[HMLRHT1]

I just wanted to add that I am totally in shock that the discussion has been handled so smoothly. I agree with everyone and hopefully we (USA) might be finally headed in the right direction regarding gun control. Yes, I too own a weapon.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by HMLRHT1

I just wanted to add that I am totally in shock that the discussion has been handled so smoothly. I agree with everyone and hopefully we (USA) might be finally headed in the right direction regarding gun control. Yes, I too own a weapon.

This is the way it will work. We can't all think the same way, but with civil discussion, we may just come up with a solution. Thanks to everyone in this Thread for being so thoughtful to other ideas and suggestions even when they may not be your own.

[rubicon]

First-- I have come to ignore polls because the very people proposing them created the results to be self-serving.

Second-- as to the 2nd Amendment...it does not grant the right to bear arms as that right preceeded the 2nd Amendment. What the
2nd Amendment does is to forbid the government from ursurping/preventing that right.

Third--Washington DC gun ban in 1976prohibited anyone from owning a gun except law enforcement and thosepreviously owing guns had to disassemble them and place a lock on the trigger. It backfired because criminals recognized there were a whole lot of unprotectd victims. violent crime increased and continued >It was not until the gun ban was lifted did violent crime subside. There is more convincing data regarding Washington DC experiment but I don't want to make this post too burdensome.
A Gun Ban That Misfired Jeffrey Shapiro Criminal Prosecutor DC.

Like Mr. Shapiro I do not own guns and never had an inclination to buy one but I do view the 2nd Amendment as sacrosant. and now that the government is making us this noise I am beginning to wonder if making such a purchase might be a wise thing to do.

Fourth--In the most advertised events by the media the perpetrator had a mental illness. The fact is that a lower % of that group are violent vis a vis the general population.

So with Sandy Hook, aurora, Virginai Tech, etc we have gun + mental illness = a tragic event . Conclusion by Obama/Biden?Pelosi/Bloomberg/Cuomo ban guns. what happened to be humane treatment by getting help to people who cannot help themselves. This is faulty leadership and not forward thinking We need to pour more financial resources and medical expertise in getting assistance to these very vunerable and most overlooked people.

[Bavarian]

I won't say if or not I have a gun, keep the bad guys guessing. In England with gun control, house break-ins much higher than US. Burglers scared. I read that the only reason Japan did not invade US Mainland was fear of all the people with guns. So, Second Amendment is a good thing. And as for the mother of the Sandy Hook shooting being blamed for not locking up her guns, let's not speaqk of the dead, remember she was his first victim. More laws won't help, enforce the ones on the books already.

[billethkid]

and please remember for consideration that the president did not address the other factors in the gun violence equation.....weeding out the wackos.....Hollywood ( not a single word about the violence they peddle) and the game industery (ditto hollywood).

Even the proposals made by the president as I stated in an eralier post will be ineffective. They are not really controls....improvements maybe.

Will congress have the courage to enact anything meaningful? Why would they start now with this subject?

The way Washington does business just will not allow any meaningful legislation to be put forth on anything controversial that would lend risk to their re-election.
The track record of lack of accomplishment and lack of responsibility bear out my premise.....unfortunately.

btk

[blueash]

I am a strong believer in vigorous gun control within the bounds of the second amendment. Until recently that had never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean an individual had any right to bear arms. Repeat, until recently the second amendment did not allow any US citizen the right to bear arms. It had always been interpreted as meaning the well regulated militia (state and federal national guards for instance) had a right to arms. The Heller decision by a single vote gave the right to arms to the individual and within the Heller decision the Court did say that it would support limits on that right but it was not specific as to what regulations it would accept. No American claims the right to possess fully automatic guns. Of course if it had been legal to do so the NRA would fight against it being made illegal. No American claims the right to chemical weapons, surface to air missles, nuclear warheads etc. So clearly the "right to bear arms" is limited. No one believes the American citizen has a right to out gun the government so the argument that someone needs arms to keep the government away is moot. The US Army will have more and better arms than you can have. We are now as a nation going to have to decide where we want/need to draw that line. What limitations as a society are we going to impose on the "right to bear arms."
I disagree with a comment above saying that the right to bear arms is subject to the right of majority rule. It is not. The genius of the Constitution in part is its limitation of the ability of the majority to impose its will on the minority. That is why certain rights are guaranteed so that the majority can not usurp them. So any new legislation must respect the framework of the second amendment. As to whether the polls are meaningful, yes they are. However a bigger question is whether a legislator should respect a national sample or just the sample within his/her election district. With gerrymandering our congressional districts are no longer representative of the larger population.
Little steps like allowing the CDC to analyze gun data, like having the agencies of government communicate and share data, perhaps actually have a person in charge of the agency (ATF) that is supposed to be regulating and enforcing the gun laws already on the books, and closing the gun show loopholes are at least something.

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by blueash

I am a strong believer in vigorous gun control within the bounds of the second amendment. Until recently that had never been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean an individual had any right to bear arms. Repeat, until recently the second amendment did not allow any US citizen the right to bear arms. It had always been interpreted as meaning the well regulated militia (state and federal national guards for instance) had a right to arms. The Heller decision by a single vote gave the right to arms to the individual and within the Heller decision the Court did say that it would support limits on that right but it was not specific as to what regulations it would accept. No American claims the right to possess fully automatic guns. Of course if it had been legal to do so the NRA would fight against it being made illegal. No American claims the right to chemical weapons, surface to air missles, nuclear warheads etc. So clearly the "right to bear arms" is limited. No one believes the American citizen has a right to out gun the government so the argument that someone needs arms to keep the government away is moot. The US Army will have more and better arms than you can have. We are now as a nation going to have to decide where we want/need to draw that line. What limitations as a society are we going to impose on the "right to bear arms."
I disagree with a comment above saying that the right to bear arms is subject to the right of majority rule. It is not. The genius of the Constitution in part is its limitation of the ability of the majority to impose its will on the minority. That is why certain rights are guaranteed so that the majority can not usurp them. So any new legislation must respect the framework of the second amendment. As to whether the polls are meaningful, yes they are. However a bigger question is whether a legislator should respect a national sample or just the sample within his/her election district. With gerrymandering our congressional districts are no longer representative of the larger population.
Little steps like allowing the CDC to analyze gun data, like having the agencies of government communicate and share data, perhaps actually have a person in charge of the agency (ATF) that is supposed to be regulating and enforcing the gun laws already on the books, and closing the gun show loopholes are at least something.

Amazing what people think they read!
I made no suggestion that the simple will of the majority could alter fundamental constitutional rights. I said the majority has the right to modify the practical limits within those rights, such as, in this case, banning possession of chemical weapons, etc.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by billethkid

and please remember for consideration that the president did not address the other factors in the gun violence equation.....weeding out the wackos.....Hollywood ( not a single word about the violence they peddle) and the game industery (ditto hollywood).

Even the proposals made by the president as I stated in an eralier post will be ineffective. They are not really controls....improvements maybe.

Will congress have the courage to enact anything meaningful? Why would they start now with this subject?

The way Washington does business just will not allow any meaningful legislation to be put forth on anything controversial that would lend risk to their re-election.
The track record of lack of accomplishment and lack of responsibility bear out my premise.....unfortunately.

btk

And we just stand idly by and watch our children being slaughtered, that's your prediction? I will call my representatives in congress everyday until some meaningful legislation is put forth. Then, we will see who has the courage to vote on it.

[ugotme]

As I have stated on MANY other posts - there is NO EASY ANSWER!

I have been a Life Member of the NRA for about 30 years or so. Do I support them without question - NO! In NY many years ago there was a "discussion" about armor piercing bullets. My theory was this is not needed by hunters and/or target shooters. I firmly believe that if the NRA came out against this they would have gained a lot of support from some anti-gunners and people on the fence. But, as stated, their belief is that if you take one thing away it will lead to another. THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY WRONG!

Personally I have no problem with the background checks of people wanting to buy a gun. Again, referring to NY many years ago (don't know if it is changed) in order to get a permit to have a pistol permit (not carry) you had to join a gun club, be taught safety by a certified instructor (which I was one) for a certain number of hours. Once completed, the instructor attested to your meeting the safety instruction. You then went to Police Headquarters, applied for the permit, got fingerprinted and a background check was completed. If all was good - several months later you would receive your okay for the permit.

Banning guns will accomplish nothing - zero, zip, nada. Proper training and checks is an important first step to responsible gun ownership.

Sorry for rambling - I will stop now - could go on forever !

[OldDave]

I continue to appreciate the civil tone among people who disagree to various degrees.

Two other things I'd like to mention. I really believe the "if we lose one type of gun or ammo 'they' will take the rest" argument is truly fraudulent. The original assault gun ban, which was pretty weak, passed decades ago, and nothing has followed. The NRA has continued to say this President would "take away our guns" even though until this mass murder the President hasn't campaigned on guns or even said anything about them. It clearly hasn't been a big issue for him.

You just cannot justify keeping something that all the reasonable gun owners here seem to think we don't have any legitimate need for (assault weapons) just because you think somewhere in the future "they" will take all our guns.

Honestly, I'm not sure this debate even would address disenfranchised young men who are thrilled with bigger and badder weapons. You know that sort of thing really hasn't been a part of our American gun culture, but is rather something fairly new that seems to go along with the separatist, survivialist thing that has blossomed in recent years. I honest don't understand it. I do note that combat veterans here and other places don't seem to be interested in these weapons, having seen what they do.

Secondly, as to whether any gun control would help reduce crime. That is very, very difficult. We have a two hundred year-old culture in this country that has a great deal of history in guns. It won the west, for good or bad, is mostly true. Any changes we make are going to take decades to make a difference. And politically it may have to come one small step at a time. But those steps will have to come if the culture will ever change.

And both sides will have to be reasonable, as I tried to say earlier. And I truly see that in this discussion, at least in this forum. We've had one gun supporter after another state that there should be reasonable controls in place. I've seen no one suggest that we "take away all your guns." I stated I don't have a use for guns, but I respect your need. I think many people feel that way. Reasonable people can compromise, IF they ever have a forum to do it, free of elected officials only interested in re-election, and lobbying groups pretenting to represent the public, rather than their own financial interests.

As others have mentioned we seem to be living with extremes in the politics of our country. As a journalist I can also say the sensationalism of today's media doesn't help. We mostly hear from right wing extremists who don't want a single gun or bullet taken from anyone for any reason, and extreme liberals who don't want anyone in the country to own any kind of firearm. I don't believe either of these positions represents any large part of the population.

I wish I knew how we make a change on this or any other subject that truly needs compromise. I honor those of you who have said you regularly contact your congressman, but I think all of you have said you don't get answers. I know my senator well enough to get him on the phone, but I dont' believe for a minute I could sway his vote on anything, and I think he's a pretty good guy. But being a republican his hands are tied to support the party. I don't believe if he were a democrat it would be any different.

So again, I appreciate civil discourse more than I can say. I only started posting here again a couple of months ago, and I've seen a real decrease in rude, aburpt postings. This is a great group and it's nice to discuss hard issues with intelligent, caring people.

Thanks,

Dave

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by janmcn

And we just stand idly by and watch our children being slaughtered, that's your prediction? I will call my representatives in congress everyday until some meaningful legislation is put forth. Then, we will see who has the courage to vote on it.

Ask your rep and your senator and ALL of them on both sides of the aisle to begin to do what they say. From the POTUS to the Senate to the House they have been preaching how they will not pass (or sign) anything with pork (Has anyone read all the pork in the Sandy legislation..it is sickening)....and in this case of gun laws, how about our leaders from the WH to and through all sides of the aisle facing up to the lobbying problem which did not start with, is not exclusive to, the NRA. Please check on the lobby involvment on every major legislation including but not exclusive to the new health care act.

All this talk solves nothing. We will ignore pork and lobbying if we agree with what it being "porked" or "lobbied",,,,,we will yell and scream if it involves something we dont like. In both cases, it also goes to what party we support.

Lobbying was not invented by the NRA....the NEA, the Unions, the Banking industry, etc are equally as strong.

Sorry for the words but this is an excercise in frustration, I happen to support the proposals put forth by the POTUS, but discussing these lobbies is an real excercise that will accomplish nothing.

Am I negative...you better believe it. With all the nice words we have heard over the years about "reaching across the aisle" to solve problems, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY in Washington actually even considers that option. Hidden in bills is pork....the strong lobbies with the money will get what they want.

This gun thing will go away, despite the tragedy. It will disappear as soon as we have another issue that someone can make political points on.

It is a shame but it is our fault. We care only about what our party tells us for the most part of the party we think we should be supporting.

Someone said that we get the leaders we deserve, and this is a great example of that.

If this is political, then report it, or the admin can delete it. Just my frustrations on discussing any powerful lobby and thinking it will be changed.

[Captainjack40]

Let' see: we made alcohol illegal and how did that work out? We outlawed drugs and how did that work out? We made prostitution illegal and how did that work out? We made most gambling illegal and how did that work out? Each of these are now controlled by criminals! Do we really need to create a new business for criminals related to selling guns none of which will go through background checks? Does anyone believe criminal won't get guns? it was only a year or so ago that a "mob" went on a rampage in England and looted and burned down about 10 city blocks. Since guns were outlawed a number of years ago the property owners could not protect their property. Since guns were outlawed in England gun related crime has increased 300 percent which is exactly what happened in Australia! Let's devote our resources to keeping guns away from the mentally impaired and get rid of all the crime shows on TV and on video games. Also, lets increase the penalties for gun related crime - how about 25 years in jail without any possibility of parole. I would support the same penalty for anyone with a gun that did not go through a background check!