Defending the 2nd Amendment
Let me start of by asking a couple of questions. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment is worth defending? Do you believe strong enough in our right to keep and bear arms that you will stand your ground in the face of so much opposition? There is a danger of being to complacent on this issue because if there is one thing I have learned, it is that you can not trust the gun control lobby. They do not want you or me to have this right that our founding fathers believed we should have.
When President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981, his press secretary James Brady was wounded as well and the gun control lobby gained their greatest advocates in him and his wife, Sarah. Through their lobbying of Congress, the Brady Bill was passed, which aimed to prevent handgun violence. It mandated background checks for handgun purchases and a five day waiting period before the purchase could be completed. That waiting period expired on November 30, 1998, as it was replaced by the background check by the National Instant Check System or NICS. Let me be clear in stating that I have no problem with background checks. As a responsible people in a responsible nation, it behooves us to do our best to make sure someone like John Hinkley does not get their hands on a gun. Had the background check system been in place in 1981, he would have not been able to legally purchase a handgun and that is as it should be. The system may not be perfect, but it gets the job done.
One issue that has to be mentioned in any discussion of gun control is the so called gun show loophole, which in reality, doesn’t even exist. Gun control advocates have complained that gun shows allow a venue for criminals to buy cheap handguns or other firearms and bypass the background check system. Nothing could be further from the truth. All transactions by licensed firearms dealers have to go through the system, no matter if it is at a gun show or not. This does not cover transactions between private individuals at gun shows, just as it does not apply to such private transactions anywhere else in the country. I say again, there is no gun show loophole. To stop such transactions at gun shows, you would have to be able to stop them all across this country and this would even include transactions between family members.
While gun control advocates shout loud and long about this nonexistent loophole, there have been studies that show a very small percentage of guns used in crimes were obtained from gun shows. A study by the Department of Justice weighed in at 2% and I believe there is one overriding factor that accounts for this small number. Have you ever been to a gun show and tried to buy a gun of any kind? I have and although I have purchased a couple, I promise you it wasn’t cheap. A gun show is one of the most expensive places to buy a gun and it is certainly not a place where you will be able to make a profit buying and reselling guns.
There are some citizens of our country that have more trust and faith in the liberal gun control advocates than I do. I believe their aim is to eventually remove all private ownership of firearms. Why would they go to such extremes to paint the picture of gun shows that they do, if their aim is not to shut them down completely? If they are really serious about stopping crimes that are perpetrated by people using guns, then stop playing around with them and throw them in jail when they are caught. Instead, they seem to think that infringing upon our rights will stop the criminals from doing what they have always done.
One prime example of that is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, enacted in 1994. This piece of legislation put a ten year ban on the selling of semiautomatic assault type weapons to civilians. For those of you who are not gun savvy, a semiautomatic weapon is one that you can fire repeatedly by just pulling the trigger. The firing of the shot works the action and loads the next round into the chamber. This is compared to a fully automatic weapon that can be fired repeatedly by simply holding down the trigger. What the legislation actually did was to blur the lines between these two types of weapons. The criteria for a weapon to be classified as an assault weapon is listed below.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Folding stock
- Conspicuous pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
- Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
- Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
- Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
- A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
- Detachable magazine
Several weapon manufacturers simply changed cosmetic items on their weapons, renamed them, and started selling them to consumers. So you can see, despite all the claims that the ban has lowered crime, it simply isn’t true. The weapons are still on the market and have only been cosmetically changed, which does nothing to increase or decrease their effectiveness in doing what they were designed to do.
This kind of legislation is just one more reason I distrust the gun control advocates. They like to enact legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban, that is loaded with ambiguous language that can be construed to say what they want it to say. What they should do is actually enforce the laws that are already on the books, instead of spending time and money on a bill that did no good whatsoever. Just so you know, President Obama favors making the ban permanent.
It’s a sad time in our country when guns are portrayed to be evil creations that no law abiding citizen should even want to have. Some insurance applications are even asking if you own a firearm, as if it is a bad thing to do. Gun control advocates do their best to draw a picture of everyone walking down the street, carrying a gun and loaded for bear. That idea needs to be rejected outright. Not everyone is wanting to walk down the street armed to the gills, but it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it should not be infringed.
There is one thing we all need to remember. The 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution for a reason and that was to protect us, the citizens of the United States, from tyranny of any kind. That means from our own government and from others as well. Do you not believe that has been a deterrent before? Let me leave you with a quote from a well known Japanese Admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto. When he was asked about invading the continental United States, he strongly advised against it. His reason was simple.
Upon landing in America, there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.
Our country was founded with certain freedoms being assured in the Constitution. One of the most precious is our freedom of speech. When our founding fathers came to these shores, they were leaving a country where they had very little rights. When the United States was being formed, they wanted to make sure the rights that were denied them in Great Britain were guaranteed in our country. Thus the 1st and 2nd Amendments were born and at great cost to some of those men who fought to establish our nation. Surely they are still worth fighting for today.
Talking about England is very relevant, even though they don’t have a constitution. They started out regulating guns and ended up at the bottom of that slippery slope with banning guns and even prosecuting people that defend themselves. I for one do not trust them enough to let them get started down that slope.
That attitude is exactly why John Ashcroft, a few years back, felt emboldened to DENY the FBI investigative access to gun background checks for possible terrorist applications. He even went so far as to advocate that background checks be destroyed 24 hours after acceptance/denial. He stated privacy as the reason, at the very same time that he was indescriminately tapping United States citizens’ telephones, and telling us that we needed to chill on privacy so that he could catch the terrorists.
I think your distrust of the Constitution and the American process is sad, but not unheard of. Listening to the hyperbole of the far right has brought you to the point where you truly beleive that a country that has no Constitution can be compared to ours, and that the left is out to destroy or restrict your rights-even when (at least for 8 years) it has been the GOP that has systematically done so.
I have no distrust in the Constitution. I have distrust in some of the people that want to be in power in this country.
AND GIVE ME A BREAK WITH THE GOP CRAP!!!! It has been a member of the GOP that kept this country safe since September 11, 2001
You are also a member of the party who elected a President who ignored urgent memos and information that, acted upon, might have prevented September 11…
Yeah, and if the Dems, namely Clinton had done their job, 911 probably never would have happened.
You’ve seen evidence Gary? Please show it to me because the Cato article certainly doesn’t supply it. Please show me the “evidence” that a nationwide restriction of one gun purchase per month will not reduce criminal access to guns. There is no evidence because it has never been tried here. Yes, it’s been tried on a state-by-state basis but when you can drive an hour to another state without such a ban the single state restriction will not have the desired effect. I’m not talking about eliminating guns from criminals — that’s impossible. I’m talking about steps that will have incremental benefits without infringing on the rights of gun owners. I’m talking about Brady Part II. You guys seem okay with Brady Part I (in hindsight) — the next step will be more effective and just as inconsequential to law abiding citizens. You see evil where there is none and don’t see the evil where it truly exists — in running personal library records, illegally recording phone calls, illegally holding and torturing prisoners. Your First Amendment rights have been under substantially greater threat than your Second Amendment rights will ever be and I believe you have been largely silent. Your priorities are really out of all proportion.
How many terrorists do you think availed themselves of Constitutional protections given by Ashcroft and armed themselves to the teeth? We won’t know until it’s too late…
I don’t have to see evidence as you call it. Common sense will tell you that a crook isn’t going to the local gun shop to get a gun to use in commission of a crime!!!
I guess it’s okay to let the terrorists that have been living in this country for years, waiting for a chance to strike, to go undetected, all in the name of privacy.
This country entered an entirely new stage after 911 and it will never go back.
Laurie, surely you don’t think that those terrorists buy their weapons legally here in the USA????? The background checks in place now would stop most of if not all that, by itself!!! I am not sure but I think you would have to be a legal citizen to purchase a gun in this country.
Of course criminals don’t buy guns from licensed dealers — they use “straw purchasers” who go into gun shops, buy in bulk, all perfectly legal, and then go sell them to criminals illegally for a nice markup. That’s how criminals get guns! I’m sure even articles from NRA-financed organizations will point that out for you.
The ridiculous aspect of the Ashcroft changes was that people on the terrorist watch list may buy weapons legally from licensed dealers. The background check may show them to be on those watch lists but that is not itself a reason to deny the purchase. But the Feds may NOT be informed of whether a weapons purchase actually took place because that would be a terrible infringement on their rights!!! Are you good with that law??? Maybe, just maybe, Second Amendment rights went a little too far here??
Yes, Mike, I find it interesting that most in this conversation have been big proponents of decimating US citizen’s rights in the name of safety, yet in the name of privacy would allow destruction of records to prevent FBI investigation and follow up on terrorists who might have slipped through our system.
So we now have a policy that prevents terrorists from bringing nail files on airplanes but allows them to purchase guns in total privacy? Pretty short sighted, but Neo-cons have always been so.
Gary wrote “I am not sure but I think you would have to be a legal citizen to purchase a gun in this country.” That presupposes that terroroists are not US citizens but I’d bet the watch list is largely composed of citizens. To your question though, yes, you need to be a resident to buy a gun from a licensed dealer; but what about all those wonderful Internet ads — I don’t think this guy whose ad appears on iwanna.com is asking anybody for their green card:
.380 Semi-automatic pistol build date Jan.2008 by Cobra arms small enough to fit in your pocket will take $80 for gun and extra rounds. 828-XXX-XXXX after 8pm.
And there are tens of thousands of such ads on websites all over the country. It’s ridiculously easy for terrorists to buy weapons in this country but not, as Laurie nicely noted, to get on an airplane with a nail file. And the gun rights answer to that seems to be: “I’ve got my guns and I’ll protect what’s mine — you figure out how to take of yours. Just leave me and my guns and my rights alone.” Thanks.
Back to keeping our country safe since 2001…
In 2005, latest year I could find stats on, 30,694 Americans lost their lives at the barrel of a gun. That’s roughly 10 times the number of people lost in the Trade Center attacks. Even discounting the suicides (17,000) and the accidental or undetermined cause (small number), we still have 12,352 deaths-by-guns- roughly three times as many Americans as we lost on 9-11.
We went 9 trillion dollars in debt (at least) to fight terrorism, if you buy the Iraq argument. The efforts also cost Americans some liberties as well as weakend many of our Constitutional rights.
Why do we spend so much time and money preventing one thing and not the other? This isn’t even a question of controls, completely, but really- If it’s American lives we’re talking about, then where’s the outrage from responsible gun owners?
OK Larry I changed my mind. Here’s a serious proposal so I’d like thoughtful responses without the vitriol. I have no idea if this is out there but here goes:
The ease with which guns can be purchased by simply checking the classifieds of local newspapers or combing the Internet makes control a near impossibility. So, what if that was completely disallowed – no more advertising guns for sale in those media (and I’m just talking about handguns here) – and instead a website was set up by NICS that essentially did exactly the same thing but at the national level. Sellers would post their ads on the NICS website instead of locally. Anybody who wanted to access the system, either as a buyer or a seller, would have to be preapproved by NICS (ie. background check) in order to get password access. My understanding is that background checks are nearly instantaneous so this should not be a problem. The background would not have to be run every time a user logged in — once you received password access the first time you’re basically done. The system would automatically recheck your status once every year. Once inside the system you can do searches within a certain radius of your home so everything listed would come up on your screen just as it does in your newspaper or local website. You could then close the deal with the seller of your choice by answering the ad and the transaction would still not be reportable. Completely private just as they are now. The cost of taking out the “ad” on the NICS website would be no more than it currently costs for local or online ads.
I would think that would make things a little more difficult for illegal immigrants, the mentally handicapped, convicted felons, and juveniles to get there hands on weapons by restricting access to the “inventory”. And I see no reason why both buyers and sellers of handguns at gun shows couldn’t also be subject to preapproval in the system. This changes nothing for legal purchases from licensed dealers but imposes some control on private transactions.
I’m sure you guys can and will find flaws in this proposal so please make them gently and consider what might be done to make the system more palatable for you while maintaining the integrity of the idea.
Thanks.
Mike,
I have been unable to comment much today because of my job. I want to do so quickly here and will comment more later tonight.
Time after time, you have stated that you believe there are straw purchasers going to gun shows and purchasing guns to sell to criminals at a nice profit. I have seen no evidence of that and I will challenge that statement again by asking if you have ever been to a gun show and looked at their prices. I have been to several, one was this weekend, and I promise you, there have been no mass purchases of guns to resale for a profit. You know why that is? It’s because the gun show prices are entirely too expensive. I have yet to see a gun show that would cheap enough prices to be able to do that. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
Laurie, how many of the 12,352 deaths were killed by policemen in the line of duty? How many of them were by a homeowner in defense of their lives or property?
Larry,
I should have been more clear- the 12,352 deaths in this report (from the CDC) were homicides and comprised 40% of gun deaths in 2005. That year, , there were 789 unintentional shootings (accounting for 5% of gun deaths that year) and 330 of those arose from legal intervention.
Since you haven’t been able to pay full attention to the discussion, I’ll give you a pass on not giving an opinion on Mike’s suggestion above that had nothing to do with gun shows. I am interested to hear what you think.
Mike,
Gunbroker.com does some of what you are talking about already, except it is in an auction setting. All sales on the site have to go through a licensed dealer, so background checks would be in effect.
The logistics of setting something up like you suggest would be quite a task, but not impossible. The main problem a lot of people would have with the idea is the fact that it takes away the control they have over private purchases of firearms. Most people who want to do private purchases would probably find a way to circumvent the system and find other ways to buy or sell a gun.
In regards to that, how far do you propose to go with enforcement? Should the government completely ban private purchases of firearms?
More thoughts later.
There is no issue of enforcement because I am not suggesting any restrictions at all on private purchases of firearms. Based on all of the discussions we’ve had I think that would be a non-starter if we wanted cooperation of any kind from gun supporters. My proposal simply takes guns off the classifieds pages and the Internet where people who cannot buy guns legally can currently find them and moves them to a restricted space where only NICS approved individuals can access them. In this way illegal immigrants, the mentally handicapped, convicted felons, and juveniles would find it more difficult to locate and purchase guns privately and illegally.
The transactions themselves do NOT take place within the system but continue as they do now — privately between buyer and seller. A buyer finds a gun in which they are interested and calls the seller. The transaction is not reported to anybody nor does anybody even know a call was made. But, at least in cases where the system works properly, both buyer and seller have been background checked. This does not impact private transactions at all. You want to give your nephew a gun for his birthday? No problem. A widow wants to sell off her husband’s gun collection? No problem — but she can’t put a specific ad in the newspaper. I’d have no problem if she advertised “Estate sale including extensive collection of firearms.” But I would have a problem if she listed the individual weapons by type and price. My idea is simply to make it more difficult for people who shouldn’t have guns to get them.
Is the system foolproof? Absolutely not. In fact it’s clearly very simple to circumvent — you just need someone who is already approved to give you their password. And I bet it wouldn’t take very long for someone to post passwords on the Internet; but those we could make crimes and, hopefully, prosecute. But we will make it more difficult to buy a gun privately than it is to buy a used lawnmower.
The most obvious criticism is that this is just one step removed from: a) requiring ALL firearms including rifles and shotguns from being listed (and I considered adding them but decided that was overreaching); and, b) requiring these transactions to take place on the system thereby restricting all private sales. I can’t argue that point; but it’s not my intention.
Larry,
You wrote:
“The main problem a lot of people would have with the idea is the fact that it takes away the control they have over private purchases of firearms. Most people who want to do private purchases would probably find a way to circumvent the system and find other ways to buy or sell a gun.”
Where in the Constitution is privacy of transactions guaranteed? And why must we accept the idea that you think “most” people “probably” would circumvent the system? This is complete speculation. Why not treat private sales like those from any reputable gun owner?
I don’t find your argument to be in defense of the 2nd Amendment. I find it more to be in defense of unfettered will of those who wish to do whatever they want… Back to the difference between “infringed” and “unfettered”. Setting aside logistics, how does Mike’s suggestion infringe upon anyone’s right to bear arms?
The bottom line is, you can put all the regulations and bans you want on all the weapons you want and if a criminal wants a gun he will find a way to get one. The gun control advocates want to put a regulation into place, it doesn’t work, they want to put another into place, it doesn’t work either. Then they say, lets try banning assault weapons and high capacity mags. That doesn’t do any good either, crime rates go up. Sooner or later it will come down to a full blown ban. I say it needs to stop right here, right now. Focus on the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.
The gun lobbies (and you?) said the exact same thing about the Brady bill. And it works, exactly as intended.
You’re anti-regulation, I get it. But if you and the NRA would have won the fight waged against this very smart legislation, 980,000 convicted criminals, mentally ill, and domestic abusers would have legally bought guns in 2003 alone. Very short sighted…
And, although I’m sure you’ll disagree, good things can actually come out of bad regulations (bans and laws that go way too far). Case in point: The DC gun ban. This ultimately strengthened-not weakend- your 2nd Amendment rights by affirming- for the first time in court history, I think- that guns rights apply to the individual and not just to militias. The 2nd Amendment now is tempered by, but not defined by, the militia clause in a way that didn’t exist before.
It would be really nice if someone besides Mike would take a stab at solutions to gun crime instead of sitting on the sidelines and sniping at every suggestion.
After all: If the liberals cannot be trusted in this arena and if you insist on shutting all their ideas out, then it is incumbent upon only you to solve the problem. Or are you just comfortable with 30,000 gun deaths a year (only 300 of them police shootings)? Be part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.
First off, your 30,000 gun deaths are a little off. According to the FBI website, from the years 2001 thru 2005 there were between 14,000 and 15,000 murders. AND ONLY 8,000 TO 10,000 ARE GUN DEATHS!!!
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
The self defense totals are between 143 and 183 for firearms.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
Deaths by law enforcement are between 337 and 375 for these years.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_13.html
I don’t know where you got your figures but I don’t think you can argue with the FBI.
Laurie,
I have been unable to get online tonight because I have been working on a friend’s computer and I am still in the process of finishing that up, so let me be brief, for the moment.
I have to say I resent you or anyone else saying people like Gary and myself are part of the problem because we can not come up with a gun control solution that will satisfy the people who are bound and determined to put as much regulation on guns as they can. The gun control advocates wanted the Brady Bill and they got it. Then they asked for a ban on so-called assault weapons and they got that. They are still not satisfied and want more. Make the assault weapon ban permanent they say. Ban private purchases at gun shows or just go all out and ban gun shows completely. How many more gun regulations do they require before they have enough? Before we realize it, there won’t be anything left to ban.
SIGH>>>
Gary, if you would actualy read before you write and learn how to read data we’d all be fine. The FBI stats are for HOMICIDES only. If you read my original post on this, my figures from the CDC say about the same thing. And please do interpret your own data to ward off any hyperbole. The gun lobby would have us believe that the majority of shootings every year are from cops and other law enforcement issues. Both your figures and mine show that they are a very small minority of all gun shootings. So, really- you wasted your breath saying exactly what I had already written.
Larry- You miss my point. (on purpose?) I’m not saying gun owners are responsible for gun control. Clearly, you think that’s not a solution to the 30,000 or so American gun deaths each year. But, since you reject ALL solutions that have any controls (and gun homicides continue to to eclipse the awful 9-11 deaths by three times every year), shouldn’t you then advance your own solution or those deaths are on your hands? You may be comfortable with a do-nothing society but I am not. Think about it- if our government had done nothing in response to the 9-11 attacks because they refused to find a solution-and we continued to get attacked on our own soil- those deaths would be their sole responsibility.
You people are very childish- in your approach to arguments, your feet-stomping demand to have all your rights (but take no responsibility for the consequences of those rights) and your ridiclulous, circular reasoning. “Oh yeah- I know you are but what am I?” is for 3 year olds. I respect the 2nd Amendment. I defend it. But I can never defend the uninformed, the intractible and the truly weird (GOD grants us our right to bear arms??).
I’m not all right, but I’m not all wrong, either. And I don’t expect you to think just like me (God bless America), but I do expect you to think…Your blog, which I thought at first was a good place for intelligent discussion, is like a really bad episode of “FOX and Friends” No style , no substance, and when you really get into it, just not very interesting. Mike’s posts were the exception, as they were always thoughtful, and almost always challenge you and the other bloggers to THINK, and put forth your own suggestions if you were going to reject his. And, in return, what did he get? “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nayh nyah”.
You have a long way to go, as a political commentator and a blogger. I wish you luck.
One last thing for Gary-
PLEASE learn to interpret data you put forth. The 14,000 or so MURDERS listed in the FBI table are year-to-year, not cume- and are almost exactly as I reported. EVERY year, there are that many murders.
It FEELS better to say I exaggerate, but you are the one who cannot read or interpret accurately.
Laurie, if you would look at the tables I posted, you would see that it states clearly one is for homicide, one is for self defense and one is for law enforcement killings in the line of duty. And that is the total gun deaths in this country. But I guess you don’t believe the FBI stats. I don’t know where you got your 30,000 but it is wrong. 30,000 is a number the gun control people likes to throw out there to make it look worse than it is. Besides, what other gun deaths would you be talking about other than homicides? I am not sure what the suicide deaths would be but even that number wouldn’t increase it 30,000. You are grasping at straws here.
Yes, I know the data is year to year, and no, it’s not almost exactly what you posted. The 14,000 are not all gun deaths, The most guns deaths that were murder was 10,100 in 2005. that is still a far cry from your number of 30,000.
I got my figures from the CDC site. And they say basically what your sdo. I was talking about 2005, specifically, and in that year even your stats show that 6,000 more Americans were murdered with guns than have lost their lives to terrorism in the last 25 years.
But why should we look for a solution to gun crimes when we can hide our heads in the sand and hope nobody cares?
Mike has asked-over and over- Does anybody have any meaningful suggestions on how to keep guns out of the criminals, as they are able to do in so many other countries? Try to stab at that one.
And I’m still waiting for an answer: Where in the Constitution is there a guarantee of privacy in gun transactions?
And- how does Mike’s suggestion to regulate nefarious Internet and classified gun sales infringe on your right to bear arms?
Gary-
Please learn to read. I wrote:
“Larry,
I should have been more clear- the 12,352 deaths in this report (from the CDC) were homicides and comprised 40% of gun deaths in 2005. That year, , there were 789 unintentional shootings (accounting for 5% of gun deaths that year) and 330 of those arose from legal intervention”
Our numbers are a bit divergent, and so I’ll use yours and still say: 10,000 Americans were murdered with guns in 2005, and that’s about 6,000 more than have lost their lives to terrorism in 25 years. It appears that people with guns- not terrorists- are the bigger threat in daily American life. What do we do about that?
And why can’t you answer the question: Where in the Constitution is privacy of gun transactions guaranteed?
Ignoring the question does not make it any less valid…
You must have a funny way of reading data then because the links I posted don’t say a thing about terrorism that I can see. And 10,100 gun murders is still a far cry from 30,000. I am not trying to stick my head in the sand but the only solution that you and others like you are going to be happy with is something that will do nothing but hamper law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop criminals from getting a gun if they want one. All it will do is start a movement that will slowly but surely move toward a total ban of all firearms.
I didn’t say anything about the Constitution guaranteeing the privacy of gun transactions. But I don’t see what business it is of the government if I want to give a gun or sell a gun to a family member or anybody else for that matter. All it would be is another step toward total registration which is another step toward banning a confiscating all weapons should the wrong people get into power in this country.
Really? Then, by your logic, it’s none of the government’s business if I want to buy as many guns as possible and give them to whomever I want with no traces? No matter who they are are what their intentions are, right? I mean, who’s to know? Think I just found a great way to get rich. Al Qaeda’s been looking for a connection, I hear…
Strictly speaking, there is no guarantee of any privacy in transactions. And any step you take towards the privacy issue will certainly be applied to the argument to keep Roe v Wade on the books. If you have the right to do with you guns what you wish, then certainly a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, yes? Careful what you demand- you might just get it.
I thought we Conservatives wanted to stop Constitutional interpretation and focus on strict construction and applications. Any extension of the 2nd Amendment that guarantees privacy is a wild interpretation, and certainly takes a good Conservative off message.
But of course, that’s not as fun as stomping our feet and crying “cuz I wanna!”.
I doubt very much al qaeda is buying guns from an individual. I would think they have enough money to smuggle in what they want. I think they tend to want full auto weapons, which you can’t buy in this country BECAUSE THEY ARE AGAINST THE LAW!!!
Really? Al Qaeda took down three airplanes with simple “weapons” like box cutters…Auto weapons were completely unneccesary in that excercise that killed so many and brought our country to its financial knees.
An organization like Al Qaeda, far sighted enough to install cells in this country years in advance of the actual trouble, is probably looking long range enough to equip themselves in the States. It SUCKS, don’t get me wrong, but your assertion that we should be able to give guns to “whoever we want” only plays into their long term strategy. Why go through the hassle of smuggling when you can take advantage of loopholes and the absence of any control to arm yourself to the teeth with enough firepower to so anything you wish?
Many Americans have been all too happy to see our other rights decimated over the past eight years in the name of safety. Why not advocate strenghtening the possibility for government to ensure that terrorists don’t have access to guns while retaining Americans rights to OWN weapons? The argument from the right in favor of indiscriminate wiretapping was “if you don’t have anything to hide, then your 1st Amendment rights won’t be infringed upon”. With deadly weapons that can so easily be passed- en masse, if a citzen “wants” as you advocate”, why don’t you advocate for the same thing?
Or is the 2nd Amendment more sacred than the 1st?
Wow, this is some debate.
To jump in, I would say there is a problem with the fact that terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, and other wackos and criminals can get guns in this country all too easily. However, I am completely unconvinced that the gun control lobby has come up with any effective solutions to this problem. The statistics I have read have shown that “gun free zones” tend to attract more armed wackos, who know they will not face people armed to defend themselves, and other measures of gun control, that would prevent criminals from getting weapons, are easily circumvented by the criminals, but effectively limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain weapons for legal use.
As usual, the Left is unable to come up with any suggestions that would be improvement upon the status quo, but they will continue to rail against the status quo at any and all costs and push through their doomed solutions anyway. What it the solution from the Right? Well, until someone actually can come up with a good idea, the Status Quo is still the best option we have right now.
Laurie, you said Why not advocate strenghtening the possibility for government to ensure that terrorists don’t have access to guns while retaining Americans rights to OWN weapons?
No regulations on the books nor any they want to put into effect, other than total disarmament is going to stop the terrorists from getting weapons if they want them.
This has got to stop somewhere. You are not going to convince me nor am I going to convince you to change our stance on this subject so as far as I am concerned, it’s a closed subject.
On a final note, I take exception to your remarks about Larry. He has worked long and hard to put this blog together and maintain it and just because you don’t agree with his stance on certain subjects, that doesn’t make it right for you to put him down or demean him like you did.
I think you owe him an apology.
Gary
So Gary, am I correct in saying that your answer to the question of what we can do to reduce criminal access to guns is, “Nothing”?
Don’t you see an issue of national concern when your statistics show self-defense gun deaths below 200 and murders of up to 10,000? We are arming ourselves to the teeth in the name of self-defense and that is resulting in 200 deaths while also resulting in 10,000 murders…..isn’t that alarming? I grant you these numbers don’t show how many crimes were prevented by an armed victim but they also don’t show how many additional non-lethal injuries were caused in criminal shootings so let’s just assume the ratios are similar. Fifty times as many murders as self-defense deaths….wow!
Is there really “nothing” we can do? Should we, as a country, just quit trying? Buy a bigger gun for yourself and learn how to use it — is that the answer?
Why don’t you read my proposal again and share some intelligent insight. It is not a restriction on gun ownership — it is a restriction on gun ADVERTISING. It would make it illegal for unlicensed people to advertise a weapon for sale anyplace but on a website managed by NICS. The transactions themselves are NOT regulated or even completed on the website. Nobody would know if or when a sale occurs. It simply restricts access to the “For Sale” inventory that regularly appears in newspaper classifieds and local websites. Only preapproved, background checked individuals would have access to the site. Isn’t there some logic in this?
Mike, I am not sure what can be done. I have read your proposal and I don’t really have a problem with it but there a lot of people that will, just because it will lead to registration of all guns and they will look at that as a bad thing, simply because they feel that the end goal of the gun control advocates is total bans of all guns and registration is another step that would allow that to happen. Not now, probably not in the next 5 or 10 years. But sometime in the future they would take another step and then another and sooner or later we would end up like England. And no matter what anyone says, England is relevant in this discussion because they started with small regulations and ended total banning, even prosecuting people for defending themselves. It doesn’t matter that England has no constitution. They still went down the same road that I and other gun people fear we are heading down.
As far as the gun deaths go, not to be callous, but if someone is going to kill someone and they can’t get a gun they will find some other way to do it. The guns deaths go down and I would wager other murders would go up.
My criticism of Larry speaks to his inattention to his blog and to his inability or unwillingness to engage in serious discussion when REAL proposals (like Mike’s ) are put on the table, choosing instead to take the easy shots for which he has standard answers. And I stand by what I say.
Why won’t you answer Gary’s question? And you contend that you say nothing about advocating privacy for transactions and then (in the same sentence, no less) say that it’s none of the governments business what you do with your guns or to whom they are passed. You may not have used the “p” word, but privacy is exactly what you are saying you have a right to. znd I continue to challenge you to show me what in our system guarantees this.
Please address Gary’s proposal. Why wouldn’t that provide an avenue to insure that only those legally able to obtain a gun through these sorts of transactions are able to do so?
Status quo is only good as long as it’s working. But the slippery slope Gary advocates for (the one that will allow anyone to arm a terrorist militia, free from government knowledge) seems to be potentially more dangerous than the one you accuse the left of wanting to go down.
Mike, I just read thru your proposal again. I would have no problem with that being implemented. Sounds like a reasonable plan that would make a background check be done on all transactions but keep the sale private. I would have no problem with it.
And Gary- no matter how hard you try to correlate a country with NO constitution to ours, you’ll never convince me. Perhaps the slippery slope in England (if there has been one) is due to the fact that their rights are unclear. Have some faith in our system. It’s the American way, isn’t it?
As for the contention of most on this blog that “people will get what they want regardless of the laws, so don’t write any more laws”…That applies to so many things. Why, then, try so hard to repeal Roe v Wade? I mean, if a woman wants to get an abortion (and a doctor wants to give it), then they’ll do it anyway, right? So why fight so hard against something that has been happening for many years, even when it was illegal?
Laurie, give me a break. You can’t criticize Larry because he doesn’t spend 24 hours a day sitting in front of his computer. He has a job and works there about 11 to 12 hours a day. So why don’t you back off. If you would care to read, to coin a phrase, you would see he has talked to Mike about his proposal. So back off.
Yes, I see that you find that course inevitable…..I do not and neither does the Supreme Court or the vast majority of Americans. And I find it irresponsible for our country to throw up our hands and give up on trying to find measures that can reduce criminal access to guns without infringing on gun owner rights. And I find it even more irresponsible of NRA-types to block any and all efforts and put forth no proposals of their own to address this problem.
Sorry Gary — I wrote before I had refreshed the page and seen your latest input. Thanks for the support.
Mike,
Just becuase we haven’t come up with better ideas doesn’t mean we’re “throwing our hands up.” I’ve racked my brain, and haven’t come up with anything. The Left have racked their brains and they haven’t come up with anything. Well, they have come up with “solutions”, but those “solutions, as it appears, would only make a bigger problem. If I knew a real solution, I would offer/support it, but since I see none, I am not going to simply go along with a plan, just for the sake of following a new plan. If you are a liberal this type of thinking probably doesn’t make much sense to you, but, in that case, I’m not sure I want to waste several paragraphs of this particular blog explaining fundamental conservative concepts to you.
Laurie,
I am not really sure why you decided to start with personal attacks on me and my blog and I am sorry you think I haven’t been paying enough attention to the blog, but I have to work for a living and I can not spend all of my time here. I am currently taking a quick break that I am not even supposed to be taking, in order to respond to your comments.
Sure, we disagree on this subject, but that doesn’t mean I want you to stop visiting and commenting on my blog. As for your comments about me having a long ways to go when it comes to being a political commentator and blogger, I am under no illusions about that. I started this blog because it was something I wanted to do, but I am by no means a professional. I write with my own style and there is no way around that. I try to write about things I am concerned about and if there is not enough substance or style for you, I am sorry. You are welcome to continue visiting and I welcome your comments, but please refrain from these kinds of remarks towards me or any other visitor to My Take.
Capitalista, you obviously have not taken the time to read the entire thread and I’m not going to make the effort to summarize it for you — for the record, I’m an independent. I’ve made a proposal (see #65 and #70 above) and I’m happy to hear your thoughts.
I’ve done a little research and unfortunately have come to the conclusion that my idea would very likely be a violation of the First Amendment. An independent newspaper is free to accept or reject gun ads but it appears that neither Federal nor state law can prohibit them from accepting them if they wish to.
Next….smart guns….the logical answer to keeping guns out of criminal hands is by making the guns not work in their hands. Older guns would be grandfathered in but new weapons would be required to employ the technology. I think some states have already passed laws to that effect pending design of an effective technology. Anybody know if we’re close? How do you feel about them Larry and Gary?