A gun-owning liberal's perspective on gun control

[tube_ee]

As the title suggests, I am both a life-long liberal Democrat and a gun owner and hunter. I am also a US Navy veteran. While I am a Democrat, I am not a "yes man", and I do disagree with my party sometimes. Here, then, are one leftie's ideas about gun control, submitted for your perusal and reasoned comment. Flames, name calling, and personal attacks will be ignored, so don't bother. I don't care, and won't respond, so it won't be any fun for you.

First of all, I start with the fact that no US court of which I am aware has ever held that the 2nd Amendment gaurantees an individual right to own firearms. While many would argue that this is an incorrect interpretation, it has been a consistent one, dating back to the 1820's. Why do I mention this? Because in our system of government, precedents matter. Like it or not, this is one of the most settled questions in all of Constitutional law. So settled, in fact, that changing it at this point would likely require a new amendment. In other words, restrictions and regulations on gun ownership and use are legal in our system, and are likely to remain so.

The question is, what restrictions are reasonable? Here's mine:

1. All adult citizens should be allowed to own firearms, in the absence of a compelling reason that they should not. This is not an unlimited right, however. I see very few people arguing that civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, RPGs, sholder-launched missiles, etc.

2. The definition of "reasonable" restriction is best kept at the local level. I doubt that anyone can come up with one policy that will make equal sense in Ney York City and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

3. Firearms carry: this is a toughie. I tend to favor the idea of open, rather than concealed carry being the "default" position. One of MY rights must be the right to make informed decisions about my own safety. Knowing who around me is armed, and with what, would seem to be critical information. I bet cops would like to know who around them is armed, too. This is the thing I'm least certain about... comments encouraged.

4. If a crime is committed with your gun, I think you bear some reponsibility for that. Not on a par with the criminal, to be sure, but still... You culpability should be judged by the measures you took to prevent the unauthorized use of your weapons.

5. I would support a requirement that all firearms sold in the US have ballistics and case-marking information submitted to law enforcement. This should be the reponsibility of manufacturers and importers.

6. I have no issue with registration and licensing laws. The Constitution garauntees freedom of movement, but you still need a license to drive a car. If I am going to be surrounded by armed people, I think I have a right to know that they have demonstrated the ability to use their weapons in a safe manner. You don't have the right to miss, and shoot me by "accident." In other words, if you're going to carry a weapon, you should have to show that you can do so safely, and that you can hit what you shoot at.

As to the argument that if gun owners have to register their weapons, the government could "round them all up", it's nonsense. If they wanted to do that, they'd use the military, and our rifles and pistols wouldn't be much help. Anyway, it couldn't happen overnight, and anyone with any sense and any awareness of the world around them would have ample time to get out. Which would be the smart choice. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" makes a nice bumper sticker, but in the event, that's exactly what would happen. You'd be dead, and they'd have your gun. Registered or not.

Registration, when combined with principles 4 and 5, allows law enforcement to track guns used in crimes down to their owners. Most guns used in crimes were legally purchased by the perpetrator. The ones that weren't were mostly stolen from legal owners. Again, if it's your gun, you have some reponsibility for what happens to it.

7. Magazine capcity restrictions: This falls into the catgory of local regulation. It's nonsensical to make blanket policies here. A reasonable restriction for a .22 and a reasonable restriction for a .45 aren't the same thing. On the personal defense side, realistically, if you can't stop or slow down your attacker enough for you to get away with a 6-shot revolver, you're likely screwed anyway, no matter how many rounds you've got on you. The goal is to survive the encounter, not to fill the air with as much lead as possible. 10 rounds, assuming that you can shoot accurately enough to be trusted to carry a gun in the first place, is more than enough. Again, there is plenty of room for discussion here. I'm not sure what the right limit is. I'm quite sure, however, that I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be walking around packing 50 - 100 round clips of 9mm. At least not where I'm going to be.

Why did I bother posting this long-winded missive here? Because I think that this issue needs to be put away for good. There are some issues that politicians use to get folks to vote for them, because they know that if they can push the right buttons, people won't examine the rest of their agenda. No one's going to get elected by saying "I want to allow the multi-national corporations who funded my campaign to pollute the air you breathe and the water you drink, and send your job to China, so that they can sell you unsafe products without fear of consequence, while paying no taxes on the profits they make from them." But they'll say "Those folks want to take away your guns", and then do all the other stuff after the election is over.

If my party wants to be able to get to a place where we can talk about the issues we really care about, we need to come up with policies that blunt these "wedge" issues. This is an attempt to do that. I expose it here first, so that it can be subjected to intelligent, impassioned criticism. Out of that will, I hope, come refinements to my ideas. When it's all hashed out, I will be presenting it to the leadership of my party.

I think the Democrats need a coherent, reasoned poilicy on gun control. I do not think that either "no one should have a gun" or "every one should be able to have whatever guns they want" are reasonable. We need to find a middle ground. I'm trying to do that.

Thank you for your time and thoughts,

--Shannon

 

[progunner1957]

Gun control or freedom - you can't have both

The Founders of our nation, who wrote the Constitution, made their position on "gun control" clear when they penned the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. These rights belong to "the people" and are bestowed upon them by a power higher than the U.S. government. These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Regarding the rights of the people, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER. This position was made undeniably clear in the language of the Bill of Rights and in the writings of The Founders in The Federalist Papers.

"The Second Amendment applies to the National Guard"... Yeah, right. The Constitution was ratified 130 years before the National Guard was formed. Why would The Founders waste their time addressing an entity that DIDN'T EVEN EXSIST AT THE TIME???? The answer is, they would not. The wording they used was "the people" and they menat "the people."

If you think that the government will not use registration of guns and owners to confiscate guns at some later date, you are denying history.
Pol Pot did it in Cambodia.
Adolph Hitler did it in Germany.
Idi Amin did it in Uganda.
Sadaam Hussein did it in Iraq.
The Crown did it in England.
Fidel Castro did it in Cuba
And yes, the UNITED STATES government HAS ALREADY DONE IT - to the American Indians!
How many governmental gun confiscations that began with registration are you willing to turn a blind eye to??

In every case, the disarmed people were either the victims of genocide or subjected to slavery, degradation or containment or imprisonment by the opressor government. It is currently happening on the African continent while the world's "civilized" nations watch and do nothing.

There is no legitimate reason for a government to continue to tighten the choker chain of gun control around the throats of a supposed free people. A government that seeks to disarm its cirizenry seeks absolute power with no accountability. It has overstepped its constitutional bounds and has breached the contract between itself and the citizens that is enumerated in the constitution. Its actions in attempting to disarm - or to prepare to disarm - its citizens are unlawful and are the illigitimate actions of bureaucrats who seek autocratic rule.

What we need in this nation is government control, not gun control.

 

[mvpel]

First of all, I start with the fact that no US court of which I am aware has ever held that the 2nd Amendment gaurantees an individual right to own firearms.

You need to expand your awareness, then, sounds like. The US Supreme Court has consistently and persistently ruled on the the Second Amendment as an individual right. A book called Supreme Court Gun Cases by David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook, and Alan Korwin covers this in detail, listing 92 cases, 44 in full.

Put simply and succinctly, Miller would have been denied standing to bring a Second Amendment claim if it hadn't been seen as an individual right.

1. All adult citizens should be allowed to own firearms, in the absence of a compelling reason that they should not. This is not an unlimited right, however. I see very few people arguing that civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, RPGs, sholder-launched missiles, etc.

This defies the founding principles of this nation. It was based in the notion that soverignty resides in the individual and certain powers are delegated from that individual to governments for the furtherance of our own interests in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How it be that an individual American citizen would have no right to "every terrible implement of the soldier," described by Tenche Coxe as the "birghtright of an American," when the power to build, possess, and use those terrible implements derived from that individual and was delegated to the United States government?

What meaning would a letter of marque have had in the Constitution if a private individual had no right to captain a combat-ready ship? How is it that in a nation where the military power is subordinate to the civil, they have the right to own weapons that would land us in jail for 5 years?

By the way, you CAN purchase a machine gun if your state's laws permit it, it just takes a $200 tax and a lot of paperwork. Next time you're in New Hampshire give me a ring and we'll go blaze away with the rental Uzi and Tommy guns at the local range.

2. The definition of "reasonable" restriction is best kept at the local level. I doubt that anyone can come up with one policy that will make equal sense in Ney York City and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

The principle that the first and most fundamental human right is the right of self-defense is exactly the same in New York City and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

We already have a patchwork of locally-devised polices, and it has brought us de-facto and de-jure gun bans and prosecution of gun self-defense in places like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City.

3. Firearms carry: this is a toughie. I tend to favor the idea of open, rather than concealed carry being the "default" position. One of MY rights must be the right to make informed decisions about my own safety. Knowing who around me is armed, and with what, would seem to be critical information. I bet cops would like to know who around them is armed, too. This is the thing I'm least certain about... comments encouraged.

The default position of police, it seems, is to assume that anyone who is lawfully exercising their right to carry openly is a criminal and a threat that must be firmly and swiftly dealt with.

Others frequently point out that concealment of a firearm yeilds what can be a critical tactical advantage in a defensive situation.

That said, I'd be happy to reeducate police everywhere to recognize openly armed individuals as allies, rather than enemies, and bring the entire nation to a Vermont-style law.

4. If a crime is committed with your gun, I think you bear some reponsibility for that. Not on a par with the criminal, to be sure, but still... You culpability should be judged by the measures you took to prevent the unauthorized use of your weapons.

Would you also support prosecution of someone who left their car unlocked, had it stolen, and used in a vehicular homicide?

5. I would support a requirement that all firearms sold in the US have ballistics and case-marking information submitted to law enforcement. This should be the reponsibility of manufacturers and importers.

Canada is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on simply registering firearms, and it's proving to be a costly boondoggle that is diverting resources from real crime-fighting measures. New York's ballistic imaging system is shaping up that way as well, and has yet to solve a single crime. This is not surprising considering that it is child's play to change the ballistic markings of any firearm.

6. I have no issue with registration and licensing laws. The Constitution garauntees freedom of movement, but you still need a license to drive a car. If I am going to be surrounded by armed people, I think I have a right to know that they have demonstrated the ability to use their weapons in a safe manner. You don't have the right to miss, and shoot me by "accident." In other words, if you're going to carry a weapon, you should have to show that you can do so safely, and that you can hit what you shoot at.

Ok, so let's have registration and licensing laws just like cars. I'll be able to buy a gun cash and carry, carry it anywhere and everywhere I go in all fifty states at the age of 16, and be provided with convenient free storage facilities for it everywhere I go.

Why, when my New Hampsire drivers' license is good in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, is my New Hampshire concealed-carry license not?

I think your comparison with cars is a bit facile, considering that a firearm is the original point and click interface. Driving a car safely involves a vast mesh of complex motor skills, observational and decision-making processes, while shooting someone who is attacking you is point-and-click.

You might also be interested to know that the State of Washington has had shall-issue carry licensing with no training requirement for the past 60-70 years or so, and their rate of of improper shootings is at or below the national average, and below that of police.

As to the argument that if gun owners have to register their weapons, the government could "round them all up", it's nonsense. If they wanted to do that, they'd use the military, and our rifles and pistols wouldn't be much help.

That's the point of owning machine guns, RPGs, and grenades. When this nation was founded the point of the Second Amendment was to insure that no military power raised under any pretense could be superior to the mass of armed Americans.

And our rifles and pistols would certainly be of use - you don't have to destroy the tank, you just have to kill the tank driver. Ask the Russians who fought in Afghanistan, for instance.

7. Magazine capcity restrictions: This falls into the catgory of local regulation. It's nonsensical to make blanket policies here. A reasonable restriction for a .22 and a reasonable restriction for a .45 aren't the same thing. On the personal defense side, realistically, if you can't stop or slow down your attacker enough for you to get away with a 6-shot revolver, you're likely screwed anyway, no matter how many rounds you've got on you.

You should drop a line to an attractive female friend of mine who was out jogging when a carload of four young toughs shouted crude comments, then pulled over, got out of the car, and started towards her about your nonsensical "six shots" theory.

I'm quite sure, however, that I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be walking around packing 50 - 100 round clips of 9mm. At least not where I'm going to be.

Most police officers carry about 45 rounds of .40SW - 15+1 in the pistol, and two spare mags. I routinely carry 24 rounds every time I leave the house - 10+1 .45 ACP in my Glock 30 and a 13-round Glock 21 mag. With my Hi-Power it's 27 rounds. Does that bother you?

If it does, I submit that it says more about you than it does about me.

In this month's "Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement" magazine, on page 8, it listed a number of cases where an attacker had to be shot many times before finally succumbing - 17 rounds of 9mm before ending the threat in Illinois; 33 shots and still standing elsewhere in Illinois; still standing after 18 shots in New York City, finally ended by a 12-ga slug.

Where you're going to be is not where a poor black single mother working the graveyard shift at a convenience store to put herself through school is going to be, and it's this kind of elitist attitude applied to what she does and doesn't "need" which has guaranteed she'll be rendered defenseless by law.

It's this oozing elitism - elitism that is in evidence even here in your post - and the notion that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting, that dooms the Democrat party's message on guns.

When the Democrat Party gets on board with repealing the DC handgun ban that has served to make that city the murder and crime capitol of the nation by insuring violent criminals a legally-guaranteed supply of defenseless victims, then I'll concede that the party might have a slender chance of reforming itself on the gun issue.

 

[tube_ee]

Please do not fall into the trap...

Of only reading the second half of the 2nd Amendment. What the courts have said, and what they have always said, is that a bunch of armed individuals does not constitute a "Well-Regulated Militia". Again, this is not "activist judges" or "hippy 60's radicals" or any other right-wing boogeyman.

This has been the position of the Federal courts, created by those same Founding Fathers as the interpreters of the law, all the way back to the very beginning of judicial review. It's settled. Done. Over. The government has the power, and the legal authority to regulate citizen ownership of weapons. Restrictions on gun ownership and use are constitutional, period. If you'd like to change that, get behind a Constitutional amendment that would do so.

Not only are they constitutional, they're a good idea. Not everyone should own a gun. I bet you know a few people who shouldn't. The question is, what level of regulation, and what specific rules, strike the best balance between the individual and the rest of society. I proposed a set of principles, and some rules that could follow from them. What are your ideas?

By the way, the idea that "the liberals" are going to round up all the good, god-fearing, Republican gun owners and frog-march them all off to the concentration camps is pure paranoid fantasy. I'm a liberal. I don't want to see anyone put in a concentration camp. Not even people who I consider to be Fascists. But each of us hunkering down behind our slogans and hurling insults at each other doesn't get us anywhere.

I had hoped for better.

--Shannon

 

[mvpel]

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy, April 1960

 

[OStateFlyer]

I'm not nearly as eloquent as some of the other members here, but here it goes. I must respectfully disagree with you about the individual right that is protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, there is another facet of the argument over gun control: There is no reason or principle that should forbid me from owning anything I desire and can afford, be it a gun, bazillion-mile-per-hour car, half-track bristling with M2s, etc. My ownership of any of these items does not infringe on anyone elses' rights, nor does it harm anyone. Using any of these items responsibly doesn't harm anyone either. If I walk around with a 15 rd magazine in my carry gun, follow the posted speed limit, and don't destroy other peoples' things with my half-track what difference does it make if I own and use them? Problems only occur when I infringe upon another person's rights, period; no matter if I do it with a fist, stick, or my trusty half-track. That is matter of personal responsibility and morality.

The fundamental problem with gun control is in order for it to work, you have to accept that you can legislate an individual's morals and behavior by regulating/outlawing/restricting an inanimate object. To me that is a simply ridiculous idea and hopelessly false. The US prohibition on alchohol is a shining example of this premise.

Given that establishing a minimal ethical standard of conduct is the purpose of law in general...it isn't even logical to outlaw an object. In an effort to establish that murder is wrong and stop murder, it is illegal. Simple enough and seemingly logical. But to believe that outlawing an object because it is used in a crime, will stop the crime isn't logical. It's the whole correlation doesn't equal causation thing. I don't kill people because I own guns. I don't speed because I have a fast car. So outlawing either object doesn't stop me from killing or speeding if that is what I choose to do. I'll just stab someone to death with a screwdriver or speed in my Geo Metro. I believe England is having a big problem with edged weapons these days?

Furthermore, by regulating/outlawing/restricting an object, you effect everyone who has a legitimate connection with it. You are taking away my responsible use of that object because someone, somewhere in an extremely small minority of the population doesn't follow the rules of law, morality, or ethics. Additionally, the infringement is based on the false assumption that it will prevent someone from misusing an object to do something that is not only immoral and unethical, but is already illegal. That makes absolutely no sense. Now consider that you are further taking away the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves easily.

With all of that said, I don't have a problem with some gun laws. I think most will agree that there are some people who should not own firearms. However, gun control should not be a local issue. Look at the problems inherent with local control in Chicago, DC, and Denver.

As far as bearing responsibility for a crime committed with your gun...this one has the possibility of running amuck real, real quick. If someone obtains one of my firearms by burglarizing my house, I should be responsible for their actions with it because I didn't lock it in a bank vault? No way, you shouldn't be taking my stuff anyway.

I look forward to what others have to say. That's enough typing for now...I'll leave the other stuff to someone else!

Brad

 

[tube_ee]

mvpel --

Thanks for the response. This is more what I was hoping for.
Some points:

As to the specific interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the real point I was trying to make was that firearms ownership has been, and will continue to be, regulated by governments at all levels, and that this has been held to be constitutional. Also, that these findings are not new.

By the way, you CAN purchase a machine gun if your state's laws permit it, it just takes a $200 tax and a lot of paperwork. Next time you're in New Hampshire give me a ring and we'll go blaze away with the rental Uzi and Tommy guns at the local range.

It's a date. Seriously, though, it would seem that, when it comes to the types of weapons a private citizen may own, we disagree. OK, that's fine, we're both free to hold our repective opinions.

We already have a patchwork of locally-devised polices, and it has brought us de-facto and de-jure gun bans and prosecution of gun self-defense in places like Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City.

The comment about local regulation was assuming that the basic principle that citizens shall be allowed to own and carry firearms, except where it can be shown that they shouldn't was the legal "minimum". In other words, the basic principle of self-defense must be honored, but the specific implementation of that priciple should be handled at the lowest level of government that makes sense. What level that is is another good topic for discussion.

That said, I'd be happy to reeducate police everywhere to recognize openly armed individuals as allies, rather than enemies, and bring the entire nation to a Vermont-style law.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying about carrying. Assuming that you and I are both law-abiding citizens, should I be able to know if you are armed? I think that I should, which leads me to favor open, rather than concealed, carrying. I can certainly see arguments the other way, but "tactical advantage" doesn't cut it, for me. I prefer to be more informed, rather than less, about the potential dangers in any situation I find myself in. What do you think? Also, what is the law in Vermont? I remember Howard Dean (whom I voted for) using it in the primaries as a model for his policy on this issue, but I forget the specifics.

Would you also support prosecution of someone who left their car unlocked, had it stolen, and used in a vehicular homicide?

That's negligence, and should be subject to some sanction. How much should be based on the specifics of the case, but the basic principle is that if your inattention leads to harm, you carry some portion of the blame.

Ok, so let's have registration and licensing laws just like cars. I'll be able to buy a gun cash and carry, carry it anywhere and everywhere I go in all fifty states at the age of 16, and be provided with convenient free storage facilities for it everywhere I go.


Sounds good. As long as, like a car, you have demonstrated the ability to operate the machine with sufficient skill to minimize risk to other around you. I'd put the age at 18, but then, I'd put the driving and drinking age there, as well. Either one is an adult, or one is not. As to WA, where I was stationed for a couple of years, I didn't know that the CC law didn't mandate some sort of certification / training requirement. That seems foolish to me. Even in the military, you've got to qualify with a gun before they'll let you have one. It seems they've been lucky. It's also likely that there's some self-selection going on , in that those who will get a CC permit are more likely to be shooters, and so able to safely carry and hit the target. I'd prefer to see that ability demonstrated first, that's all. It doesn't seem that onerous to me.

It's this oozing elitism - elitism that is in evidence even here in your post - and the notion that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting, that dooms the Democrat party's message on guns.

Please show me where I demonstrated "eliteism"? Come on, man, I make 25 grand a year, what kind of "elite" do you think I am? Also, I never mentioned hunting, other than to say that I hunt. My party's message on guns is hurting us, and that hurts other issues that I care far, far more about than gun control. I am attempting to develop some policy ideas that I can present within the party, that will basically defuse this issue. If (for example) the NRA is more interested in advancing the rest of the Republican agenda, then I won't expect much cooperation, because then the point is to use guns to get Republicans elected. If the issue is really about guns, then I hope I can use you folks, who are overwhelmingly not Democrats, to help me hash out a policy that most people can get behind, and then to try to get my side to adopt it.

Thanks for your insightful comments, hopefully we can keep the discussion moving forward.

--Shannon

 

[Number 6]

You mistate the law.

"First of all, I start with the fact that no US court of which I am aware has ever held that the 2nd Amendment gaurantees [sic] an individual right to own firearms."

You lack awareness. The USSC expressly listed the right to bear arms as one of the indicia of citizenship and refused to grant a slave freedman status accordingly. Ever hear of the Dred Scott Decision? Read it.

Then read US v Verdugo-Urquidez (110 SCt 1056 at 1061 [1990]). It uses the exact same analysis.

"What the courts have said, and what they have always said, is that a bunch of armed individuals does not constitute a 'Well-Regulated Militia'."

Wrong again. The Miller court expressly stated, using the language of the Militia Act of 1790 (now 10 USC 311) that the "militia" consists of all able-bodied males (back then; citizens now) between the ages of (IIRC) 18 and 45. That is STILL the basic definition.

Note also that the Miller court stated that, when assembled, those same citizens should come "bearing arms provided BY THEMSELVES and of a type IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME." That means ARs, AKs, MIAs, etc.; not your muzzle-loader, Thompson Contender Carbine, or such "sporting arm."

Let us know when you've completed your remedial reading course and we'll continue the discussion.

 

[tyme]

First, you've got the constitutional angle wrong, as has been pointed out. It's rather amusing that you and many others claim the Supreme Court has never upheld the 2nd Amendment as describing an individual right, yet the best evidence of this is a (poorly-written) 60+ year-old supreme court decision that says nothing of the sort. If the militia is not most of the population, you'd better change the federal definition. Doing so would probably have the interesting side effect that anyone to whom you deny firearms would be exempt from the draft. The word "regulated" back then did not mean "restricted" as it often does today.

1. All adult citizens should be allowed to own firearms, in the absence of a compelling reason that they should not. This is not an unlimited right, however. I see very few people arguing that civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, RPGs, sholder-launched missiles, etc.

Okay, let's stop after machineguns, because non-aimed and range-effect weapons are a bit different, even if citizens have the right to own them. Why don't you explain why machine guns should be prohibited, rather than asserting that and leaving us to guess why?

2. The definition of "reasonable" restriction is best kept at the local level. I doubt that anyone can come up with one policy that will make equal sense in Ney York City and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Whoa. Just above you said that a compelling reason is needed to deny someone the right to own firearms. That's on par with strict scrutiny. Now you say that reasonable restrictions can be made by any local government?

3. Firearms carry: this is a toughie. I tend to favor the idea of open, rather than concealed carry being the "default" position. One of MY rights must be the right to make informed decisions about my own safety. Knowing who around me is armed, and with what, would seem to be critical information. I bet cops would like to know who around them is armed, too. This is the thing I'm least certain about... comments encouraged.

I'm glad you like open carry. However, criminals are not going to open carry; therefore, they won't be arrested for carry very often, and your open-carry-only law will do very little good. The core issue is that getting concealed-firearm-carrying criminals off the streets is nearly impossible without violating the 4th amendment.

This policy of yours forces those who don't wish you harm to broadcast the fact that they're armed to criminals. That's why I don't think open carry is a good idea in an urban environment. if I still have the right to carry a firearm, that must mean I have the right to carry concealed. Open-carry-only doesn't prevent criminals from carrying concealed, so it has no first-order effect, and it allows criminals to immediately survey who around them is legally carrying and likely to be a problem should a violent felony occur.

The reasons you prefer open carry are precisely the reasons that "open carry only" is unwise.

4. If a crime is committed with your gun, I think you bear some reponsibility for that. Not on a par with the criminal, to be sure, but still... You culpability should be judged by the measures you took to prevent the unauthorized use of your weapons.

So, if someone steals my car and runs over someone, I'm responsible? If someone takes my knife off a table at a picnic and throws it and hits someone, I'm responsible? This is nonsense. It's understandable to want to hold someone responsible when there's a tragedy. However, the responsibility lies solely with the person who commits the crime.

5. I would support a requirement that all firearms sold in the US have ballistics and case-marking information submitted to law enforcement. This should be the reponsibility of manufacturers and importers.

Criminals who aren't smart enough to run some steel wool through the barrel and slightly scrape up the firing pin, extractor, and chamber are also not smart enough to load rounds while wearing gloves, nor are they smart enough to collect casings from fired rounds, nor are they smart enough to use revolvers instead of cool-looking glocks, preferably held sideways for visual effect.

You're trying to solve a non-problem, and you want to increase the cost of guns in the process. That database at BATFE/FBI headquarters also costs money to maintain. More taxdollars at work.

6. I have no issue with registration and licensing laws. The Constitution garauntees freedom of movement, but you still need a license to drive a car. If I am going to be surrounded by armed people, I think I have a right to know that they have demonstrated the ability to use their weapons in a safe manner. You don't have the right to miss, and shoot me by "accident." In other words, if you're going to carry a weapon, you should have to show that you can do so safely, and that you can hit what you shoot at.

The analogy to cars is incorrectly drawn. You can drive a car without a license in an emergency. When a gun is drawn in public, other than at a range, either there's an emergency or the person is committing a crime. No licensing is necessary. Nobody cares that, in an emergency, someone driving a car without a license might hit bystanders or cause a wreck. What's important is the doctrine of competing harms. In an emergency, you have the right to use whatever tools you can to try to diffuse the situation. If you cause more problems than you solve, a court then gets to decide whether you should be held responsible.

The right to, in an emergency, take actions you're not licensed to perform extends beyond merely driving vehicles. You can use a non-type-approved radio (like a HAM radio) to transmit on police bands if there's an emergency. Even without a FAA license, you're probably allowed to fly a plane in an emergency.

What should be licensed is use of a firearm in non-emergencies. Police who hold non-violent criminals at gunpoint ought to be licensed. Guess what? They are.

The ideals of this country are not compatible with prior restraint. That means, in an emergency, individuals can do what they believe is necessary. If they choose wrongly, and a court finds that a reasonable person would not have made such a mistake, there are penalties.

As to the argument that if gun owners have to register their weapons, the government could "round them all up", it's nonsense. If they wanted to do that, they'd use the military, and our rifles and pistols wouldn't be much help. Anyway, it couldn't happen overnight, and anyone with any sense and any awareness of the world around them would have ample time to get out. Which would be the smart choice. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" makes a nice bumper sticker, but in the event, that's exactly what would happen. You'd be dead, and they'd have your gun. Registered or not.

Rifles and pistols aren't of much use against a modern military? Tell that to the families of the marines who have died in Iraq. If firearms alone were not very effective, that would be a good reason why we should be able to own grenades, man-portable rockets, and other such stuff.

Registration, when combined with principles 4 and 5, allows law enforcement to track guns used in crimes down to their owners. Most guns used in crimes were legally purchased by the perpetrator. The ones that weren't were mostly stolen from legal owners. Again, if it's your gun, you have some reponsibility for what happens to it.

Most guns used in crimes were legally purchased? Since most violent criminals are repeat-offenders and are forbidden from even owning guns, somehow I doubt that their guns are legally purchased.

7. Magazine capcity restrictions: This falls into the catgory of local regulation. It's nonsensical to make blanket policies here. A reasonable restriction for a .22 and a reasonable restriction for a .45 aren't the same thing. On the personal defense side, realistically, if you can't stop or slow down your attacker enough for you to get away with a 6-shot revolver, you're likely screwed anyway, no matter how many rounds you've got on you. The goal is to survive the encounter, not to fill the air with as much lead as possible. 10 rounds, assuming that you can shoot accurately enough to be trusted to carry a gun in the first place, is more than enough. Again, there is plenty of room for discussion here. I'm not sure what the right limit is. I'm quite sure, however, that I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be walking around packing 50 - 100 round clips of 9mm. At least not where I'm going to be.

If 10 rounds are enough, why do the police get more? Police usually swarm to the site of a multiple-offender violent crime. With so many police, and so many guns, why do they need more than 10 rounds for any one gun?

The simple fact is that while most encounters with shots fired end quickly, some do not. You might as well say that people can only carry guns with 1 round, because the majority of armed confrontations never result in shots fired.

 

[willp58]

<<<<That said, I'd be happy to reeducate police everywhere to recognize openly armed individuals as allies, rather than enemies, and bring the entire nation to a Vermont-style law.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying about carrying. Assuming that you and I are both law-abiding citizens, should I be able to know if you are armed? I think that I should, which leads me to favor open, rather than concealed, carrying. I can certainly see arguments the other way, but "tactical advantage" doesn't cut it, for me. I prefer to be more informed, rather than less, about the potential dangers in any situation I find myself in. What do you think? Also, what is the law in Vermont? I remember Howard Dean (whom I voted for) using it in the primaries as a model for his policy on this issue, but I forget the specifics.>>>>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a CCW permit in NYS and they demand concealed carry. To carry open is considered Brandishing and "implies" a threat.

Some deer hunters have gotten in trouble with during deer season as they carry a large scoped handgun open and stop for gas or something like that.

This all applies to Upstate NY of course...In the big A**ple there is almost NO CCW at all.

 

[tyme]

Incidentally, the law in Vermont is that any non-criminal may carry concealed. That's hardly compatible with your views.

 

[m0ntels]

>>>3. Firearms carry: <<<
I think open carry for licensed individuals, or even maybe no license required, is a fine idea and I cant understand why it isnt legal. With your weapon in plain sight 24/7 there is no question what you are up to with it. Police could know who to watch, and could see exactly what you are reaching for if that is a concern. As to if it would make you a target, that may very well be. It may also discourage someone from commiting a crime as easily. As we all know, thugs arent near as trained as most CCW holders most times. I consider every responsibly armed indivdual as a peace officer of sorts. Like any cop or soldier, arming yourself means your duty may put you in the line of fire someday.

>>>7. Magazine capcity restrictions:<<<
Do we need them? No. Do I use them? Not really. Do I have them? My SKS came with 3 33rders and my Baby Eagle came with 2 15rders. I usually only load up 10 shots anyway because if I shoot any more than that the target looks too swiss cheesy to tell what is hitting where. Plus loading that many rounds sucks. Do I think we should get rid of them for these reasons? Certainly not. If someone wants to lug around 100 rds of ammo on their belt all day, that is between them and their chiropracter. I'd be comfortable with a S&W revo and no extra ammo on a regular basis. If I plan to go somewhere I probly shouldnt, then maybe I would feel better bringing the auto with me too as a backup. The point is, bad guys have no rules about what goodies they cant have like hi-caps, so why shouldnt the good guys get them too?

Randy

 

[Nimitz87]

Preview
A gun-owning liberal's perspective on gun control

Originally Posted by tube_ee
beeFirst of all, I start with the fact that no US court of which I am aware has ever held that the 2nd Amendment gaurantees an individual right to own firearms. While many would argue that this is an incorrect interpretation, it has been a consistent one, dating back to the 1820's. Why do I mention this? Because in our system of government, precedents matter. Like it or not, this is one of the most settled questions in all of Constitutional law. So settled, in fact, that changing it at this point would likely require a new amendment. In other words, restrictions and regulations on gun ownership and use are legal in our system, and are likely to remain so.

as many have said this is indeed false. i myself dont know to much about this subject so i cant really comment.

The question is, what restrictions are reasonable? Here's mine:

1. All adult citizens should be allowed to own firearms, in the absence of a compelling reason that they should not. This is not an unlimited right, however. I see very few people arguing that civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, grenades, RPGs, sholder-launched missiles, etc.

i and many others argue it at every chance possible. i would feel more safe w/ having citizens own these types of weapons....

2. The definition of "reasonable" restriction is best kept at the local level. I doubt that anyone can come up with one policy that will make equal sense in Ney York City and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

so is one persons life worth more then the others? i disagree. i think we should all as a union have the same laws. my state FL has made it Illegal to change any of the gun laws in FL unless done by the Federal level. so that we have a uniform across the board gun laws here.

3. Firearms carry: this is a toughie. I tend to favor the idea of open, rather than concealed carry being the "default" position. One of MY rights must be the right to make informed decisions about my own safety. Knowing who around me is armed, and with what, would seem to be critical information. I bet cops would like to know who around them is armed, too. This is the thing I'm least certain about... comments encouraged.

most cops ive talked to arent concerned w/ CWL holders....as they are usually law abiding citizens.

about open carry. open carry also always the bad guys to see whos carrying....if you were a bad guy who would you shoot first? the guy who has the gun or the little unarmed lady?....

4. If a crime is committed with your gun, I think you bear some reponsibility for that. Not on a par with the criminal, to be sure, but still... You culpability should be judged by the measures you took to prevent the unauthorized use of your weapons.

here we agree, to a pont. in the state of FL you can be held responsible for a gun that is left unlocked or uncased where someone can get it WITHOUT illegally getting it. IE B&E, burglery etc. i agree with this law as its negligence to have a kid around and not a properly stored firearm.

5. I would support a requirement that all firearms sold in the US have ballistics and case-marking information submitted to law enforcement. This should be the reponsibility of manufacturers and importers.

why? it hasnt made any major difference....that i know of.

6. I have no issue with registration and licensing laws. The Constitution garauntees freedom of movement, but you still need a license to drive a car. If I am going to be surrounded by armed people, I think I have a right to know that they have demonstrated the ability to use their weapons in a safe manner. You don't have the right to miss, and shoot me by "accident." In other words, if you're going to carry a weapon, you should have to show that you can do so safely, and that you can hit what you shoot at.

just like those cops have the ability to demonstrate shooting a gun safely and hit their target?

i believe the % of misses in a shooting are somehwere in the 90%'s by police or civillans and thats withing 7 yards.... the police are trained to.

but that already is a law. if you are defeding your home and say the bullets go through your walls and into the next house and harm someone your responsible.

oh and just like the drivers on the road can drive in a safe manner and not "accidently" run that redlight or "accidently" hit me?

As to the argument that if gun owners have to register their weapons, the government could "round them all up", it's nonsense. If they wanted to do that, they'd use the military, and our rifles and pistols wouldn't be much help. Anyway, it couldn't happen overnight, and anyone with any sense and any awareness of the world around them would have ample time to get out. Which would be the smart choice. "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" makes a nice bumper sticker, but in the event, that's exactly what would happen. You'd be dead, and they'd have your gun. Registered or not.

it would make a difference. i have a funny feeling that many troops would rebel as well....just a hunch.

and about the get out idea....just like the jews in WWII in Europe?....

Registration, when combined with principles 4 and 5, allows law enforcement to track guns used in crimes down to their owners. Most guns used in crimes were legally purchased by the perpetrator.

source of this info please? never heard that one.

The ones that weren't were mostly stolen from legal owners. Again, if it's your gun, you have some reponsibility for what happens to it.

if its stolen from me i'm still responsible?

so if like others said if someone steals my car im responsible for it? im sorry but thats BS

7. Magazine capcity restrictions: This falls into the catgory of local regulation. It's nonsensical to make blanket policies here. A reasonable restriction for a .22 and a reasonable restriction for a .45 aren't the same thing.

how so? a well placed .22 can still kill a human just as badly as a .45 can. sorry but this is nonsense. a bullet is a bullet. and most can kill. hell a BB gun can kill you if hit in the eye....

On the personal defense side, realistically, if you can't stop or slow down your attacker enough for you to get away with a 6-shot revolver, you're likely screwed anyway, no matter how many rounds you've got on you.

The goal is to survive the encounter, not to fill the air with as much lead as possible.

when you fill the air with lead it gives you a much better chance of hitting your enemy.... hence the reasoning of the machine gun. not that this relates to carry....

like someone else said the cops carry a good 30 rounds with them.... why? because 90% of those are going to miss.... and with 30rounds they have a higher % hit rate possible...

I'm quite sure, however, that I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be walking around packing 50 - 100 round clips of 9mm. At least not where I'm going to be.

most aren't. most CWL owners i know carry around 30 rounds.... a loaded magazine and 2 spares.

if i was legal age to carry a pistol (21) (i'll be 18 in 2months) i would be carry 25 rounds. 2 spare 8rnd .45 magzines =16+9 (loaded mag and one in the chamber)

Why did I bother posting this long-winded missive here? Because I think that this issue needs to be put away for good.

what issue is that?...

There are some issues that politicians use to get folks to vote for them, because they know that if they can push the right buttons, people won't examine the rest of their agenda. No one's going to get elected by saying "I want to allow the multi-national corporations who funded my campaign to pollute the air you breathe and the water you drink, and send your job to China, so that they can sell you unsafe products without fear of consequence, while paying no taxes on the profits they make from them." But they'll say "Those folks want to take away your guns", and then do all the other stuff after the election is over.

after watching both conventions and most debates i didnt hear to much debates or talk about guns.... so i would say this is a moot point.

If my party wants to be able to get to a place where we can talk about the issues we really care about, we need to come up with policies that blunt these "wedge" issues. This is an attempt to do that. I expose it here first, so that it can be subjected to intelligent, impassioned criticism. Out of that will, I hope, come refinements to my ideas. When it's all hashed out, I will be presenting it to the leadership of my party.

good at least your DOING something about it instead of just talking.

I think the Democrats need a coherent, reasoned poilicy on gun control. I do not think that either "no one should have a gun" or "every one should be able to have whatever guns they want" are reasonable. We need to find a middle ground. I'm trying to do that.

i agree IF it MAKES SENSE! and not be some BS politically correct nonsense....

Thank you for your time and thoughts,

--Shannon

 

[MicroBalrog]

"every one should be able to have whatever guns they want"

Sounds reasonable to me.

However, here is the deal: We won't get a gun nut-dream-America any time soon. Nor, thankfully, do we get a gun controller-dream-America either.

HOWEVER!

If the Democratic Party adopt "We want America to have less Federal gun laws tomorrow than it has today" and starts rooting for the repeal of even one dumb clause in the law (and there are many. Look at 922(o)), then they are immediately going to be miles ahead of the repubs.

 

[tube_ee]

The current state of this thread

1. With regard to the the state of Constitutional law and gun control, my understanding of what I've read (and thank you for the citations) is that there is, in fact, an individual right to own firearms, but that various legal jurisdictions (local, state, federal) have pretty wide lattitude in regulating firearms ownership, possesion, and use. Correct?

2. With respect to who should be able to own what... Well, I guess here I disagree with the majority around here. My guess is that we may not "weight" individuals vs society in exactly the same way. That's cool, I can live with that. My guess is that the majority of our fellow citizens would tend towards my position, but it's just a guess.

3. Carrying weapons: The open vs concealed debate is still on, and that's neat. Many interesting points have been porvided, and I'm still not convinced either way. However... No one has answered my basic question yet, so I'll ask it again: Do I, a law-abiding citizen, have a need to know if you, a law-abiding citizen, are carrying a gun? My position is simply that I need that information to be able to make informed decisions about my own safety.

4. We all agree that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons for self defense. There are some differences as to the level of competence / training one should be required to demonstrate to qualify for this. For me, if the people around me are going to be armed, I don't think it's unreasonable that I should be able to expect that the people so armed have a minimum level of competence with the weapons they are carrying. If California proposed a "shall issue" CCW permit law tommorow, two things would be true:

a) I would vote for it.
b) I would not carry now, as I don't feel that my handgun skills are sufficient to protect my fellow citizens from me with my gun. "Qualified" per US Navy with the 9 mm Beretta and shooting 2" - 3" groups at 25 feet from my Colt Trooper Mk III (which I've had for a week)don't give me the confidence that I'd need to carry on the street. I've been shotgunning for years, but my handgun skills have always been weak. What minimum level of proficiency would you require for someone carrying a gun near you or your family? In other words, if you were writing the tests, what would you want to see? I'm not qualified to answer that question, but I propose it for consideration by those who might be. Professional firearms instructors, please chime in here...

4. I used the car example not because cars and guns are similar, but because his / her car is the single deadliest thing most citizens own. The consequnces of poor judgement or lack of knowledge are quite severe with both a gun and a car. Hell, I think cars kill more people than bullets do. FWIW, I'd be in favor of making a driver's license harder to get, and subject to requalification, as well. My position on gun carry are similarly motivated. If you can't show that you can be trusted with a gun (or a car), you shouldn't have one. Your rights do not allow you to endanger my life through your own ingnorance.

5. With regard to a gun owner's legal reponsibility for crimes comitted with thier gun: I am not suggesting that, if I steal your gun and kill someone with it, that you should be charged with murder. That's ludicrous. I merely said that, if someone fails to take adequate precautions in securing their firearms, and those firearms are used to harm another, that the owner's negligence should have some legal consequnces.

If my poorly secured guns were used to kill an innocent, I'd, first of all, feel terrible, and second, I'd expect to pay some penalty for my carelessness. Yes, I'm aware that many jurisdictions have such laws. My premises were more about principles than policy. In other words, given that local situations differ, what should be the minimum core of priciples around which local policies should be built? My idea was that the owner's liability in such cases would be proportional to the actions they took to prevent unauthorized use of thier guns. And yes, for those who asked, if you left your car unlocked, and it was stolen and used as a weapon in a homicide, your ethical and legal position are worse than if you had locked your car and the thief had broken your window. Which is not the same thing as saying that you commited murder.

6. Magazine capacity: This really falls under issue 2, who should own what? If I was to carry, I wouldn't feel under-gunned with 6 .357 Magnum shells in a snub-nosed revolver that I had practiced with. Heck... most likely, a single .22 bullet is going to distract my attacker enough to allow me to escape. A .38 Special will certainly give me what I need to show a clean pair of heels. Others may differ, but really, this is nitpicking. Someone who has demonstrated sufficient proficiency to make ME feel comfortable having them carrying a weapon around me will be able to adequately defend themselves with any firearm. In other words, this is really a non-issue.

I'd like to thank all who posted intelligent, non-personal responses. Informed, reasoned debate is how a democracy is supposed to work. Hiding in our respective bunkers and hurling bumper stickers at each other isn't going to help at all.

Thanks again,
--Shannon

 

[Tamara]

tube_ee,

Do I, a law-abiding citizen, have a need to know if you, a law-abiding citizen, are carrying a gun?

Almost by definition, it's not the law-abiding citizens carrying guns that you need to worry about. If they're law-abiding, you needn't fret about their gun, and if they're unlawful, they wouldn't comply with your open-carry proposition anyway, nicht wahr?

 

[tyme]

1. With regard to the the state of Constitutional law and gun control, my understanding of what I've read (and thank you for the citations) is that there is, in fact, an individual right to own firearms, but that various legal jurisdictions (local, state, federal) have pretty wide lattitude in regulating firearms ownership, possesion, and use. Correct?

Since I am one of the people, I have the right to keep and bear arms, local, state, and federal laws notwithstanding. The constitution specifically enumerates that right.

2. With respect to who should be able to own what...

There has been only one recorded violent crime committed with lawfully-owned machinegun (by a/the lawful owner)... a cop killing one of his informants. How would a total ban on machineguns improve this situation? You want to legislate against some future potentiality. If legislatures did that, we'd be drowning in laws. Furthermore, there is already a very good deterrent against such actions. If punishment for aggravated assault and murder are not good enough, why not get rid of some lesser laws (like drug and weapon possession) so that violent criminals can be kept locked up longer?

3. Do I, a law-abiding citizen, have a need to know if you, a law-abiding citizen, are carrying a gun? My position is simply that I need that information to be able to make informed decisions about my own safety.

Ideally, you'd want to know everything. Since omniscience has to be weighed against the privacy rights of other people, though, no, you don't have a need or a right to know that someone else is carrying a gun. You have no right to know whether someone is carrying a 12" butcher's knife, nor do you have a right to know whether someone has studied muay thai for 20 years. You don't even have a right to know whether that person standing behind you at the supermarket checkout is a convicted murderer. Think about that.

4b. I would not carry now, as I don't feel that my handgun skills are sufficient to protect my fellow citizens from me with my gun.

Why do you think that other people without skills would carry? Keep in mind that criminals and unstable armchair-commandos already carry, so being afraid of either is not a reason to require training for ccw. Those who are bellicose enough to unlawfully draw a weapon are probably already carrying, either legally or illegally depending on the prevailing laws. Those laws, and your desires, are irrelevant to their actions. If they cared about the law, even if they were carrying illegally they wouldn't be a threat to you, right?

Furthermore, police (in general) are notorious for not being able to hit the broad-side of a barn when the SHTF. There is no evidence that this "training requirement" you desire will reduce unintended casualties, and there is plenty of evidence that even with training, there will be an occasional tragedy. A proper legal system would hold the violent criminal responsible for any unintentional injury or death to a bystander caused by a citizen attempting to stop said criminal. You probably won't agree. See the next point.

5. ...And yes, for those who asked, if you left your car unlocked, and it was stolen and used as a weapon in a homicide, your ethical and legal position are worse than if you had locked your car and the thief had broken your window.

Nonsense. I think this is a fundamental point about which social neo-liberals and social conservatives disagree.

6. If I was to carry, I wouldn't feel under-gunned with 6 .357 Magnum shells in a snub-nosed revolver that I had practiced with. Heck... most likely, a single .22 bullet is going to distract my attacker enough to allow me to escape.

Escape? What scenarios are you imagining? If armed criminals break into your home, do I understand correctly that you would shoot a single .22 round without aiming (you said distract), and then climb out a window? Hopefully you're on the first floor... and hopefully your bullet doesn't go off your property... and hopefully there's no one else at home.

There is no such thing as a "distraction" or "warning" shot. Either one is an irresponsible, criminal act. Maybe there's a place for warning shots in police operations, and there's certainly a place in military operations for covering fire -- and all sorts of other tactics that would get people executed if carried out in peacetime.

What if you're cornered in a building or even outside? If you're attacked at close range, running before you've neutralized the threat is incredibly foolish. It's a good way to get shot in the back if the attacker has a gun.

The police have no duty to protect you. If you care about your well-being or the well-being of your family and friends in the unlikely situation that they are victims of a violent crime, you have to take responsibility. You have to seek out training. You have to become proficient with a firearm. You have to be prepared to shoot an attacker, not fire into the air and run away. In some situations that might work, and your bullet won't do any more than cause property damage. In others, it will not be enough.

In many possible violent confrontations, you don't need a single bullet. In others, you might need one. In a few, you might need 6. In one or two, you might need 12 or more. What are you going to do with 6 rounds if you're in a bank and a couple robbers come in, get some cash, and then start executing witnesses? You have a choice. You can either prepare for that extremely unlikely scenario by training with and carrying a firearm holding more than 6 rounds, or you can review "Hail Mary" and the Lord's prayer.

 

[trapshooter]

tube_ee,

I am not nearly as competent, nor as concise, as those who have already replied to your arguments.

One point I will make, regarding the Second Amendment, is that 'well-regulated' does not mean 'organized' or 'official', in the sense you imply. As has already been stated, 10USC311 notes two components to the militia, the 'organized' militia and the 'unorganized' militia. The 'organized' militia of 10USC311 is not the National Guard, but one that belongs wholly to the individual states, with no 'federalization' intended. What's been made of that, I'll leave for another thread. However, the requirements for the 'unorganized' militia are enlightening. You should bone up on them, as my presumption is that you are a member of that group, whether you know it or not.

10USC311 merely codifies the original concept of those who wrote, signed, and approved the Constitution, i.e., that every able-bodied male of acceptable age and intent is a part of the defense of the country and the Constitution. I would extend that, these days, to substitute 'person' for 'male' in the first sentence of this paragraph. And I would assert that the age restrictions, at least on the high end, are a bit more confining than necessary these days. But in that I'm only being selfish.

Before you make the common mistake of the socialist weasels in charge of the democratic party these days and assert that the National Guard is the 'militia' mentioned in the Second Amendment, you should look up the date of the formation of the National Guard.

I am deliberately not doing your homework for you, as I believe that unless you are willing to do this yourself, you won't get the full benefit of the truth, and I suspect that you wouldn't believe my links anyway. So find your own. I will say that if you stick to .gov websites, you will find that all I have said above is true, however. Relatively easy to do.

My general impression is that you have never found yourself in the position of needing to defend yourself in a personal way. Just a hunch. Luckily, this is true for most people, and that is why it is so hard to get most people to recognize the possibility that this state of bliss could change at any time, at the whim of some low life who wants more free stuff. As in your stuff, for example.

Your service in the Navy? Not relevant to this discussion. Why do I say that? Well, because I spent some time there myself, and I have opinions and knowledge that are in direct opposition to everything you have said. If our 'common' background had anything at all to do with it, this shouldn't be the case. One last question. When your service ended, did anyone tell you that the oath you swore to was rescinded? Remember that one?

 

[Charley]

Interesting "thread". When reading your original "perspective", I looked out my window at the woods and my neighbor's houses, thought out some of my friends who are law-abiding law enforcement officers, sighed relief that the guy I voted for on Nov. 2 won the election. "The world is not such a bad place" is my overall state of mind.
However, I then reminded myself that the issue of second amendment rights is not (only) about securing safety for one's present situation. It is about securing security in the event that one day...whether it be a decade or a century from now...the tide changes and the threats to America are from internal sources. I am not a paranoid militant. I do not profess that this WILL be the case. But the fact is that America is a very young country. I can not think of any other civilization in the history of humanity that did not undergo "regime-change" at some point or another. My argument, then, is the "slippery-slope" argument when it comes to issues of gun registration and limitations of types of weapons available to the individual. Based on my reading of the Constitution, The Federalist Papers and other Founding Father essays, I believe they also saw the threat of a "slippery slope" away from democracy and back into some form of dictatorship, and that was the primary reason for the 2nd Amemdment in the first place.
I use this argument with friends and almost invaribly they look at me like I have gone off the deep end. "Oh, you've been watching too many Mad Max movies," was one comment. If we could turn back time, prior to World War 2, and described the government controlled concentration camps to a German Jew, would we have been scoffed in the same way? All I ask is that we acknowledge that the Mad Max scenario is possible. The act of acknowledgement could go a long way in deterring it from ever happening.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

 

[RWK]

tube ee: Please consider this . . .

5. With regard to a gun owner's legal responsibility for crimes committed with their gun: I am not suggesting that, if I steal your gun and kill someone with it, that you should be charged with murder. That’s ludicrous. I merely said that, if someone fails to take adequate precautions in securing their firearms, and those firearms are used to harm another, that the owner's negligence should have some legal consequences.

If my poorly secured guns were used to kill an innocent, I'd, first of all, feel terrible, and second, I'd expect to pay some penalty for my carelessness. Yes, I'm aware that many jurisdictions have such laws. My premises were more about principles than policy. In other words, given that local situations differ, what should be the minimum core of priciples around which local policies should be built? My idea was that the owner's liability in such cases would be proportional to the actions they took to prevent unauthorized use of their guns. And yes, for those who asked, if you left your car unlocked, and it was stolen and used as a weapon in a homicide, your ethical and legal position are worse than if you had locked your car and the thief had broken your window. Which is not the same thing as saying that you committed murder.

tube ee:

First, I am glad this thread has remained civil – it’s our TFL tradition and core value – and I hope it has also been informative.

I am compelled to disagree with your fundamental point in the foregoing quotation. I certainly appreciate your motivation, but it is my opinion that you would establish dangerous precedents. To illustrate:
1. If a bread knife is stolen from a restaurant kitchen and used in the commission of a murder, should that create criminal liability? If so, to whom would it inure: the owner, the chef, the dishwasher who didn’t put it in the appropriate receptacle?
2. What is appropriate security for a firearm? Felons have driven pickup trucks through the structural walls of gun shops, to penetrate interior vaults, and to steal firearms. Would that owner face criminal sanctions? How about one with a $1000 safe, a $100 locked cabinet, a $5 trigger lock? Accordingly, there are two basic problems in this scenario: (a) a clear definition of adequate security and (b) the REAL CRIMINAL is the individual who steals and misuses any device, not its lawful owner.
3. Are we going to sanction governmental interference in our private lives to the degree that some bureaucratic body can determine what constitutes adequate security for a car, a firearm, a long-handled shovel, a carving knife, a baseball bat, all of which can – and not infrequently have – been used to murder innocents?

It would be a real mistake to confuse the tragedy of any homicide – firearms related or not – with the overriding fact that the felon is responsible, not the potentially long list of individuals who had some tangential association with the crime.