Guns - Let Talk Compromise

[ShinyTop]

Neither side of the gun issue is willing to compromise. I am a believer in private ownership of guns. But I did not renew my membership for two reasons, one the NRA's inability to compromise when I feel they should and two, the incessant requests for more money.

Now I understand the NRA or any gun owner hesitating to compromise. Especially after the BS that the state of California pulled.

But maybe if the fears of gun owners could be allayed we could make some common sense compromises.

For instance, I see nothing wrong with ballistic registration of guns. It would help us all if perps of gun crimes were caught and put away. And besides, when the public sees that most gun crimes are not commited with the legal guns it will only back what we have been saying all along, gun laws will not reduce crime. By definition criminals do not obey laws.

Now what could we get back. Let's start with the elimination of laws regarding magazine size, folding stocks, and flash hiders. And if we get really lucky a lifting of the ban on semi automatic weapons that Clinton outlawed.

But what will the anti-gun folks do to allay our fears this is just the first step towards confiscation of our guns? How about part of the law is that no more restrictions can be put on gun ownership without a national referendum? How about a clearly worded amendment clairifying the right to gun ownership?

What can they offer? After all, our country is supposed to be about compromise on prickly problems.

[jamming]

Ballistic's can be easily altered by a machine shop that can make the registered pattern completely unrecognizable. I could throw off the detection in most cases with a circular file. This fellow and his accomplice were so organized that they could of done this themselves, it is really only the stupid or incompetant criminal that would be caught with this. Just another Dumb Idea brought to you by Michael Moore and the rest of the stupid left, not to be confused with the smart left, which seems to get smaller every day.

[ShinyTop]

Cool. What can we do to take the constant pressure off - what compromise can be reached? I am afraid if we don't we will have more crap rammed down our throats.

[jamming]

I am actually leaning towards this one because it is so easy to by-pass, but it galls me to think that they would still use it to say look what we did. When really it is nothing important and would cost a lot of taxpayer's money to keep track of it.

[ethics]

Great thread, Shiny. :)

Can the pro-gunners accept that all guns sold MUST have some form of a lock?

[ShinyTop]

I don't know about that one. With no kids in the house and gun for self defense they had better come up with a lock I can get off in a hurry. I think maybe a lock when children in the house? A thorny one.

[Coot]

There's been talk of electronic fingerprint ID that only allows the firearm to be discharged if it recognizes the legal owner's fingerprint...that too can be easily bypassed.

The truth of the matter is that anything imposed restricts legal owners and is easily negated by illegal possesors. This includes designing and machining your own gun from scratch...which I'm pretty sure I could do and I'm anything but a master machinist.

[mikeky]

I might go so far as to consider a mandatory gun safety class for those wanting to purchase a firearm.

Also, very stiff penalties for those accountable for gun accidents, e.g., the irresponsible parent that doesn't lock the gun and his child is killed playing with it, or the hunter that shoots at anything that moves and kills a bystander. No longer allow "I'm sorry" to be good enough.

And sure, do the ballistics database, even though it's possibly flawed, it might prove somewhat useful.

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,
I destest violence, and believe that the use of guns is, almost always, like almost all war, basically evil.
That having been said, I am still unconvinced that the USSC got the grammar right in <i>Miller,</i>, and find the tendency to control a basic right for the general public good is rather frightening. Without wishing to argue against stare decisis, I do find that the plain langugage of the amendment, and the court's statement that the amendment exists only to allow for a militia is reading a lot into a gerundive. Thus, I cannot say for certain that gun control in general is simply not contravened by the amendment, merely that current precedent allows for it.
However, "interpreting" the text in a way that allows for a popular, and obviously morally proper, thing such as handgun control will become insidious when we apply the logic to other basic rights. Thus, the danger of a few lunatics with little or no saftey training is to be weighed against the loss of strict construction. I am not willing to have the government tell me what to believe, or attack my domicile, and, with all due respect to the court, I believe that it is the intention of the framers to use thr rights granted in the second amendment to defend those in the others, even against the government. Else, the gerundive must be applied only positively, and there is no reason, other than convenience, so to do.
I still prefer Jefferson.

All good wishes,
YAzdziik

[EMIG]

Please explain re: Jefferson.

Have you looked at the Emerson case? It looks like Second Amendment law is finally coming back from the twilight zone.

[ethics]

Martin, EMIG, and others.

I agree to what you are saying Martin, guns ARE inherently evil. However, based on the construct of our Constitution, we must find a compromise. For everyone who feels like you and me, there are people who want their rights and essentially guns.

What we can't do by law, I think, and I may be wrong, we can do with comporise.

Mikeky brought up another good point on schooling of potential owners. Will people accept THAT as mandatory?

If you want a gun, you basically go for not just learning how to shoot it but mostly how to keep it safe, clean it, and all kinds of lessons on kids and curiousity.

EMIG, I am not sure about your last sentence regarding the 2nd ammendment.

[jamming]

The right to bear armes, is predicated to protect ourselves from outward or internal material. I think that we should require mandatory training at the high school level showing the effectiveness and how to properly use a Long Rifle or Shotgun. They would go for one week of classes, on the basic operation and cleaning of the rifle, shotgun, revolver and pistol. They would learn the laws that regulate the use of the guns. Those that passed are considered members in good standing of the militia, part of the process is to register for the draft. With a militia affirmation ceremony, similiar to the military oath, this would be required to purchase a weapon and could be documented on thier drivers license.

[ShinyTop]

I would love to see that. I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell, but I would love to see it.

[fritzmp]

First off, guns are not evil, only men who use them are. Guns are a tool and a good one at that. Like fire I can cook with, I don't try to give my neighbor a bath with it which is evil. Many noble things have been done with a sword and a gun, too include saving ones own life from evil. Liberating Europe from evil. The list is long too include our own Independence.

The second Amendment says Regulated Militia, I see that to include training by the state and not to userp our rights and protect people who are a danger to them selves and others. It was not written as a suicide pact, but the intent should stay intact. Protect our selves from those who would do us harm too include our own Government.

I found this and looks to be a well middle of the road Second Amendment view on Emerson and the 5th district court.



http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/emerson/So a news report that refers to the legal rationale for restricting "a person's Second Amendment right to bear arms" is arguably conceding the field of battle and just negotiating the terms of surrender. (http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/emerson/)

[Domh]

I think its a given that I am considered the token reactionary conspiratorial lunatic around here, correct me if I am wrong, but whenever the issue of 'gun control' (bit of an oxymoron in my opinion) comes up, I cannot help but think of Hitler.

One of the first things he did upon rising to power in Germany was to completely disarm the public, something many of our federally elected officials have clearly stated they would love to see done. "No guns - No problem!" Oh brother, thats some stellar logic.

I am against gun registration. I feel it is patently unconstitutional and contrary to the basic tenets upon which this country was founded.

It is our responsibility as Americans to keep a watchful eye on our governing bodies. It is naive in the extreme to think that our government would never turn against us and use force in the pursuit of denying us our rights. It may seem very unlikely, and I agree that it probably is, but it is not an impossibility, and I for one intend to remain armed - in the pursuit of shooting holes in pieces of paper, blowing cans off of fenceposts, defending my life and property from those with criminal and violent intent and, if need be, protecting myself from a governing body and its military that no longer represents me, and seeks to unjustly infringe upon my rights as a human, and as an American. Unlikely? I think so. Impossible? Only a fool believes, and so like my old New England ancestors say "Better safe then sorry - ayup!".

That being said, I do realize that because of the state of modern American society and culture, something DOES need to be done as regards firearms in this country. Strangling the second amendment is not the solution, neither is simply passing out rifles and ammo to every 18 year old kid. "Good luck cowboy!"

Education, as always, is the solution. Jammings idea, a couple posts up, is excellent - hits the nail right on the head. I would bring it one step further. I am in favor of mandatory military service, 2 years, for every American citizen.

Take a look at the present generation of young Americans. Nobody needs 2 years in the military more than these kids do. I think it would be one of the wisest moves we could make to ensure that America does not continue down the path upon which it presently walks.

[BigDeputyDog]

/ramble on
As a father, law enforcement officer, private citizen, husband (well, I used to be!), brother, and, friend my thoughts and emotions on firearms are all over the spectrum.
I have seen the carnage and effects on survivor's lives that can be brought on by the discharge of a firearm. I have witnessed the aftermath of the use of both legal and illegal weapons. I have both fired and been fired upon. I have unholstered my weapon and shot to defend both my life and that of a stranger. I have had a family member whos life was shortened by an "unloaded" gun, and another who took their own life with a legally purchased and owned weapon.
I am an advocate of responsible and intelligent gun ownership. This includes, but is not limited to, attending an approved weapon safety class, range qualifying, and extensive background check.
IMHO, this country does not need more restrictive or additional gun laws. There are plenty (if not too many) laws already on the books. What is needed is more emphasis on the penalties involved in breaking these laws. I can incarcerate them and hold them until they are in front of the judge, but then their fate and sentencing is out of my hands. It is an excercise in futility when a police officer "locks 'em up" and the judge "turns 'em loose".

Oh... and by the way... guns do NOT kill people... people do... I've carried a weapon for over 30 years and not once did it ever fire without a finger pressing on the trigger...
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

Thanks for the opportunity to say my piece... please return to your regularly scheduled thread...

/ramble off

BDD... :{)

[-Ken]

I do not believe guns are inherently evil. I have no problem
with people keeping guns for protection or sport.

While I don't hunt, I have nothing against people who do. If
people wish to shoot at targets as sport I see no problem with
that, at all.

There is no need to compromise - as long as the gun owners
will take responsibility for their guns. Whether or not trigger
locks work or bio-locks will do the job really doesn't make a
difference to me. If a gun is stolen during a robbery the owner
needs to do some serious explaining. If we grant them the
responsibility of gun ownership, we need to know they will
be responsible.

There should never an instance where a home gets robbed and
while the family jewels are protected in the safe, the gun is stolen.

I think you would find, if you all will agree to "take responsibility"
for your weapons (and I know most of you do) I think you will see
an amazingly diminished argument from the anti-gun coalition.

Let’s face it. The people who don’t own guns are never responsible
for illegal guns turning up on the street. If you gun owners can make
it so next to no guns end up in criminal’s hands, most of the rest of us
would have very little to complain about. But the fact of the matter is,
many of the guns criminals use do come from legitimate gun owners.

[Domh]

Originally posted by -Ken
Let’s face it. The people who don’t own guns are never responsible
for illegal guns turning up on the street. If you gun owners can make
it so next to no guns end up in criminal’s hands, most of the rest of us
would have very little to complain about. But the fact of the matter is,
many of the guns criminals use do come from legitimate gun owners.
I disagree.

There is a big difference between owning a gun and possessing a gun.

Most of the guns used to commit crimes move around from criminal to criminal, never legally bought or owned, merely possessed by individuals who have not demonstrated that they are capable of responsible use.

You cannot blame responsible gun owners for the actions of irresponsible gun users.

edit - typo

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,
I think I covered my point by referring to cases and things that people may not have read.
Let me restate it:
Even though I hate guns, the second amendment, like all others, needs to be strictly construed; therefore, the right to bear arms ought to be unrestricted.
I believe the court erred in Miller, as the language of the phrase is not restrictive.
Thus, regulations may not create an onus which would influence the ability to bear arms, i e, if the regulations would make it less likely, they are, in fact, unconstitutional.
I am in absolute agreement with Domhain, that all young people should be required to do some service to a land whose freedoms allow them to speak, to carry weapons, to be free form search and so forth.
The right to bear arms is a much a protection against the government as each other and natural predators.
Therefore, what I meant by "I prefer Jefferson" is that the amendment stands without excessive "interpretation." It is dangerous, but less so than an armed police force and an unarmed citizenry.
I hope this clarifies, as some apparently feel I took the opposite position of that which I in fact did, due to my use of obscure references, for which I sincerely apologise.
Gun control, like censorship, is un-American. Reasoned debate, like reasoned ownership of guns, is part of our rational humanist culture, and those who would remove one most assuredly are not far away from removing the other.

All good wishes,
Martin

[ethics]

Here's a twist on the topic and a personal question.

With all of you folk being pro-gun, would you still own a gun, in your home, illegaly?

[Domh]

If the supreme court somehow managed to rescind the second amendment I would start stockpiling armaments, post-haste.

As I mentioned in a post above, that was Hitlers first move.

If the government ever tells me that I am not allowed to own a gun, that will be all the evidence I need to ascertain that I will soon NEED a gun.

[Sunriser13]

Originally posted by Domhain
If the government ever tells me that I am not allowed to own a gun, that will be all the evidence I need to ascertain that I will soon NEED a gun.

One hell of a good point... albeit a scary point...

[ethics]

Domhain, I meant like if your city didn't allow you to have guns (like NY's NYC) would you anyway?

[fritzmp]

better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. That's my answer.

[Domh]

Nope. I would move.

I respect local governance, and realize that the balance between federal and local jurisdiction is razor thin, so damn thin that I cant figure it out half the time.

I also think that in most cases, local people know best what locals need.

But it gets sticky when local governments start infringing on a citizens federal rights.

Annnnnd, here we go into a different topic.

;)

[mikeky]

Originally posted by ethics
With all of you folk being pro-gun, would you still own a gun, in your home, illegaly?
Yes.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by -Ken
If a gun is stolen during a robbery the owner
needs to do some serious explaining. If we grant them the
responsibility of gun ownership, we need to know they will
be responsible.
Now, wait a second, here.
Due to the laws of the State of my domicile, I've pretty well been forced to purchase a several hundred dollar 'gun safe', to store my guns.

Are you now suggesting that, if my home is robbed, and some of my guns stolen, that I am somehow responsible ("serious explaining"), rather than the scumbag criminals that broke into my home?

"Responsibility" may sound good, but exactly who decides whether I've met who's criteria? Isn't anyone upset at the burglers anymore? Do I now risk more jail time than them?

I suggest that regulating me, and others like me, is not going to solve the problem; no matter how good it feels.

Regards,

[EMIG]

I'll do my best to explain the sorry state of Second Amendment law. Hopefully Martin et al will forgive the lame inadequateness of this summary. Please consider that I am not willing to spend a couple of hours on the Web researching this more carefully.

Back in the '30s some bootleggers were caught with a sawed-off shotgun. They were convicted under some local or Federal law that proscribed such weapons. They challenged the constitutionality of said law on Second Amendment grounds. They won at the appelate level, and the prosecution appealed to the Supremes. The SCOTUS sent the case back down to the lower court asking for more clarification on whether a sawed-off shotgun was the kind of weapon that would be useful in a militia. The bootleggers, freed by their win at the appelate level, had long since skipped town. Those are the particulars of the Miller case.

To modern eyes, the Justices' question to the lower courts looks a little strange. It seems to justify private ownership of howizters, and outlaw handguns. You must understand the context of Second Amendment law at the time.

There had been an earlier challenge to a Chicago (I believe) law that banned brass knuckles and billy clubs. The SCOTUS had upheld the law on the basis that such weapons were only likely to be used by "blackguards", and were not useful in a militia.

Thus the Court was only trying to ascertain if it could use the reasoning from the prior case to uphold the law.

This seemingly unimportant case was perversely twisted into acting as the foundation for the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

That line of thinking is that the Amendment protects the State's right to field a militia, not the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Proponents point to the National Guard as evidence that state militias are alive and well.

This "collective right" ideology is such a bizarre distortion of the plain language of the Amendment and of the Miller case, that even scions of the left like Larry Tribe agree that it's probably wrong.

That shaky edifice stood until a Federal judge found that a Texas doctor's Second Amendment rights were violated by a Federal law meant to mitigate domestic violence. The District Court amazingly agreed, and the SCOTUS refused certiorary.

If the Amendment does indeed protect an individual right, a lot of the more ridiculous gun laws are unconstitutional. Whereas no constitutionally protected right is absolute, and lots of restrictions even on the right to free speech are constitutional, the burden on the government for placing such restrictions is much higher. Things like the so-called assault weapons ban which proscribe guns 'cause they look mean, would be clearly unconstitutional.

I'm not surprised the Supremes refused to hear the Emerson case. It's essentially brand-new law, and they probably want to have a few more lower court cases for reference before they take a look at the matter.

I thought the Fifth Amendment and Commerce Clause arguments in Emerson were also strong, and I wish the SCOTUS had heard the case on those grounds. I guess they want their relatively recent Commerce Clause decisions to receive more treatment in the lower courts as well. But I digress.

Regardless of what you think about guns, you should be outraged by the cynicism and sophistry of the process that created the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. It weakens the Bill of Rights, and Constitution as a whole.

I understand how many right-thinking people can feel that the Second Amedment is an anachronism. That is all fine and good. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and last I checked there were no exceptions for anachronisms. If you sincerely feel that the time for people to own guns is past, you should work to have the Constitution amended. Further tampering with the Second Amendments' plain meaning sets a dangerous precedent in constitutional law.

[ethics]

Originally posted by EMIG
I'll do my best to explain the sorry state of Second Amendment law. Hopefully Martin et al will forgive the lame inadequateness of this summary. Please consider that I am not willing to spend a couple of hours on the Web researching this more carefully.


The trick is the opposite, to research the best way and the most efficient. One does not need hours on the net.

Excellent post and good info.

[ditch]

An opinion from the antipodes.
The gun culture and public feelings on guns in OZ is vastly different to the US. We have similar debates going but there is no "right to bear arms" written into a constituition as you have. We have strict rules for gun ownership with all guns held in private hands registered. Certain types of automatics are illegal. Infact all types of autos I think.
Fact is...they all should be banned. Self defence..I dont want a gun for that. I certainly wouldn't or couldn't shoot anyone. So tell me I'll soon change my mind once the Muslims start invading.
Guns kill. That line that people kill, not guns is a shallow argument. If people want to kill often its a gun they turn to. Last week in Melbourne some bloke walked into a tutorial at a university and started shooting. He killed two and wounded several more. He was a registered legal owner of the firearms he killed with. So don't tell me registration means safety from crazed killers.
Someone said earlier that knuckle dusters are illegal. For goodness sake, so howcome guns are considered safer and can be legally owned?
There are significant cultural differences between us on this issue I know. I also know a few of you will find my comments offensive. I find however the pro gun voices so extreme in your country compared to those voiced in OZ and couldn't resist voicing my opinion. I look forward to your replies and to making some more of my own.

[jamming]

Your heritage is that you were given your independence we had to take ours. France which has a more restricted policy than yours had a Farmer kill 8 people with his single shot break apart shotgun. Japan had a man go berserk and kill 11 with a Sword. Building a policy on extremes is not necessarily the best way to make choices about it. Someone cited the study by a Chicago based professor who showed that legitimate self defense stopped 7 times as many crimes as the number of people who died by suicide, accident, or murder. His original study was a surprise to him as he entered the study leaning toward handgun control, what he found surprised the heck out of him. Not all studies are commissioned to lie by those which cite them

[-Ken]

<i>jfcjrus said:</i>Now, wait a second, here.
Due to the laws of the State of my domicile, I've pretty well been forced to
purchase a several hundred dollar 'gun safe', to store my guns

Are you now suggesting that, if my home is robbed, and some of my
guns stolen, that I am somehow responsible ("serious explaining"),
rather than the scumbag criminals that broke into my home?

"Responsibility" may sound good, but exactly who decides whether I've
met who's criteria? Isn't anyone upset at the burglers anymore? Do I
now risk more jail time than them?.

I believe you misunderstood part of what was trying to say but did get
the gist of it.

No, I am not in support of burglars. If someone breaks into your house,
I believe you have every right to detain them and should your life be
actually threatened to defend yourself.

Conversely, if someone can break into your house and steal your guns
I guess your guns were not "safely" stored. I understand RRedline's
concern regarding trigger locks and I agree with everyone that a gun
needs to be readily accessible when needed but I also believe they also
must be secure from being stolen easily.

What I was referring to as far as the serious explaining comment is the
irresponsible idiot who leaves his gun locked in his car ot perhaps in a
drawer with no trigger lock. This is unacceptable.

<i>Domhain said:</i>There is a big difference between owning a gun and possessing a gun.

Most of the guns used to commit crimes move around from criminal to criminal, never legally bought or
owned, merely possessed by individuals who have not demonstrated that they are capable
of responsible use.

You cannot blame responsible gun owners for the actions of irresponsible gun users.

I'll take issue with that line of hooey.

Somewhere between manufacture and the criminal hands is a obvious
breakdown in the system. For you to say otherwise is ludicrous. We need
to prevent this from happening.

Where does this occur? At the factory? No, I don't think so, even though
there is probably some theft occurring there (like any other industry). So,
if not the factory, at the distributor? Again, no with the possible exception
of the occasional employee problem which can happen anywhere. On to the
gun dealer. Most of them are reputable and with the regulations and oversight
in their end of things, I don't believe the majority of guns are finding their way
onto the streets from there.

That leaves us with the private owners. Sorry guys but unless you know of
somewhere else where these guns come from, it seems you guys are left
holding the bag.

One more comment I would like to make, if you are locking your guns away
in one of those gun cabinets which has the etched glass picture of a deer on the
front, who are you kidding? That is not safely stored and we both know it. If you
can take an axe and gain access to your gun cabinet in fifteen or less, it isn't safely
secured in my book.

<i>Jamming said:</i>Not all studies are commissioned to lie by those which cite them.
As if the NRA would post a study which didn't agree with their views in an attempt
to deliver a "balanced viewpoint". Hey, that is funny.

[jamming]

As if the NRA would post a study which didn't agree with their views in an attempt to deliver a "balanced viewpoint". Hey, that is funny.

You must be tired from jumping to conclusions all the time, I said that a study being from NRA point of view or even from Handgun Control doesn't invalidate it, on the face of things.

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,
EMIG described perfectly the objection of constitutional scholars to the current state of affairs.
Essentially, rights are either inherent or not; Marshall, once and for all time, declared this in Marbury, "There is no middle ground."
Thus, the so-called "collective rights" theory, the half-assed elucidation of which in Miller created the hole in the dyke through which the filthy waters of oppression now leak, is anathema to the written word.
While Holmes may argue that experience, rather than logic, is the essence of law, that, like majority rule, stops at the Bill of Rights. If experience teach us a granted right be dangerous, then experience be damned.
I still prefer Jefferson.
To answer the question posed by Ethics, there is no way that owning a gun can be illegal, there are merely fallacious court decisions. I, worshipping at the altar of stare decisis, will still not take a knife to my son's heart, for no god, nor any sane judge, would so require. Thus, at the point where the courts, swayed by "common sense judges," fail to assert against the mass hysteria of those needing protection from freedom, then I have no choice but to declare, against my own internal preferences for docility and order, I should own a gun precisely upon that day when the courts ruled that it were lawful for the state to usurp rights. I find the current compromises ugly, ill intended, and unreasoned, but still only upon the border of true destruction of the constitution. I have sworn an oath to protect the constitution, not the majority, not the customs, not the wishes of myself or others, but the word.
In the beginning was the word, and, should we fail to take better care, the word will be all that is left at the end.

All good wishes,
Yazdzik

[ethics]

Originally posted by yazdzik

To answer the question posed by Ethics, there is no way that owning a gun can be illegal, there are merely fallacious court decisions. I, worshipping at the altar of stare decisis, will still not take a knife to my son's heart, for no god, nor any sane judge, would so require.

Thank you Yazdik, as well as others, I think you folks just made up my mind.

[ditch]

Your heritage is that you were given your independence we had to take ours. France which has a more restricted policy than yours had a Farmer kill 8 people with his single shot break apart shotgun. Japan had a man go berserk and kill 11 with a Sword

Isn't it more likely the Civil war would be having more of an impact on the US line of thinking given it is a lot more recent? Your War of Independence was a long time ago. Plenty of time to realise the Brits were no longer a threat.
All systems, including the French, are not guarantees of zero firearm fatalities. It is easy to cite individual cases and rely too heavily on them in backing up one's line of argument. Swords have nothing to do with it. People can be killed by the bare hands of another. As soon as we stray into these examples the point of the discussion is lost.
If there is a culture that encourages the "quick, get the gun" mindset then change is needed. If someone broke into my house when I was home, they have done when I was not there and were teenagers stealing electrical gear, would I grab a gun and threaten to shoot? You may but I certainly wouldn't. If they also had a gun the results would be potentially disastorous.
I don't think we are going to get far here. I know I'm preaching what you will never be convinced of and you're doing the same.