Forum Thread

My take on gun law reform

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 23 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Feinstein AWB, as written, is a joke. I certainly support greater regulation of the access of civilians to particular types of weapons that are currently legal to buy, but this legislation is nonsense. Defining assault weapons to include semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips is laughable, and just ridiculous. I can't sell that to my rightwing friends with a straight face, and the discussion will go nowhere.

    Overall, it's more important to limit the magazine cartridges, not the types of weapons (or the modified shapes of otherwise legal weapons that has no bearing on lethality) used to fire the bullets.

    I think current lax gun laws defeat the assumed purpose of the second amendment. Civilians need training in a.) how to use/store their weapon(s) safely; b.) conflict resolution so they don't go nuts and kill their neighbor or wife in the middle of an argument, & c.) understanding their legal rights and liabilities so they don't go and do something stupid believing it their right. That's all part of the "personal responsibility" that comes with gun ownership. So I certainly think that ownership of semi-automatic/automatic weapons should require substantial permitting and training.

    We have too many negative externalities spilling costs over into the public sector and onto the taxpayer b/c of irresponsible firearms ownership and usage. We've made it too easy for idiots and insane people to do heinously stupid things, and it's defeating the purpose of civilian gun ownership. It costing the taxpayer money. To throw some MMT in this discussion, subnational governments are currency users; if there's a place for deficit hawkism in government, it's at the subnational state and local levels. I'm a deficit hawk at the subnational level, and I'm sick of having to pay for the clean up for the mess that's resulted from our current lax gun laws. Dead people cost us money, in more ways than one.

    I think we should have an "individual right" to gun ownership, but I don't understand how the 2nd Amendment is incorporated under the 14th Amendment as a constitutionally protected "individual right" applicable as a restraint on the actions of States. In my book, it's a limitation on Congress. In any event, rights come with responsibilities.

    Furthermore, an originalist, strict-constructionist take on the 2nd amendment would only condone ownership of late 18th century firearms, as these were the "arms" that the founders were referencing. So I think there's power at the federal level that's constitutionally available to do a lot more than I see as necessarily prudent.

    Anyways, I'm a gun owner. The current system is absolutely nuts. No other nation in the world does what we do, including Switzerland.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "BB" Your last line is absolutely correct; the US is the laughing stock of the world right now. !!
    Question how come the US is the only country in the world who is just like a little kid, fond of its teddy bear; like love guns, love uniforms the more stickers and medals on it the better, call a 1776 piece of paper "holy", love shooting zombi movies, nintendo etc, the more blood
    and the bigger the guns the better. In Europe they are shaking their heads every day again.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    CBB -- Thanks again for your well thought take on gun safety. It's an emotional subject for many, and because of those emotions it is sometimes hard to get into common sense critical thinking. I think you have done that.

    In case you haven't read it already, I'll refer you to a recent article in Rolling Stone (I'm a subscriber) by Tim Dickinson.

    The NRA vs. America

    I might have already referenced it in another post; however, I recommend you read the entire rather long article. I'll just extract one paragraph:

    "Today's NRA stands astride some of the ugliest currents of our politics, combining the "astroturf" activism of the Tea Party, the unlimited and undisclosed "dark money" of groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, and the sham legislating conducted on behalf of the industry through groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council. "This is not your father's NRA," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top gun-industry watchdog. Feldman is more succinct, calling his former employer a "cynical, mercenary political cult.""

    Dickinson goes on to talk about the history of the NRA and how it was transformed from a highly respected gun safety organization that only advocated for many of the things that you mention above, but is now nothing more than a right wing political organization that answers only to the gun manufacturers.
  • Independent
    Dover, TN
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt; Very well written and I can agree with most. I do have one question "no other nation in the world does what we do"? Is there any other nation that came about as we did and continues to survive governed the way we are. Could this be a result from doing what we do?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Not sure what you're getting at. Hard to answer.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Limiting the capacity of a magazine to a smaller amount of rounds is just stupid, it is never the amount of rounds put down in the range of fire but the profiency of the shooter, these mass killers did not employ the pray and spray method of their killing spree but a careful selection of available targeted victims, all of them have shooting skills, having trained on numerous weapons, I remember training with the M-1 Garand, a semi-auto rifle with an 8 round clip, I could fire 3 clips inside of 30 seconds with about 90% of those rounds on target ,Sgt. York killed 26 Germans in a single encounter with a single shot bolt action rifle. There is always a need for sensilble laws not only for the ownership of weapons but any laws that will have an impact on ones own freedoms, but to hold hearings with only the victims/surviviors of gun violence testifying and not include the testimony of the many times that a weapon/firearm has saved a life or prevented a crime from happening is doing the American people a great diservice in getting at the root of the problem, instead the anti gun-banners want to pursue their own Agenda of limiting or eliminating the Second Amendment as opposed to actually making Americans safer.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Limiting the capacity of a magazine to a smaller amount of rounds is just stupid, it is never the amount of rounds put down in the range of fire but the profiency of the shooter, these mass killers did not employ the pray and spray method of their killing spree but a careful selection of available targeted victims, all of them have shooting skills, having trained on numerous weapons, I remember training with the M-1 Garand, a semi-auto rifle with an 8 round clip, I could fire 3 clips inside of 30 seconds with about 90% of those rounds on target ,Sgt. York killed 26 Germans in a single encounter with a single shot bolt action rifle. There is always a need for sensilble laws not only for the ownership of weapons but any laws that will have an impact on ones own freedoms, but to hold hearings with only the victims/surviviors of gun violence testifying and not include the testimony of the many times that a weapon/firearm has saved a life or prevented a crime from happening is doing the American people a great diservice in getting at the root of the problem, instead the anti gun-banners want to pursue their own Agenda of limiting or eliminating the Second Amendment as opposed to actually making Americans safer.
    Nice story, but what does that help? Whatever way; if you know weapons or not, the point is the killing spree. On how that is done etc. really does not matter; dead is dead, regardless if it was clearly targeted or a stray bullet. So you can publish whatever the Russians did with their AK 47 or how Johny X shot off his foot by accident with his Luger model whatever, it does not change the present subject. Guns kill; full stop.
    Therefore I repeat my message:


    "BB" Your last line is absolutely correct; the US is the laughing stock of the world right now. !!
    Question how come the US is the only country in the world who is just like a little kid, fond of its teddy bear; like love for guns, love uniforms the more stickers and medals on it the better, call a 1776 piece of paper "holy", love shooting zombi movies, nintendo etc, the more blood
    and the bigger the guns the better. In Europe they are shaking their heads every day again.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Certainly it matters when a group is pushing for an agenda by using half truths and innuendo's that will have a profound affect / change on all American citizens, when these groups state the amount of deaths killed by firearms then omit the saving effect these firearms ,is misleading, when most of these deaths some say the vast majority is caused by handguns and not long guns, and then to have these groups cry for the banning of long guns is absurd when speaking of the safety of Americans. When they can't gaurentee that criminals will also not be able to obtain these types of weapons,then that makes their point moot. Their Agenda is clear ,limit or eliminate the Second Amendment!
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:the point is the killing spree.
    That is pointless. . . That's like saying because of the dangers of electricity everyone needs to wear a lightning rod on their head.

    The 'killing spree' is the lightning strike amongst gun crimes. You really want to lower the deaths from guns? Start focusing on those who actually commit the crimes; arrest, prosecute and punish them like you actually want to reduce the crime instead of looking the other way and blaming law-abiding gun owners just to feed your illogical, emotionally based feeling that it's the guns that are are evil.

    Dutch Wrote:Question how come the US is the only country in the world who is just like a little kid, fond of its teddy bear; like love for guns, love uniforms the more stickers and medals on it the better, call a 1776 piece of paper "holy", love shooting zombi movies, nintendo etc, the more blood and the bigger the guns the better. In Europe they are shaking their heads every day again.
    LOL.

    I really can't think of a more useless, ineffectual argument denigrating US gun rights than saying Europeans disapprove.

    BTW, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
    The US Constitution went into effect in 1788.
    The Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    #1.....I'm in the middle and to the right on all of this. I'm a gun owner. I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even though I'm not convinced on the SCOTUS take on the 2nd Amendment.


    I would hope and certainly believe that our military personnel are better trained then these deranged, mentally unbalanced mass shooters.
    Also, notice that we don't send our modern military into battle with single bolt action rifles, and they all undergo both classroom and field instruction before they are given bullets to go with their weapons.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You can't portion out a Right,if you do then it becomes a privilege so you either have it or you don't,and as with all Rights there comes a certain amount of responsibilty on the part of those invoking that Right, just remember ,without the Second Amendent, there is no enforcable way to sustain or defend all of the other Rights.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's important to make sure your "citizen army" is well trained. It defeats the purpose of arming them if you don't have sensible rules to limit and prevent unlawful and ignorant individuals from acquiring weapons.

    Our schools should teach that weapons are tools to protect life, and not to be glorified as killing devices.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is no definitive way to exclude the deranged or manic person from obtaining a weapon, we have men of the cloth abusing our children,who would of thought of that on the seminary application, we have teachers of both genders abusing our children, I am sure that there was background check on them, we have our political leaders engaging in acts abroad that would merit jail time here and also here at home,where too many had to resigned in disgrace, no, the answer lies in us, we must demand accountabilty from these people, we must punish those who commit the crimes,then ponder on the whys and how comes,not before the punishment. Our political leaders right now seem content to continue to divide this Nation along political,racial, and economical lines to ensure their own positions. Unlimited authority always leads to corruption,term limits is the way to miminize the progress of corruption.
  • Pennsylvania
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    For me, the problem is with labels and definitions describing the intended use of the tool. Yes, a hunting rifle could be called an assault weapon, but so can a baseball bat when it is used outside of its intended application.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Furthermore, an originalist, strict-constructionist take on the 2nd amendment would only condone ownership of late 18th century firearms, as these were the "arms" that the founders were referencing. So I think there's power at the federal level that's constitutionally available to do a lot more than I see as necessarily prudent.
    Carlitos,
    Great post, though I disagree with this particular part. I would think that an originalist's take on the 2nd Amendment would argue that the Amendment would condone a level of armament for a civilian that is proportional to the government that they wish to keep from getting tyrannical.

    That, of course, is clearly impractical and would be catastrophic if people were driving around in tanks and flying fighter jets.

    Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but I like to think that the authors of the Bill of Rights wanted the document to stay relevant with the times. However, there is no way they could even begin to imagine the technology of today and how destructive it could be.