What is it with the Guns?

[esmith]

Well it seems that Americans have changed their minds about the banning of so-called "assault weapons" 53% oppose the actions of those that are afraid of "scary" weapons that they call "assault weapons" and those that are more knowing call semi-automatic firearms.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

Yeah I know I'm being contemptuous, so what; exercising my First Amendment rights

 

[LuisDantas]

Seriously. As a (fortunately) non-American, the whole guns thing is a complete puzzle to me.

The best I can make of them is that they tap into powerful fantasies of supremacy and boundless expression of individualism.

It is also rather obvious that mutual reinforcement has gone stray when it comes to guns in the USA. It has come to the point that most Americans seem to truly think of gun ownership as an actual civil right as opposed to the political tradition that it is in reality.

 

[esmith]

The best I can make of them is that they tap into powerful fantasies of supremacy and boundless expression of individualism.

It is also rather obvious that mutual reinforcement has gone stray when it comes to guns in the USA. It has come to the point that most Americans seem to truly think of gun ownership as an actual civil right as opposed to the political tradition that it is in reality.

It is a Constitutional right. Yes, I can understand that those that are not citizens of the US might have a issue or problem with why many of us here in the US have a desire to own firearms. I can't fully explain to you or anyone else and probably even myself why I have this desire.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a Constitutional right.

More accurately, the most popular understanding of the Second Ammendment is that it is a Constitutional right. Which is fascinating in and of itself, when one considers the actual letter of the law. It is far more fitting as a measure for gun control than for gun ownership.

In any case, a constitutional right is just the expression of the mentality of the people that accept to acknowledge it, even if by omission. That it survives to this day shows only that Americans by and large choose to perceive gun ownership as a personal right and that they also don't often acknowledge the right of living apart from guns as at least as significant a personal right.

Frankly, that is one of the oddest and most worrisome things about Americans.

Yes, I can understand that those that are not citizens of the US might have a issue or problem with why many of us here in the US have a desire to own firearms. I can't fully explain to you or anyone else and probably even myself why I have this desire.

I do have a touch of appreciation for firearms myself. They have their allure. I just think that the dangers of full acceptance of ownership greatly overcome their appeal.

 

[esmith]

More accurately, the most popular understanding of the Second Ammendment is that it is a Constitutional right. Which is fascinating in and of itself, when one considers the actual letter of the law. It is far more fitting as a measure for gun control than for gun ownership.

Not exactly, our Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. While not giving blanket allowance to all firearm ownership, it has ruled on the bases of firearm ownership. Now I am an advocate of States Rights and I hesitate to say this but, if the will of the voters in any state desires to limit the type of firearm, or any other types of accessories (magazine size for instance) they should have the right to do so as long as they do not attempt to ban all firearms. But it has to go to the vote of the people not the vote of their elected officials. Again this only applies to individual states not a Federal law. And I will make one point quite clear; There shall be no Federal Law enacted that goes beyond what is now on the "books" that limits any firearm or parts associated with a firearm, only States can be allowed to do so.

In any case, a constitutional right is just the expression of the mentality of the people that accept to acknowledge it, even if by omission. That it survives to this day shows only that Americans by and large choose to perceive gun ownership as a personal right and that they also don't often acknowledge the right of living apart from guns as at least as significant a personal right.

Yes I see it as a personal right. In your statement "perceive gun ownership as a personal right and that they also don't often acknowledge the right of living apart from guns as at least as significant a personal right." I take it you mean that if I have a firearm and someone who does not want to be associated at anytime with a firearm I should have to give up my right to appease someone else. Is this what you are saying? If so the answer is no. For instance, in a couple of states they have passed a law that allows personal use of marijuana which implies that they have a personal right to use marijuana. Therefor in your argument a person that objects to the use of marijuana has the right of living apart from marijuana as at least as significant a personal right.

 

[Underhill]

Not exactly, our Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. While not giving blanket allowance to all firearm ownership, it has ruled on the bases of firearm ownership. Now I am an advocate of States Rights and I hesitate to say this but, if the will of the voters in any state desires to limit the type of firearm, or any other types of accessories (magazine size for instance) they should have the right to do so as long as they do not attempt to ban all firearms. But it has to go to the vote of the people not the vote of their elected officials. Again this only applies to individual states not a Federal law. And I will make one point quite clear; There shall be no Federal Law enacted that goes beyond what is now on the "books" that limits any firearm or parts associated with a firearm, only States can be allowed to do so.


Yes I see it as a personal right. In your statement "perceive gun ownership as a personal right and that they also don't often acknowledge the right of living apart from guns as at least as significant a personal right." I take it you mean that if I have a firearm and someone who does not want to be associated at anytime with a firearm I should have to give up my right to appease someone else. Is this what you are saying? If so the answer is no. For instance, in a couple of states they have passed a law that allows personal use of marijuana which implies that they have a personal right to use marijuana. Therefor in your argument a person that objects to the use of marijuana has the right of living apart from marijuana as at least as significant a personal right.

I'm a bit confused. By, "there shall be no Federal Law enacted..." do you mean congress can't, or do you mean they better not change the law? Because I can assure you they can. The 2nd amendment is an amendment after all and it can be amended or done away with just as easily as the 18th. This is why I keep saying we need to support logical action rather than keep our heads in the sand. If we simply keep saying no, it is just a matter of time before they have the consensus to change the law or do away with it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not exactly, our Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. While not giving blanket allowance to all firearm ownership, it has ruled on the bases of firearm ownership. Now I am an advocate of States Rights and I hesitate to say this but, if the will of the voters in any state desires to limit the type of firearm, or any other types of accessories (magazine size for instance) they should have the right to do so as long as they do not attempt to ban all firearms. But it has to go to the vote of the people not the vote of their elected officials. Again this only applies to individual states not a Federal law. And I will make one point quite clear; There shall be no Federal Law enacted that goes beyond what is now on the "books" that limits any firearm or parts associated with a firearm, only States can be allowed to do so.

That is a good illustration of my point, as it turns out.

Yes I see it as a personal right. In your statement "perceive gun ownership as a personal right and that they also don't often acknowledge the right of living apart from guns as at least as significant a personal right." I take it you mean that if I have a firearm and someone who does not want to be associated at anytime with a firearm I should have to give up my right to appease someone else. Is this what you are saying? If so the answer is no. For instance, in a couple of states they have passed a law that allows personal use of marijuana which implies that they have a personal right to use marijuana. Therefor in your argument a person that objects to the use of marijuana has the right of living apart from marijuana as at least as significant a personal right.

The way I see it, you do not have a right to firearms ownership to give up. You just live in a society that encourages you to think that you do.

Instead, part of the social contract of a civilization is the inherent right to be protected from guns.

But that will only make any sense for a culture that holds ownership of guns as a lesser right when compared to public safety.

 

[Underhill]

That is a good illustration of my point, as it turns out.



The way I see it, you do not have a right to firearms ownership to give up. You just live in a society that encourages you to think that you do.

Instead, part of the social contract of a civilization is the inherent right to be protected from guns.

But that will only make any sense for a culture that holds ownership of guns as a lesser right when compared to public safety.

You bring up an interesting point. At what point does the right to safety eclipse the right to ownership? It could apply in cases like the no fly list (which we discussed elsewhere) or the apartment with 4 inch thick plaster walls where the neighbor feels he needs to keep a loaded shotgun under the bed...

 

[Revoltingest]

You bring up an interesting point. At what point does the right to safety eclipse the right to ownership? It could apply in cases like the no fly list (which we discussed elsewhere) or the apartment with 4 inch thick plaster walls where the neighbor feels he needs to keep a loaded shotgun under the bed...

Add to this the question, are we really safer with a given gun control measure?
Brazil is a good example of more gun control & less safety.

 

[Underhill]

Add to this the question, are we really safer with a given gun control measure?
Brazil is a good example of more gun control & less safety.

Well yeah, but Brazil's control is negligible. They require registration, which almost nobody does. But it is a good example of what happens when a country chocked full of guns tries to take a half measure.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well yeah, but Brazil's control is negligible. They require registration, which almost nobody does. But it is a good example of what happens when a country chocked full of guns tries to take a half measure.

Aye, it requires sensible regulation.

 

[Underhill]

Aye, it requires sensible regulation.

I don't think it does. It requires registration, then made registering an unregistered gun a crime. There is no requirement for training. No requirement for locking up guns, and the poverty in Brazil makes the worst parts of Europe look good. So the comparison itself is flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think it does. It requires registration, then made registering an unregistered gun a crime. There is no requirement for training. No requirement for locking up guns, and the poverty in Brazil makes the worst parts of Europe look good. So the comparison itself is flawed.

All comparisons are flawed.
It's in the nature of being a "comparison", as opposed to being "identical".
But the point that strict regulation is no guarantee of safety remains.

 

[LuisDantas]

You bring up an interesting point. At what point does the right to safety eclipse the right to ownership? It could apply in cases like the no fly list (which we discussed elsewhere) or the apartment with 4 inch thick plaster walls where the neighbor feels he needs to keep a loaded shotgun under the bed...

It will depend mainly on the typical mindset of the culture and on how solid its social situation is.

Rights are of course created by mutual agreement among citizens.

Gun rights are by necessity far more restricted than most, barring peculiar situations (such as the USA tradition of liberal gun ownership).

Places such as Japan and Great Britain understand gun ownership to be a very restricted privilege, as one would expect of communities with a solid understanding of social duty. In this sense the USA is very much remarkable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Add to this the question, are we really safer with a given gun control measure?

It seems rather clear to me that the USA would very much be safer with better gun control.

Brazil is a good example of more gun control & less safety.

Brazil is not a very good comparison to the USA, however. Far less political maturity (yeah, I know), considerably worse social disparities, and a largely unacknowledged yet grave deficiency in understanding of civic institutions.

Of particular relevance to the matter is that Brazilians have a confused, largely contradictory relationship with laws. There is a strong undercurrent of acceptance of clandestinity permeating this odd society, and it definitely extends to our dealings with both firerarms and criminality.

Well yeah, but Brazil's control is negligible. They require registration, which almost nobody does. But it is a good example of what happens when a country chocked full of guns tries to take a half measure.

I don't know about that. I'm not even sure which half measure you are talking about.

Aye, it requires sensible regulation.

And most of all, a solid enough society to sustain it. Brazil does not have anything close to that level of maturity and social health.

I don't think it does. It requires registration, then made registering an unregistered gun a crime. There is no requirement for training. No requirement for locking up guns, and the poverty in Brazil makes the worst parts of Europe look good. So the comparison itself is flawed.

Very much so.

 

[esmith]

I'm a bit confused. By, "there shall be no Federal Law enacted..." do you mean congress can't, or do you mean they better not change the law? Because I can assure you they can. The 2nd amendment is an amendment after all and it can be amended or done away with just as easily as the 18th. This is why I keep saying we need to support logical action rather than keep our heads in the sand. If we simply keep saying no, it is just a matter of time before they have the consensus to change the law or do away with it.

I mean that the we do not need any more Federal Laws. Hell they will not even enforce the ones we have now. Your entitled to "your" opinion, if you want to enact new laws start a campaign in "your" state.

 

[Underhill]

I mean that the we do not need any more Federal Laws. Hell they will not even enforce the ones we have now. Your entitled to "your" opinion, if you want to enact new laws start a campaign in "your" state.

I live in NY State. But the PA border is 6 miles away. Ohio, is another 40 away. NYS gun laws are already among the most strict in the nation. They actually went too far because when they asked for the input of the NRA the NRA responded with, "the only good regulation is no regulation" so they weren't at the table.

This notion that state law is the only way to go is the reason why most laws currently on the books don't work. Chicago can ban guns all day long but when a criminal can walk into a gun shop in another state 15 miles away and buy whatever they want, the laws are useless. When California passes laws but Nevada will let any moron own just about anything, the laws are of limited value. Of course the NRA doesn't mind this because they can point to these laws and talk about how they don't work.

But all of this is pointless. The reality is, and this is not opinion, that the demographics of this country are shifting whether we like it or not. We can choose to be a part of the discussion about reasonable gun laws, or not. But if you choose not to be, and try to stand on principles, then you will get regulations designed by those who do not own guns, who don't care if the laws are fare, reasonable and have no clue how to best make them effective.

 

[esmith]

I live in NY State. But the PA border is 6 miles away. Ohio, is another 40 away. NYS gun laws are already among the most strict in the nation. They actually went too far because when they asked for the input of the NRA the NRA responded with, "the only good regulation is no regulation" so they weren't at the table.

This notion that state law is the only way to go is the reason why most laws currently on the books don't work. Chicago can ban guns all day long but when a criminal can walk into a gun shop in another state 15 miles away and buy whatever they want, the laws are useless. When California passes laws but Nevada will let any moron own just about anything, the laws are of limited value. Of course the NRA doesn't mind this because they can point to these laws and talk about how they don't work.

But all of this is pointless. The reality is, and this is not opinion, that the demographics of this country are shifting whether we like it or not. We can choose to be a part of the discussion about reasonable gun laws, or not. But if you choose not to be, and try to stand on principles, then you will get regulations designed by those who do not own guns, who don't care if the laws are fare, reasonable and have no clue how to best make them effective.

Let's take a look at a couple of your statements:
1. Chicago can ban guns all day long but when a criminal can walk into a gun shop in another state 15 miles away and buy whatever they want, the laws are useless.
WRONG
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. If a person purchases a handgun in the state that they are not a resident the handgun must be transferred by a FFL dealer in the purchasing state to a FFL dealer in the purchasers state. Thus a person from Chicago can not go into a gun shop in another state, purchase the weapon and take it with them.

2. When California passes laws but Nevada will let any moron own just about anything, the laws are of limited value
WRONG
see explanation to item 1

3. Of course the NRA doesn't mind this because they can point to these laws and talk about how they don't work.
WRONG
The NRA has made it quite clear that the existing laws must be enforced. They may not agree with them, but the law is the law and they are a law abiding organization.


4. We can choose to be a part of the discussion about reasonable gun laws, or not. But if you choose not to be, and try to stand on principles, then you will get regulations designed by those who do not own guns, who don't care if the laws are fare, reasonable and have no clue how to best make them effective.
AGREE
That is why I and other are members of the NRA. They speak for us. I happen to live in a state that passed a law that basically says: keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. There are many States that have passed various other laws see: Firearm Regulations

 

[Underhill]

Let's take a look at a couple of your statements:
1. Chicago can ban guns all day long but when a criminal can walk into a gun shop in another state 15 miles away and buy whatever they want, the laws are useless.
WRONG
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. If a person purchases a handgun in the state that they are not a resident the handgun must be transferred by a FFL dealer in the purchasing state to a FFL dealer in the purchasers state. Thus a person from Chicago can not go into a gun shop in another state, purchase the weapon and take it with them.

That is only true for guns like pistols with require a background check. If a state does not require any background check or ID (which last I knew was the case in 30 states including PA and Nevada) then your point is invalid.

3. Of course the NRA doesn't mind this because they can point to these laws and talk about how they don't work.
WRONG
The NRA has made it quite clear that the existing laws must be enforced. They may not agree with them, but the law is the law and they are a law abiding organization.

Yes, but they love pointing how gun laws don't work in a city like Chicago or DC, while much of the reason for those laws being toothless is the lack of federal regulation which the NRA has blocked at every chance.

4. We can choose to be a part of the discussion about reasonable gun laws, or not. But if you choose not to be, and try to stand on principles, then you will get regulations designed by those who do not own guns, who don't care if the laws are fare, reasonable and have no clue how to best make them effective.
AGREE
That is why I and other are members of the NRA. They speak for us. I happen to live in a state that passed a law that basically says: keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. There are many States that have passed various other laws see: Firearm Regulations

Yeah, except that the NRA has refused to actually negotiate laws. Instead they simply appose any increase in regulation. So the laws that are written are completely devoid of opinions from gun owners represented by the NRA.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems rather clear to me that the USA would very much be safer with better gun control.

Aye, but government needs to let me draft the legislation.
Our incompetent leaders just muck things up.

And most of all, a solid enough society to sustain it. Brazil does not have anything close to that level of maturity and social health.

Just act more like Americastanians!