2nd Ammendment or NRA -- what REALLY protects our rights?

[dgiharris]

Gun owner here, living in Australia. Former resident of Japan and the UK.

All three states have strong gun control. I got to go hunting and shooting in all three. Control does not equate to prohibition - but that's a nice slippery slope you're heading down.

I've also lived for a short time (less than 4 months) in the US. In Oregon. As someone who comes from a rural family, where plinking rabbits, foxes and kangaroos was what you did on a summer evening, the gun culture in the US scared the coprolites out of me.



I dont agree with these statements but I do agree with the sentiment.

An outright ban in the US will never work - that bird flew the coop sometime around the early 1950s.

An Australian-style gun buyback wont work, as ~200-250 million firearms would need to be taken out of circulation, and the US has a large firearms manufacturing industry and large land borders that make enforcing any restrictions practically impossible.



Wah wah wah. Complaining about the previous generation is as old as the ancient greeks. Seriously, there are quotes about it.

You think things are ungovernable now? Look at the US in the 1970s and 1980s - crime rates were DOUBLE what they are now. Homicide rates were TRIPLE what they are now. Same for violent crime rates.

Teenage pregnancy rates are less than half what they were in the 1980s. Same for teenage abortions.

It's not "the breakdown of marriage and the family, the glorification of sex and exaltation of promiscuity, the exclusion of God from the public square, and the assertion of radical individual rights" that has led to these sort of mass shootings either.

Mass shooting AREN'T increasing when measured against population - its just that the number of victims from several in the past 15 years have been atypically high.

QFT

How can that be said? It has never been meaningfully implemented in the us on a national level.

Look at countries that HAVE gun control legislation and compare their gun related stats to the US. I have a feeling you'd find gun control actually works REALLY well. Consider Australia. They only needed one mass shooting to pull their head out of their [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and deal with the root of the problem. And look what happenned when they did? Mass murders stopped. Sure there's still the odd gun homocide but it's not really comparable.

When you look at US academic test scores and ability we are in 18th to 25th place worldwide depending on whatever year you wish to look up.

One of the ramifications of us being collectively dumber than the rest of the world can be realized and seen in our health care and gun control arguments.

The data is undeniable. We don't have to speculate, we don't have to hypothesis, we don't have to guess, we don't have to predict, we don't have to theorize, we don't have to run simulations....

all we have to do is look at the actual, real, quantifiable, demonstrable, existing, corporeal, in-your-face data from countries that are very similar to the US...

But no. We "believe" that real world data and actual demonstrable quantifiable results won't work in our country.

One would think that Australia would be a great model to follow... But alas, you see Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere and as any laymen knows, the laws of physics work backwards there. Thus, you can't expect what worked in Australia to work in the US.

No wonder we place so low on those academic tests.

 

[mark46]

You are free to disagree with Supreme Court rulings.

"Loaded gun" is far too loose for me. I don't see any reason why a private citizen has any need to own an assault rifle, a bazooka, etc. and I don't buy the "b-but hunting!" excuse.

The fact is that we don't have an absolute right to anything - not speech. Not free press. Not bearing arms. In a civilized society, we voluntarily surrender a small portion of our rights to protect the rights of others. I can't go to a newspaper and accuse you of unfounded rumors; technically, that violates my freedom of speech, but it protects you from having your good name dragged through the mud.

I don't have a problem with people owning a gun for self-defense or for hunting. But we need to get away from this idea that any restriction on or clarification of Constitutional rights is somehow a bridge too far. That's extremism that I don't think the founders had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

You are free to disagree with Supreme Court rulings.

So good to have your permission, since I do disagree.
Ringo

 

[BobRyan]

And I'm sure you've got a real life example of that you'd like to share.

from:
(CBS News) A handful of Democratic members of Congress this week are saying that it's time for Congress to stand up to the National Rifle Association and pass even the most marginal gun control policies.

Following the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., the silence on the issue of gun control is "deafening," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Tuesday.

"We can't let the NRA stop us from common sense reforms anymore," he added. "We cannot let them co-opt the conscience of our country."

The shooting in Aurora, where 12 people were killed and 58 injured when a gunman opened fire in a crowded theater early Friday morning, is just the latest example of mass gun violence, Lautenberg said. He cited the infamous shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Tucson.

In response to these tragedies, Lautenberg and a handful of other members of Congress are specifically calling for legislation to limit the availability of high-capacity ammunition clips.

One of the biggest proponents of the measure is Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York. McCarthy ran for Congress following the 1993 shooting of her husband and son on the Long Island Railroad. Her husband was killed in the attack.

"What happened on that train," McCarthy said today in reference to the Long Island Railroad shooting, "what has happened in all these mass killings -- there was one thing in common: there were the large magazine clips."

from High-capacity magazine ban - Wikipedia
Most pistols sold in the U.S. are made and sold with magazines holding between 10 and 17 rounds.[7] In November 2013, the National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco over an ordinance banning possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

 

[BobRyan]

from http://deneenborelli.com/2017/10/hillary-clinton-blames-republicans-nra-gun-violence/


Hillary Clinton, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting, said on Monday that Republicans are “captured by the NRA” and they are “complicit” in violent crime.

The two-time presidential candidate spoke on the Center for American Progress’ “Thinking Cap” podcast, where she spoke about the Las Vegas shooting and advocated for “broad-based social change” toward gun control, Mediaite reported. Clinton argued gun deregulation is the result of the NRA’s lobbying power over the Republican Party.

“The way the Republican Party has been captured by the NRA, which has intimidated a lot of Democrats … is one of the worst developments of the last 25 years,” she said.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have a problem with people owning a gun for self-defense or for hunting. But we need to get away from this idea that any restriction on or clarification of Constitutional rights is somehow a bridge too far. That's extremism that I don't think the founders had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Ringo

from High-capacity magazine ban - Wikipedia
Most pistols sold in the U.S. are made and sold with magazines holding between 10 and 17 rounds.[7] In November 2013, the National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco over an ordinance banning possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

 

[BobRyan]

The NRA only protects the gun rights of white people.

And bullets are designed not to kill white people?
Hail is designed not to fall on white people's houses
lightning never strikes a white person.

"Back in 1967, for instance, the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California."

Because... no "white people" live in California. (I need to quickly inform my relatives there not to go back to 1967 if they are going to live in California)

 

[Nithavela]

And bullets are designed not to kill white people?
Hail is designed not to fall on white people's houses
lightning never strikes a white person.

"Back in 1967, for instance, the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California."

Because... no "white people" live in California. (I need to quickly inform my relatives there not to go back to 1967 if they are going to live in California)

The mulford act was introduced as a direct reaction to a black panther open carry protest against police violence and arbitrary checks.

 

[mark46]

So good to have your permission, since I do disagree.
Ringo

I apologize. I wan't suggesting that you need my permission to disagree with settled law. I was just making clear that the law was settled by the Supreme Court.

Folks are free to believe that the Court was wring on slavery and on lots of other things that have been settled.

 

[Ringo84]

I apologize. I wan't suggesting that you need my permission to disagree with settled law. I was just making clear that the law was settled by the Supreme Court.

Folks are free to believe that the Court was wring on slavery and on lots of other things that have been settled.

No need to apologize; you're good

You're right that it's settled law. Unfortunately, the NRA is so powerful that they'll probably control any Second Amendment debates that we have. Nothing will change if we don't acknowledge the problem.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

Now is the time to discuss regulations. Folks should not be afraid of a Republican Congress going too far.

 

[NotreDame]

"Loaded gun" is far too loose for me. I don't see any reason why a private citizen has any need to own an assault rifle, a bazooka, etc. and I don't buy the "b-but hunting!" excuse.

The fact is that we don't have an absolute right to anything - not speech. Not free press. Not bearing arms. In a civilized society, we voluntarily surrender a small portion of our rights to protect the rights of others. I can't go to a newspaper and accuse you of unfounded rumors; technically, that violates my freedom of speech, but it protects you from having your good name dragged through the mud.

I don't have a problem with people owning a gun for self-defense or for hunting. But we need to get away from this idea that any restriction on or clarification of Constitutional rights is somehow a bridge too far. That's extremism that I don't think the founders had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights.
Ringo

The relinquishment of a “small portion of our rights...to protect the rights of others” is done when some conduct can traceably be linked to an injury of property, person, reputation, real propert, etcetera. The act of merely possessing or owning automatic weapons or bump stocks is not an injury to anyone.

For instance, your slander example would require the plaintiff to show an injury in fact to his reputation as a result of your rumored statement.

 

[mark46]

The relinquishment of a “small portion of our rights...to protect the rights of others” is done when some conduct can traceably be linked to an injury of property, person, reputation, real propert, etcetera. The act of merely possessing or owning automatic weapons or bump stocks is not an injury to anyone.

For instance, your slander example would require the plaintiff to show an injury in fact to his reputation as a result of your rumored statement.

Is your position that bazookas and semi-automatic weapons cannot be shown to have led to more injuries than whatever else a criminal might have used?

 

[jardiniere]

QUESTIONS

1) Would prohibiting the production and use of assault weapons, and devices that make guns into automatic weapons be likely to increase OR decrease the number of gun deaths and crimes? We used to have an assault weapons ban.

It is only likely to decrease mass shootings, but not decrease by much the overall rate of death by gun. I think decreasing the potential of mass shootings is a worthwhile goal, even if it doesn't decrease individual gun injury.

2) Would a law enforcement data base of registered guns help law enforcement? Would the registration of guns increase OR decrease the number and severity of gun crimes?

Gun registration/gun owner registration would help. It would not decrease or increase the number or severity of gun crimes. It will help in identifying ways that guns get to criminals. It will provide a way to honestly punish gun owners who don't keep track of their guns. Yes, I do think gun owners should be punished for failing to secure their weapons. That is a social health hazard.

3) Would requiring background checks at gun shows increase OR decrease the number and severity of gun crimes?

It will do nothing. I strongly suspect most gun ownership is by legitimate means. Gun registration and gun owner registration is more important in tracking the activities of gun crime.

4) How is the country harmed by studying the effect of gun laws on gun crime.

It isn't. I'm not sure why gun stats aren't kept, to me it's a CDC issue.

5) Many, many gun deaths are family crimes. Would registration, reducing availability and training increase or decrease the amount and severity of gun crime.

.

Most likely, only gun locks and mandatory training would decrease gun crime/accidents. I don't think anything but learning why keeping guns locked and secure would help more, unless it was temporary forfeiture of guns after accidental incidents occur in a family.

===========
A) Chicago has a huge problem with gun crimes. Many big cities do. Current gun legislation hasn't helped. Is this a reason not to have gun legislation anywhere?
B) Criminals will secure guns, even if they are illegal. Does anyone believe that if guns are less available, criminals would be more likely to have guns? The issue is reducing the amount and severity of gun crime.

I think the issue is reducing the amount of gun incidents, criminal or otherwise. Criminals will always have access to guns in the US, so I'm honestly not amenable to making guns less available to anyone. I'm OK with the people that own guns being tracked. We track people that own automobiles.

============
BOTTOM LINE
We have a lot of gun crime in the US. It seems that the rate is among the highest in the developed world. However that is NOT the issue before us. The question is how to reduce injuries and deaths.
============
MODEST SUGGESTION
Trump should form a commission and ask Congress to propose gun legislation, if they deem anything likely to decrease the amount and severity of gun crime. We've had many successful such efforts in the past on hot button issues. We have done this for social security and for tax reform.

This commission should be composed of law enforcement representatives and criminal justice experts from around the country. These are the folks who risk their lives every day. These are the folks who have the knowledge regarding gun crime. These are the folks who know how current regulations might need to be changed.

BTW, I expect that one of the recommendations is that law enforcement be better armed and protected from gun attacks. Ordinary vests are insufficient to protect against military grade weapons. Adequate vests are expensive.

I have my biases. I believe that I know what law enforcement folks have said in the past. But that matters little.

 

[NotreDame]

Is your position that bazookas and semi-automatic weapons cannot be shown to have led to more injuries than whatever else a criminal might have used?

Read Ringo’s post. Then re-read my post. My post is addressing a specific line of reasoning in Ringo’s post.

My reply to Ringo cannot possibly and is not possibly suggesting or explicitly asserting what you are asking.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Because the NRA doesn't want any checks and balances on Gun Rights.

 

[Carrythecross]

Also, there were no automatic weapons in the LV shooting, the guy used bump stocks, which are perfectly legal in the USA, thanks to the NRA.

Bump stocks were approved under the Obama administration by the ATF.

 

[Carrythecross]

Because the NRA doesn't want any checks and balances on Gun Rights.

I was convicted of selling one ounce of Marijuana in 1973 when I was 17 years old. It has been 44 years since then and I am now 62, I still can't purchase a firearm. Is this fair?

 

[Ringo84]

The relinquishment of a “small portion of our rights...to protect the rights of others” is done when some conduct can traceably be linked to an injury of property, person, reputation, real propert, etcetera. The act of merely possessing or owning automatic weapons or bump stocks is not an injury to anyone.

For instance, your slander example would require the plaintiff to show an injury in fact to his reputation as a result of your rumored statement.

I respect the legal definition, and your expertise in these matters. But I'm making less of a legal argument than a philosophical one.

Telling people that they have an absolute right to anything seems to me like a recipe for disaster. I think it's true that the Constitution sets limits for the government. However, implicit in all the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights is the understanding that those rights are exercised responsibly. Whether or not the ownership of an assault rifle constitutes an injury, I would argue that it's an irresponsible use of one's Second Amendment rights, since I'm not sure why any private citizen would have any use for a weapon as powerful as that.
Ringo

 

[szechuan]

I guess you forgot how hard NRA pushes for "Gun Rights"