be JUST as free to speak out ... right?
To really make progress here, a more honest question needs to be asked:how do we address increasingly violent behavior in America?.
You have bypassed the entire debate and drawn a conclusion of the correct course of action vis-a-vis gun regulations. The desire to regulate has become the end instead of the means to an end all Americans can rally around. Approaching the issue from the point of view in this post enhances the Us vs. Them dynamic and ensures the status quo is the most likely course.
April 16, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The silly sentences at the beginning of my post were simply to remind those who don't see the potential path leading from deregulation to lawlessness that we live with laws every day.
They see nothing wrong with necessary rules for even the simplest actions, but can't for the life of them see the need for regulating an entire, out-of-control gun industry.
You see the "ownership of arms" as an inviolable constitutional right. I call them "weapons", and I call it "lawlessness" when you demand the right to buy them, sell them and use them in any way you choose.
With rights comes responsibility. The phony positions espoused by the NRA and its followers are illogical, irresponsible and dangerous. The numbers of guns unaccounted for in this country is staggering. The numbers of assault weapons being bought and sold to anyone with enough cash is reckless beyond belief.
We live in a society based on laws. The NRA is not exempt simply because they think they own the Second Amendment.
April 16, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're a hoot!
On the one hand you say you 'disregard the Supreme Court Ruling...'
On the other hand you say, "We live in a society based on laws..."
Would you please make up my mind?
April 16, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What he wants proposes is sheer lawlessness.
The gun nuts want a Wild West scenario of shootouts at high noon.
April 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong.
Free speech is regulated too. Terroristic threats and libel are well known examples.
Even the right to life will be taken away if you commit a capital crime.
The fact is that NO rights are absolute.
The gun nuts want to have a special law free zone just around them and their gun fetish.:
'cop killer bullets? hollow tips? sem-automatics? assault rifles? Don't ban ANYTHING because we enjoy them.'
Everyone else gets rules and responsibilities.
April 16, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the proper way to neuter the Mexican Criminal Syndicates, who are unlawfully purchasing these weapons is to to rescind all criminal drug laws.
Your solution for countering violently murderous criminal enterprises, directly caused by the government's attempt to bar drug use by it citizens, using its full unmuzzled police force to interdict supply, while doing nothing to decrease demand, is to coercively suppress the supply of guns, without stemming the citizenry's demand for them? Why would you pour gasoline on an already raging out of control fire? This would only result in violent criminal enterprises picking up the slack in supply, greatly increasing the violent side-effects.
April 16, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have no control over Mexico's drug laws. We have no control over the flow of drugs into this country, either.
And we apparently have no control over the sales and shuttling of heavy arms across our borders.
We have no control. So now what? Decriminalization of drugs? Yeah, that'll do it.
April 16, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Mexico's drug laws that are the source of the problem; it is America's "War On Drugs", which has helped to destablise several countries in the Americas already, and now is doing its insidious work on Mexico.
April 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could we stick to the issue here? My initial point is that the NRA misuses the Second Amendment to justify the dissolution or abandonment of any laws regarding gun purchases and sales. The result is what I've cited in snips and links to articles about those abuses, and how they impact us all.
We're not just talking about Mexican Drug Lords, although that's scary enough. The entire gun culture needs to be addressed. One look into any one of the thousands of gun shows across the country proves without doubt that we've gone far beyond the innocent ownership of guns for our own use. Big guns are big business and groups like the National Rifle Association, who profess to do nothing more than uphold the letter of the constitution, need to take responsibility for much of it.
By the clever use of a fuzzy phrase in an amendment to the constitution, they've somehow convinced millions of gun owners that they're in danger of losing their guns unless they get behind the NRA. That's a lie. And that's the issue I'm addressing here.
I don't pretend to know what caused it, or even what to do about it.
April 16, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you even been to a gun show? You serious don't sound like you know what you are talking about. Have you even been to 1? Seriously? And you say they don't want your guns. Obviously you didn't live in CA like me back before the '94 ban, when such evil assault weapons were legal one day, next day they weren't. Oh, sorry I didn't find out about the special registration because I was serving overseas. They took the guns back then they will do it again. Now you want a serious discussion about gun restriction or reducing the follow of semi-automatic weapons to Mexico, ever consider using the agrument of adding such items to existing National Firearms Act? NFA process consists of local and federal backgrounds, fingerprints and photo id submitted for each item and application, $200 tax, and ATF takes months to review the application before approving. There are also strict requirements with regards to the storing and interstate transportation of them as well.
One point you freely and easily dismiss is the gun culture. I am not talking about the gangster culture, I talking about those who grew up hunting and sport shooting. This is something my whole family is into and someday I will be passing it on to my daughter. No I am not a hick/redneck.
Your bio says your from Michigan. FYI your governor recently reversed your states standing on NFA registration in your state. Now you too can own a legal machine gun or sound suppressor in accordance with NFA.
Happy shooting
April 17, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We can't cross that street, even with the light, naked as a jay bird. It's against the law."
i believe there are some places in this country where you can walk the streets naked.:)
April 16, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic... I can't find it right off the bat, but I seem to remember a story of a woman that was walking down the street topless... she was cited... she fought it arguing that the law can't apply only to women and not to men (or something along those lines)... and she won...
If I get the time I'll try to look it up and find a link...
______________
Sorry to assist with a hijack... back to the regularly programmed thread.
______________
April 16, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you've never seen it, might want to look at the NRA's graphic novel, "Freedom In Peril", but only when your blood isn't already boiling...
April 16, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be hilarious if it wasn't coming from the NRA. Unfortunately, there are too many willing followers who buy that crap hook, line and sinker.
In other words, "Send money--quick"
April 16, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This nation is the world's largets arms dealer. Nearly 13% of our GDP is sunk into the defense budget. The Cold War gave rise to the modern arms industry, with the US and USSR competing for a broader sphere of influence through guns and butter. By and large a prominent percentage of the arms trade is illegal.
Arms reduction treaties have typically ignored most weapons systems and small arms. It is no wonder, then, that we citizens are overwhelmed by small arms. Not only do we have over 10,000 deaths a year from small arms, there are tens of thousands of non-fatal injuries from small arms every year. If you made a map that showed where these deaths and injuries are occurring, you would see that they by and large focus on urban areas.
In other words, the victims are mainly the poor and minorities... and this is a worldwide phenomenon.
So, while many of us argue over the philosophy, ethics and legality of gun control/ownership, the world is embroiled in a bloodbath. Guns serve to not only kill, but also to control. The impact of gun violence and the threat of gun violence destroys entire neighborhoods. One stray bullet can ruin a family by killing a child who was struggling to break free from the cycle of poverty.
So, yes, the laws that we have should stand. The second amendment is valid and the right to bear arms should not be infringed. But the arms trade must be curtailed. There has to be small arms reduction treaties that convert the raw materials of weapons into materials that can rebuild impoverished urban centers. In my mind, this is all a consequence of our failure as a nation to beat swords into plowshares at the end of WWII... instead, President Truman entrenched the Pentagon architecture and initiated the pandemic spread of weaponry in the name of containment.
The fact that only a few politicans can recognize the simple fact of arms proliferation is a sign that guns are a mere wedge issue. Many urban neighborhoods have attempted to trade small arms for cash and engage in practical weapons reduction, but are consistently rebuffed by their local governments. And children, teenagers and younger, continue to die because they are forced to become part of tribal militias that protect the drug trade through their neghborhoods.
The reality of gun violence is lost on us as a nation. It takes suburban mass violence to wake us up when every day in the urban districts it is a war zone... and this is true for the entire world. As long as the issue remains abstract and "principle based," we will move nowhere.
April 16, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Largest Weapons Market In The World: Pakistan
http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196
Watch this.
April 16, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, there is a reason it is second. Where else is a collective right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? If the first were to be interpreted as narrowly as the second has been, then the only 'free' speech would be in the areas of politics and religion.
Our government has engaged in a broad based encroachment of individual freedoms over the past few decades. Now we have no right to privacy, limited right to air grievances in court, retroactive immunity for only the powerful law breakers etc.
As Clarence Thomas recently said he feels that there has been an undue 'proliferation of rights' We should all worry about the powers that the government has usurped and be careful of giving anything away.
Freedom has its cost. As Blackstone said '...the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.'
BTW, has anyone realized that the communications satellites we all use every day are not on US territory and thus are subject to unlimited interception by the NSA?
April 16, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a conservative, though love rock & roll and am an avid guitar player. Registered independant, as I vote for who I think is best. Recently attended our local Tea Party on tax ripoff day. I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment, am NOT an NRA member because after I joined they sent me too much solicitation junk mail asking for money so I canceled my membership. I do support their cause. Every day is more dangerous than the next out there, and my fiance' & I both have concealed carry permits in almost every state in the USA. We both carry for self protection. NO ONE will EVER take my guns away. Period. The criminals will always find a way to get a gun, and I will have mine in order to protect my life and property at all costs. Clear???
April 19, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clear? Yes, perfectly. You and your fiance carry guns but you applied for and received a concealed carry permit.
You're legal. We're not talking about you.
Clear???
April 20, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink